Do we hear differently?
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
Once, at a Philips press event, they showed a small MRI simulator (including a pink teddy bear to place in the machine) to calm and prepare children for the process. Unfortunately, the machine was a dummy and made no noise. How do you think a kid would react when the banging started? I advised them to add a soundtrack.
The issue is speed. How quickly someone can read and process is different from how well and there are many issues involved in how quickly or slowly someone reads, many having nothing to do with intelligence. A person who processes more slowly, but well will become stressed when under time constraints. This is why it is fairly common that the first accommodation made to kids who learn differently is to give them extra time for tests -- so that the test will reveal how well rather than how quick.
I've seen brain scans that were generated from testing having to do with stimulating subjects with much more difficult or unwieldy material than music. The only barriers to this kind of research, IMO, would be money and interest. Someone would have to want this information enough to fund the research.
nice post earleir rsbeck
A few points on the 'ideal' dbt situation...it should be non confrontational. It should not have stress attached to it.
In my (limited) experience, when done out of interest and with a bunch of mates, they usually are not and are a lot of fun.
The stress attached to it usually arrives when discussed on forums, mostly from the people who were not there and have entrenched positions on whichever side.
The idea is to be acquainted with the setup, become comfortable and when you are, do the test. Often a claim is made by an individual of a certain point to be tested, so it is best to do it at his place on his gear (not always do-able).
What you will mostly find is that stress (under test and if it exists at the dbt itself) only starts to manifest at the first 'which is the X?'...THAT is when the cold hard reality kicks in that it is suddenly not the walk in the park it was always assumed to be.
I have never been able to work out the essential difference of the dbt situation and the normal audition situation, all the same essential elements are present (except ONE is sighted and the other not)..it IS a comparison between two devices, it involves memory and perception of the auditory event, it is a test between the two (people seem to latch on to the lable of 'test' as what causes the stress), all the same decisions need to be made about 'clarity', 'depth' and 'seperation' yada yada.
It being a dbt vs normal does not suddenly remove any 'temporal' aspects from the soundfield.
I am sure there have been some 'antagonistic' dbt's which yes, would induce a wildly different experience than normal, but tests set up between mates on a forum usually are a fun day and highly educational.
I think there are too many who would refuse on principal to participate, it is however the best way to learn about them.
That applies to both sides, to those who glibly require or demand a dbt be done, well they too would learn the quirks and ointricacies of doing it to a reasonable standard, and once they know that they might not be so cavalier in their demands in the future!
A few points on the 'ideal' dbt situation...it should be non confrontational. It should not have stress attached to it.
In my (limited) experience, when done out of interest and with a bunch of mates, they usually are not and are a lot of fun.
The stress attached to it usually arrives when discussed on forums, mostly from the people who were not there and have entrenched positions on whichever side.
The idea is to be acquainted with the setup, become comfortable and when you are, do the test. Often a claim is made by an individual of a certain point to be tested, so it is best to do it at his place on his gear (not always do-able).
What you will mostly find is that stress (under test and if it exists at the dbt itself) only starts to manifest at the first 'which is the X?'...THAT is when the cold hard reality kicks in that it is suddenly not the walk in the park it was always assumed to be.
I have never been able to work out the essential difference of the dbt situation and the normal audition situation, all the same essential elements are present (except ONE is sighted and the other not)..it IS a comparison between two devices, it involves memory and perception of the auditory event, it is a test between the two (people seem to latch on to the lable of 'test' as what causes the stress), all the same decisions need to be made about 'clarity', 'depth' and 'seperation' yada yada.
It being a dbt vs normal does not suddenly remove any 'temporal' aspects from the soundfield.
I am sure there have been some 'antagonistic' dbt's which yes, would induce a wildly different experience than normal, but tests set up between mates on a forum usually are a fun day and highly educational.
I think there are too many who would refuse on principal to participate, it is however the best way to learn about them.
That applies to both sides, to those who glibly require or demand a dbt be done, well they too would learn the quirks and ointricacies of doing it to a reasonable standard, and once they know that they might not be so cavalier in their demands in the future!
Agreed.
No doubt. We do this daily at the MEG lab. My point was specifically about the ability to listen for pleasure.
Exactly. It is not imposed by the particular situation but by the necessity to make a forced choice based on limited information.
