You said Al's post was great. I am asking why you thought that.Amir, what cause are you attributing to me?
You said Al's post was great. I am asking why you thought that.Amir, what cause are you attributing to me?
Careful, orb, I know at least 2 members who will be asking you for research papers/documented experiments to back up these statements that long term listening can reveal things that ABX can't - although one of them is a troll & probably on your ignore list?
I shared two data points. One was the test we are talking about. The other was myself. I explained that my acuity in hearing small differences completely disappears when switch over time lengthens. I then asked if there are concrete data points like this supporting the opposite position that long term testing is more revealing. Since none has been provided, I have to rely on my own experience backed by independent tests and the position taken formally by the people who conduct this research professionally that short term switching is superior to long term listening.Well, you are generalising that specific test (of which you seem to know little about the distortion, other than the headline figure of 2.5% THD) into a case for A/B testing being per se better than long term listening.
As I said originally and repeated above, it is what I strongly believe in, from extensive experience in formal listening tests. What more should I have on my side to believe something to be true, relative to opposite position that has no formal, verifiable conditions to show it to be correct?The test itself didn't conclude any universality about the results (although I find that they are usually carefully worded so that it is implied) but you have used it in your argument as can be seen in the rest of your post
It is that truth I am trying to understand. The data we are discussing is a company making measurement equipment, saying this and that measurement is audible. Peter gave a thumbs up to that post. I am trying to figure out if Peter has now changed his mind and supports and believes in measurements reading on audibility of audio equipment. Because if he is, it is a turn around for him and we have accomplished something in this thread.Cause? As someone who is searching for truth I find this polarizing language objectionable.
Hence my post....... I-G-N-O-R-E works best for people like him
What would your reaction be if I said that you can hear such changes even though we can arrange to prove that nothing whatsoever has changed in the equipment?Here's how. When I turn on my amps and listen to my system, I notice changes, clearly audible to me, during the first hour or so.
This is supremely important point and a concept I learned from JJ called "elasticity" of our experience. The exact same hardware, and music, results in different perceptual experience in every instance. I have routinely arrived at work, thought someone had screwed up the demo system as it sounded "bad," only to find out that nothing had changed and then when I listen the second time with that knowledge, it sounded just as enjoyable as before! Same hardware, same music, but different experiences.I think many audiophiles completely lose sight of this music vs. sound separation when comparing components. They may be looking for a greater musical high when listening, but that may obscure questions about the actual sound and which sounds better in comparing equipment. For one thing, a musical passage may have a different effect on us when heard again and again in quick succession. So, maybe we liked it better the first time in spite of better sound the second time, or vice versa. Maybe we have become bored with repeated hearings of the same music and we tend to unconsciously downrate the equipment then being played when that happens.
The first "datapoint - the paper - is a specific that cannot be universalised - so it is therefore not a datpoint for this discussion.I shared two data points. One was the test we are talking about. The other was myself.
This second "datapoint" - your experience - is no different from the "data point" that some of us have related - our experience. We have always stated that certain differences are not suited to ABXing & better suited to more holistic listening such as that involved in long-term listening. The opposite applies, certain differences will be more suited to ABXing than long-term listening. I just find that, given the problem with doing a "proper" ABX test, long term listening offers the better option for most people. It may just be a matter of pragmatism but a pragmatism that says, hey if I can't hear this in my long-term listening but can in A/Bing, what does it matter as this is my typical casual listening technique, not A/BingI explained that my acuity in hearing small differences completely disappears when switch over time lengthens.
But no tests have been produced by the "people who conduct this research" that demonstrate ABX is SIMPLY (UNIVERSALLY) better than long-term listening - the chosen source material or methodology needs a more critical analysis than is being given. I mentioned Nousaine's paper which s also normally cited in this same debate & pointed out that the listeners were trained before the A/B testing but no such training given before the long-term testing. If this doesn't demonstrate a severe bias on behalf of the experiment design, I don't know what would? In regard to the Clarke paper I would like to see behind this headline THD figure of 2.5%. It's rather surprising that this is used to identify the source material & the description of it being a type of grunge but given that this experiment was designed by a co-originator of ABX testing, maybe it's not such a surprise?I then asked if there are concrete data points like this supporting the opposite position that long term testing is more revealing. Since none has been provided, I have to rely on my own experience backed by independent tests and the position taken formally by the people who conduct this research professionally that short term switching is superior to long term listening.