Right, it ain't the label. The necessity to choose without visual or other cues to the identity of the DUTs is precisely why this is stressful. Most of our decision-making is based on multisensory information and, excluding an important but irrelevant one (vision), increases uncertainty. Reminds me of taste tests done while olfaction is blocked. Very difficult.
Terryj,
if you look at the post by rsbeck about his son & the stress of testing significantly effecting his results, you can see that inherent in the whole concept of evaluation is a certain stress level whether concious or unconscious. We feel more under scrutiny then normal even with our mates in a friendly & inviting atmosphere. I'm pretty sure that you will find every such situation will reveal a brain scan (seeing as we are talking about these) which reveals an increased level of stress.
But more to the point, when we are ding comparisons like this we are listening in a different way to our normal listening. We are listening more analytically & maybe this effects the outcome? Maybe the best way of doing a comparison test is to put both devices in identical black boxes & live with each one for 3 months or so & take a decision then?
Agreed that DBTs are very rigorous & costly to perform & those who glibly call for them are being at best, unrealistic & at worst disingenuous!
if you look at the post by rsbeck about his son & the stress of testing significantly effecting his results, you can see that inherent in the whole concept of evaluation is a certain stress level whether concious or unconscious. We feel more under scrutiny then normal even with our mates in a friendly & inviting atmosphere. I'm pretty sure that you will find every such situation will reveal a brain scan (seeing as we are talking about these) which reveals an increased level of stress.
But more to the point, when we are ding comparisons like this we are listening in a different way to our normal listening. We are listening more analytically & maybe this effects the outcome? Maybe the best way of doing a comparison test is to put both devices in identical black boxes & live with each one for 3 months or so & take a decision then?
Agreed that DBTs are very rigorous & costly to perform & those who glibly call for them are being at best, unrealistic & at worst disingenuous!
I do not think that is the source of the stress for most of us. Surely, we often force ourselves to listen critically, especially when choosing and installing a new component but we do so at leisure. I think, as I have said, that the stress comes from the necessity to make a forced choice based on restricted information. Remember exams? Even if you know the subject well, exam conditions produce anxiety.
Well-ventilated black boxes would be a necessity, else the stress would be on the component.
That seemingly would address the long term listening issue. Depending upon the DUT, there even could be a market for someone to come up with products that would work in this situation. [Hint, hint to everyone reading this
]I for one would love such a black box solution. The benefits to consumers are obvious. I'd even like to see brick and mortar dealers pursue this.
Context is important, here. Depending upon the DUT and who is being tested, I think you are spot on. And on the internet, everyone's seemingly an expert based upon their (mis)understanding of something one read somewhere.
Now, having stated this, I hope we also can agree they don't have to be, at least in the context of a particular consumer evaluating products (hardware or software) solely for one's self. In the exercise of intellectual honesty and humility, I know I can be fooled just as easily as the next person. I just want to know if *I* can tell the difference, not whether the gen pop or a control group can. And in the case where we (I) already know there is a difference, I want my preference decision not to be influenced by things such as cost, brand name, bling, etc.
I doubt manufacturers will tie up capital in lots of devices out on "trial" for 3 months. I can see it being more relevant to reviewers, howeverThat seemingly would address the long term listening issue. Depending upon the DUT, there even could be a market for someone to come up with products that would work in this situation. [Hint, hint to everyone reading this
I for one would love such a black box solution. The benefits to consumers are obvious. I'd even like to see brick and mortar dealers pursue this.]
Yes, I agree with blind tests for personal evaluation but to the "DBT mafia", these informal blind tests are no better than anecdotal evidence & regularly dismissed. They are equated to statements like "even my wife thought it sounded better from the other room".
So what I'm talking about is the rigorous DBT that is insisted on by those who dismiss everything else (except measurements). I was even asked, at one point to engage my local university do run blind tests & this was over a claim that $20 RF attenuators inserted on a SPDIF line improve the sound in 99.9% of set-ups (a device I wasn't selling, BTW
)Who ever said that exams (which was what it was IIRC) do not ptoduce stress?
That is the 'link' I was trying to establish, we do DB 'Exams' for the worriers about it, they place the accent on 'test=exam=stress cause it was always like that at school'.
So let's call it a DBhappygtg and all that stress will fall away!
Ahh, just how many of these situations have you been in? The few I have been were and are FUN, ...a buch of friends haivng an audio event with the Barbie going, lot's of larfs all round.
Maybe you need better friends?
So you are trying to say any listening that leads to 'comparisons' is different from normal listening and so can produce erronous results?
How on earth do you ever sell product?
You mean we can discount every single owner review or comparison on the net cause it was not normal listening??
Those guys who DO report increased defintion with your dacs are wrong cause they were comparing and so not listening normally and so were under stress?
THAT was my entire point. I don't get that 'in dbt's we are comparing and so under stress and not listening as we normally do' and that is a different matter to 'I was comparing two units sighted and not under stress even tho it was not normal listening because I was using my lizard part of the brain'.
Well, I also hope you are an equal opportunity critic of the glib. I hope you would also castigate those who refuse to participate in DBTs and find spurious fault with them.
Yes, TerryJ, yes I have been in audio meets with friends & new faces where there is a lot fun, jokes & listening to & comparing different devices. But these are not what I'm referring to as DBTs in the sense that I mean it.
These GTGs I would consider maybe blind tests, maybe not but none would stand up to the scrutiny & formalism required for true DBT.
At these GTGs when listening, we tend to go quiet & focus. Then at the end people give detail on what they have heard if they wish. I can tell you that this is more stressful & analytic than the rest of the session where we are chatting & listening to music. So you can deny this bit of stress that exists but I bet it can be verified by galvanic skin tests. It's interesting to do these to see what's going on in the subconcious. At college I was wired up doing a test on how we can use feedback to control our state of relaxation. The feedback was a tone which changed to a lower frequency the more relaxed you became. I had been doing this for 20 mins or so & had a nice steady low frequency tone coming from the device. A girl walked into the room & my tone jumped to HF & then as I realised that everyone could hear this & relate it to the girl having walked in the door. The stress of this realisation made the tone soar - the feedback was actually working against me now
Anyway, my point is that stress is subconscious. It might also be that the higher the level of stress or exposure that we are subjected to the more it interferes with our listening. At your next GTG, try saying to everybody that they will each be expected to say what differences they heard between two devices in the next test & watch the people stiffen up or leave the room
But my main point is that the informal blind listening that you are talking about is not at anywhere like the level of formalism & control needed for DBTs. In fact academic is the nature of these DBTs & yes this possibly means memories of exams & stress. These informal tests that you are talking about is irrelevant to those who call for DBTs & rated no better than anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid.
I concur with you, however, & find informal blind testing useful for checking if our sighted preferences are correct. I have never been involved in a "real" DBT, have you?
These GTGs I would consider maybe blind tests, maybe not but none would stand up to the scrutiny & formalism required for true DBT.
At these GTGs when listening, we tend to go quiet & focus. Then at the end people give detail on what they have heard if they wish. I can tell you that this is more stressful & analytic than the rest of the session where we are chatting & listening to music. So you can deny this bit of stress that exists but I bet it can be verified by galvanic skin tests. It's interesting to do these to see what's going on in the subconcious. At college I was wired up doing a test on how we can use feedback to control our state of relaxation. The feedback was a tone which changed to a lower frequency the more relaxed you became. I had been doing this for 20 mins or so & had a nice steady low frequency tone coming from the device. A girl walked into the room & my tone jumped to HF & then as I realised that everyone could hear this & relate it to the girl having walked in the door. The stress of this realisation made the tone soar - the feedback was actually working against me now
Anyway, my point is that stress is subconscious. It might also be that the higher the level of stress or exposure that we are subjected to the more it interferes with our listening. At your next GTG, try saying to everybody that they will each be expected to say what differences they heard between two devices in the next test & watch the people stiffen up or leave the room
But my main point is that the informal blind listening that you are talking about is not at anywhere like the level of formalism & control needed for DBTs. In fact academic is the nature of these DBTs & yes this possibly means memories of exams & stress. These informal tests that you are talking about is irrelevant to those who call for DBTs & rated no better than anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid.
I concur with you, however, & find informal blind testing useful for checking if our sighted preferences are correct. I have never been involved in a "real" DBT, have you?
I am marking this day on the calendar with one big happy smiley face.