That's fine, Amir, you have a firm belief based on experience - no more, no less than others here who have the opposite belief. The bit about "formal, verifiable conditions to show it to be correct" is just posturing, I'm have to say as you have shown no such to support your position - why should you demand it of others?As I said originally and repeated above, it is what I strongly believe in, from extensive experience in formal listening tests. What more should I have on my side to believe something to be true, relative to opposite position that has no formal, verifiable conditions to show it to be correct?
Wow Steve, you used to be such a fun loving guy back in '02, out to terrorize the world and all, but still fun loving and full of evil laughs. What happened?Peter, Al, ack, Tony et al
IMO AJ is a perfect reason for everyone to hit their "ignore"button and let him talk to himself
In medicine we call that ilk "shifting dullness" and it's best ignored
Wow Steve, you used to be such a fun loving guy back in '02, out to terrorize the world and all, but still fun loving and full of evil laughs. What happened?
Only liquids in stomach is usually a cold Newcastle or a nice Scotch...but we digress.
Oh yes, Audio Science, the horror, the horror....
cheers,
AJ
Well, if you could limit this only to what your hear and not what you read, that would be one less variable. It would also be the definition of a blind (audio) test. Only what you hear. Trusting your ears and nothing else.I am simply trying to approach this in a reasonable way based on what I hear, and what I read
I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just informing you of all the variables you (and Bud etc.) seemed unaware of. Questioning your assumptions, yes.I'm sorry if I can't prove any of this to you.
No idea who/what you are talking about there. Of course I'm having fun discussing audio on an audio forum. I enjoy that. The question is why are so many others having a conniption discussing audio on an audio forum!I think you are just trying to have some fun at my expense and prove something to someone who may be reading this.
It seems to me that there is music and there is sound. Sound is the carrier of the music and to many they are utterly inseparable as a result. I also think that audio science/audio engineering are only about sound, operating on the assumption that the "better" the sound, the better the musical enjoyment will be. ("Better" sound means, I think, sound such that each component in the chain is within human perception maximally faithful to the input source to it, except where proven psychoacoustic alterations to that sound are preferable or desirable to human listeners.)
Music does not become music until it is deciphered and processed at many higher unconscious and conscious levels of the brain. Until then, it is just a sequence of sounds processed by our ears and lower, purely unconscious levels of the brain. Music is the content and sound the conduit. But, it is important to get the conduit right lest it interfere with the content.
It is hard work and maybe impossible to fully achieve, but I have tried to focus more on the sound when doing equipment comparisons. I may be deluding myself in how effective I am in doing this. But, I try to tune out the effects of the music to get in touch with those unconscious "gut" reactions to the sound. I do not find that process enjoyable, though. It is mentally fatiguing, compared to just sitting back and listening and enjoying. Listening for enjoyment is the lasting payoff for all the hard work, fortunately. Also, fortunately, I have learned when not doing comparisons to listen to the music and just forget about the sound.
Using music for testing risks people being "lost in the music" and losing focus on the sound in the process. Music can be enjoyable and involve us even with less than ideal sound. I do it all the time on my car radio or the background FM music I have on around the house through tiny speakers. But, I know I enjoy it much more through the far better sound of my main system.
I think many audiophiles completely lose sight of this music vs. sound separation when comparing components. They may be looking for a greater musical high when listening, but that may obscure questions about the actual sound and which sounds better in comparing equipment. For one thing, a musical passage may have a different effect on us when heard again and again in quick succession. So, maybe we liked it better the first time in spite of better sound the second time, or vice versa. Maybe we have become bored with repeated hearings of the same music and we tend to unconsciously downrate the equipment then being played when that happens.
It takes discipline and focus to overcome this to hear the sound and temper our musical reactions when comparing equipment. But, again, maybe many audiophiles are so simple-mindedly focused on their musical enjoyment reactions, that they think those reactions will tell them all they need to know about a piece of gear: the quality of the sound will be revealed in the height of one's spiritual and emotional reaction to the music.