As someone who encourages personal blind tests but abhors folks that pass results as truth that must be true for everybody else, I'm getting this warm, fuzzy second order harmonic distortion feeling that we're all getting to know each other better.
As someone who encourages personal blind tests but abhors folks that pass results as truth that must be true for everybody else, I'm getting this warm, fuzzy second order harmonic distortion feeling that we're all getting to know each other better.
[
I don't think the stress is significant for most people, but we are not listening as we usually do. We are listening to the sound instead of to the music and it logically follows that we are less likely to hear subtle differences under normal listening, because that's not what we're listening for. But the argument audiophiles make against DBT is exactly the opposite, that they somehow imagine we are more likely to hear subtle differences when we're not listening for them, or over time instead of through quick-switching (audiologosts disagree). But when you offer them all the time they want, to test blind, they don't do that either. I think the most difficult stress for audiophiles, around blind testing, has to do with the results, not the methodology.
Tim
I don't think the stress is significant for most people, but we are not listening as we usually do. We are listening to the sound instead of to the music and it logically follows that we are less likely to hear subtle differences under normal listening, because that's not what we're listening for. But the argument audiophiles make against DBT is exactly the opposite, that they somehow imagine we are more likely to hear subtle differences when we're not listening for them, or over time instead of through quick-switching (audiologosts disagree). But when you offer them all the time they want, to test blind, they don't do that either. I think the most difficult stress for audiophiles, around blind testing, has to do with the results, not the methodology.
Tim
I think the numbers of true double blind tests that would pass scientific muster that are conducted by everyday audiophiles are few and far between. It’s another rallying cry used by objectivists when in fact, I doubt very few have ever participated in real DB tests that would withstand scientific scrutiny. People act like we can all conduct rigorous DB testing at the drop of a hat when that is just not the case. It takes a lot of time and care to set up a real DB test.
I don’t see it as much different from objectivists who talk incessantly of their love of measurements when in reality, they don’t have much measurements to go on. The percentage of gear that is on the market for audiophiles of all religions to buy that has been thoroughly tested and the measurements published is a small fraction of the gear available. What objectivists really mean the majority of the time when they say they love measurements is that they love the manufacturer’s specification sheet.
Some people need to climb off their high horse and face the reality of being an audiophile. The chances of you participating in scientific DB test in order to choose among let’s say 3 different amplifiers you are interested in purchasing is slim to none. Pick any other piece of gear and it’s the same. Most of what is being passed off as DB testing by those who shout it from the rooftops is some audiophile sitting at home with some piece of gear that he is comparing against another piece of gear he already owns and trying to listen to them without knowing which is playing.
The chances of your local dealer having several different amplifiers made by different manufacturers in stock that you are truly interested in purchasing and available for in-house DB testing is probably not real high. The chance of you finding dealers willing to send you multiple amplifiers at the same time so you can conduct your own DB tests at home isn’t real high either. This is very expensive and time consuming. You probably have a better shot at having 3 buddies bring their amps over to your house and you guys rigging up your own little DB test. And even that isn’t a simple endeavor unless the amps are fairly small and you happen to think you like all of them.
I don’t see it as much different from objectivists who talk incessantly of their love of measurements when in reality, they don’t have much measurements to go on. The percentage of gear that is on the market for audiophiles of all religions to buy that has been thoroughly tested and the measurements published is a small fraction of the gear available. What objectivists really mean the majority of the time when they say they love measurements is that they love the manufacturer’s specification sheet.
Some people need to climb off their high horse and face the reality of being an audiophile. The chances of you participating in scientific DB test in order to choose among let’s say 3 different amplifiers you are interested in purchasing is slim to none. Pick any other piece of gear and it’s the same. Most of what is being passed off as DB testing by those who shout it from the rooftops is some audiophile sitting at home with some piece of gear that he is comparing against another piece of gear he already owns and trying to listen to them without knowing which is playing.
The chances of your local dealer having several different amplifiers made by different manufacturers in stock that you are truly interested in purchasing and available for in-house DB testing is probably not real high. The chance of you finding dealers willing to send you multiple amplifiers at the same time so you can conduct your own DB tests at home isn’t real high either. This is very expensive and time consuming. You probably have a better shot at having 3 buddies bring their amps over to your house and you guys rigging up your own little DB test. And even that isn’t a simple endeavor unless the amps are fairly small and you happen to think you like all of them.
I think the numbers of tests conducted by everyday audiophiles that would pass scientific muster would be very close to zero. But even the most casual blind listening, conducted with a bit of care, removes sighted bias. And trust me, if something that you heard, that you know you heard, that you believed was significant, drops away as soon as you can no longer see what you're hearing; when "Oh yeah, I can easily hear the difference between A and B" turns into guessing at it and not getting it right very often...when it's personal? The scientific muster won't matter all that much to you.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I mean measurements. I don't think you have ever seen me post manufacturer's specs to this board. I have posted measurements quite a few times, and I'm probably running behind Amir and Vincent and a few others in that regard. But it's comforting to know that you know what I mean. Maybe next time I'll just ask you first and avoid the typing.
I've actually found some pretty effective ways of comparing files and components without knowing which one is playing, and I find it to be a much better way to compare them than sighted, in a dealer's showroom (or even at home), with the salesguy telling me what I'm supposed to hear. But I've never tried to pass it off as DBT and I don't think anyone here has.
And yet I've done exactly what you seem to think is nearly impossible, with headphone amplifiers and DACs, by ordering them from online dealers with reasonable return policies. And I've also managed to listen and compare, blind, hi-res vs. 16/44.1, losselss vs. compressed files, different compression rates, and different masters of the same recordings. I haven't done any of it in a long time, though. it was a period I went through. A period of great curiousity from which I learned a lot, and was set free from the endless loop of want driven by belief in magic.
Tim
Tim,
I think the point is that there are many, many ways to be subtly influenced in our decisions - removing sightedness is just one! The reason for rigorous DBTs is to try to remove the rest of the biases! Saying that at-home blind tests removes all the biases is ignoring all the other possible biases. Just focusing on sightedness is ignoring all the other possible influencing factors. It's kinda like saying that any measurement, no matter how flawed, is better than no measurement at all.
I think the point is that there are many, many ways to be subtly influenced in our decisions - removing sightedness is just one! The reason for rigorous DBTs is to try to remove the rest of the biases! Saying that at-home blind tests removes all the biases is ignoring all the other possible biases. Just focusing on sightedness is ignoring all the other possible influencing factors. It's kinda like saying that any measurement, no matter how flawed, is better than no measurement at all.
I think it is more like saying that removing one HUGE false influence on our hearing perception is better than removing no influences at all, but I think we pretty much agree on the rest. I have used simple blind listening at home to help me understand what I am actually hearing and to evaluate hardware and software more objectively than I can with all of my expectations fully engaged. I completely understand that it proves nothing to anyone but myself and is not a substitute for a well-designed and exectued double-blind AB/X listening study.
Tim
I hear what you're saying but would like to see the evidence that sightedness is a HUGE influence compared to any other influence? I think this might be a crucial point & one that need addressing before we focus on sightedness as the one & only. Could be that we are actually much more influenced by other factors, emotional, monetary, etc. who knows without a scientific study.If the objectivists insist that sightedness is th emajor influencer then they shoudl be able to present scientific evidence of same
Yes, Tim, in the meantime we get by with incomplete measurements & blind tests that give us a certain security
I hear what you're saying but would like to see the evidence that sightedness is a HUGE influence compared to any other influence? I think this might be a crucial point & one that need addressing before we focus on sightedness as the one & only. Could be that we are actually much more influenced by other factors, emotional, monetary, etc. who knows without a scientific study.If the objectivists insist that sightedness is th emajor influencer then they shoudl be able to present scientific evidence of same
Yes, Tim, in the meantime we get by with incomplete measurements & blind tests that give us a certain security
The evidence I have that sightedness is a HUGE influence is my own experience. I consider it a given, but I'd love to see studies if any are available. The first thing I'd ask here is what other influences did you have in mind, but you were kind enough to supply a couple...
If I can't see the component and don't know what it is, I don't know its brand or how much it costs. I can't see the casework or finish or the badge, I can't look at it and touch it, I can't even guess how much it cost. I can't respond to it emotionally the way I might respond to an elegant design, to switches that throw with a fluid but substantial feel, to knobs with just the right balance of ease and resistance. I think, actually, that many influences are circumvented by unsighted listening.
Did you have any others in mind?
Tim
Similar threads