Further, many audiophiles react negatively to attempts to measure the sound itself rather than the music. It seems to me, as I said, sound, rather than musical enjoyment, is the focus of almost all testing and measurement in audio science. Many audiophiles just do not get the distinction or why it is important. Some even think that audio science is nonsense because it should be measuring our musical pleasure, rather than just sound. Or, it should even dispense with all those confusing measurements of the sound. But, musical pleasure, emotion, etc. are very variable and fleeting things. Same system, same song, same symphony = different reactions at different times in the same listener due to random externalities, greater familiarity, boredom, etc.
Yes, much audio science listener preference testing uses music, in spite of the problems I have cited. It is still trying to measure the underlying sound, not music preferences, though. Test fatigue would likely be much worse, and results much less relevant and more questionable if non-musical sounds were used.
I think this long term vs. short term listening debate is also possibly a manifestation of the inseparability of musical enjoyment from sound in many people's minds. Long term listening leaves plenty of room for non-fatiguiging musical enjoyment, while short term listening comparisons do not. But, to repeat, I think it is faulty and fraught with potential problems to try to rate equipment performance on the musical enjoyment you receive from it, rather than quick comparisons of the sound of that equipment to something else. And, it is the sound, not the music, that is well known to be affected by short term acoustic memory, partly because hearing sound is fundamentally an unconscious phenomenon, while music is not.
To wrap up, years ago when the Quad ESL63 speaker was just released, a dealer told me another customer heard them and he thought they sounded so beautiful, he cried. I said, dammit, it was the music that made him cry, not the sound. I did not buy them. I was expecting the anemic deep bass, but the extreme highs did not impress me either.
This is supremely important point and a concept I learned from JJ called "elasticity" of our experience. The exact same hardware, and music, results in different perceptual experience in every instance. I have routinely arrived at work, thought someone had screwed up the demo system as it sounded "bad," only to find out that nothing had changed and then when I listen the second time with that knowledge, it sounded just as enjoyable as before! Same hardware, same music, but different experiences.
Without self-awareness of such things, we quickly attribute the change in what we thought we heard to technical factors. Then power of suggestion kicks in and we continue to hear those changes. It is for this reason that when we formally test for these differences, they disappear. Because ultimately the hardware was not responsible. It was the elasticity of our experience coupled with continued self-reinforcement that caused us to believe in what we believed.
Simmer down David. Ok, so you still can't provide any audible evidence of amp warm up, or one single sound audio science can't explain. That's become obvious.Where's your scientific contribution in this thread AJ?
This is an Audiophile Forum yet post after post you have nothing but contempt for Audiophiles, you can barely control yourself even in this post.
david
Every time I click "new posts" there is another post made in this thread. The vast majority of others just lay dormant. I think I now know what this forum has become. If this is what it means to be an audiophile I'll gladly not be one.
This is supremely important point and a concept I learned from JJ called "elasticity" of our experience. The exact same hardware, and music, results in different perceptual experience in every instance. I have routinely arrived at work, thought someone had screwed up the demo system as it sounded "bad," only to find out that nothing had changed and then when I listen the second time with that knowledge, it sounded just as enjoyable as before! Same hardware, same music, but different experiences.
Without self-awareness of such things, we quickly attribute the change in what we thought we heard to technical factors. Then power of suggestion kicks in and we continue to hear those changes. It is for this reason that when we formally test for these differences, they disappear. Because ultimately the hardware was not responsible. It was the elasticity of our experience coupled with continued self-reinforcement that caused us to believe in what we believed.
Simmer down David. Ok, so you still can't provide any audible evidence of amp warm up, or one single sound audio science can't explain. That's become obvious.
I never claimed amp warm up sounds or some form of audible N-rays being emitted by stereos. Why direct your wrath at me? How about focusing on the thread topic/arguments instead, even if the questions that arise cause you outrage because you have no answer?
Dr. Ezequiel Morsella at San Francisco State University came to a startling conclusion: consciousness is no more than a passive machine running one simple algorithm — to serve up what’s already been decided, and take credit for the decision.
Unlike most animals, however, humans gradually evolved into complex social beings capable of cultivating our intelligence for language and other higher faculties.
Faced with increasingly difficult decisions on how to act, …
…, We suddenly needed a middleman to slow our unconscious mind down.