Me and my perception

[microstrip]

It was not at all centered over one type of evaluation. I shared similar situation I have been in which despite extreme familiarity with the content as you suggested, and combined with knowledge of technology and its artifacts, I was still fooled. So the notion that one knows live music as you suggested, and hence is less liable to fall victim here does not follow.


Well, you guessed wrong . We are having a general conversation and are sharing insight based on what each one of us knows.

Sorry, but aren't these errors just part of the natural statistics of the process of identification? IMHO, unless you carry the full statistical analysis this example does not prove anything new in general - just that humans can make errors.

 

[amirm]

Count me out of that 'all' - I'm seeking audio satisfaction, delight, ecstasy but not 'truth'. I have no idea what 'truth' might mean here.

The truth is a search for what aspires you. If that search is based on falsehood, then it makes the search for satisfaction, delight and ecstasy much harder if not impossible. You will be turning left when you should be turning right. And turning right when you should be turning left.

If the notion is that it is all individual preference and not based on any logic that translates to others, then I don't think we have business having this forum and any discussion of gear. Mep just said the Mytek is a great DAC. By what you are saying, that could mean absolutely nothing because that satisfaction is not based on any kind of truthfulness to the source.

Sounds entirely reasonable to me. I'm not one who thinks I'm in a particular camp, nor am I a traditional audiophile as far as I'm aware. I'm uninterested in whether or not I can hear particular distortions - I agree that's interesting to designers who want to correlate distortion with perception. I'm not one of them.

I did not limit it to distortion. I limit it to some way of knowing we are right other than a feeling. My old job relied on being right and knowing that for sure. It fueled my career. We had to win both subjectively and objectively. That type of approach resulted to our technology being mandatory in blu-ray format and billions of devices. So I speak from experience of what it takes to be right here. Sure, if there is not much at stake, one can relax the criteria all one wants. It just isn't a convincing argument.

Not relevant to me because I don't hold an opinion of how good or bad I am at hearing non-linear distortions.

Most everyone hears linear distortion (e.g. simple level changes, frequency roll off, etc.). What is left then is non-linear distortion. Take out both of these and you have the source with no modification. If the point is that we are searching for modification of the source, then let's state that clearly because I didn't think that was the goal.

Indeed, you're a free agent just as I am. Most humans don't accept evidence anyway which conflicts with what they already think they know - paradigm shifts are necessary to even notice evidence which conflicts with their current paradigm. The notion that people are persuaded by data is rather amusing, given the research that's been done in behavioural economics.

I don't think we are similarly situated. I have given examples above. I have built audio technologies that I thought were good, only to have them fail in objective evaluation. We looked, found out why and fixed it and then won the same tests. I know therefore that such testing has fundamental value. We not only won the tests, we also won the consumer at larger. Prior to this work, I had spent 20 years as an audiophile just like the next guy. It was not until I did so professionally, had access to incredible resources and ability to invent/make technological changes that I realized there is so much more. So no, I don't speak as a free agent. I speak as someone who has spent time on both sides of the fence and find it impossible to bypass the merits of proper evaluation of gear, devoid of things that distort the result.

 

[amirm]

Sorry, but aren't these errors just part of the natural statistics of the process of identification? IMHO, unless you carry the full statistical analysis this example does not prove anything new in general - just that humans can make errors.

As I just explained to Opus, mine was the result of huge number of tests, subjective and objective, involving myself and countless others. It included consumers, expert listeners, and audiophiles.

On AVS Forum someone put up a test and asked people to vote for which clip is which. Turned out he had made a mistake and two of the clips were identical. Despite that, countless people voted they were different including a professional film mixer who has been in charge of audio production of many large budget Hollywood movies. He could not believe he was wrong. Nor could the guy that had created the test. So I showed them the binary comparison of the files being identical. They accepted it then.

What should one do with these results? Throw them out as human error? How can we not learn from them and shape how we evaluate audio?

 

[opus111]

Ahh, ok. Just got the game we are playing, sorry for being so slow.

Just this once then I'll continue - if you're slow again then to the back of the class with you, and find yourself a remedial teacher.

If there is no proof, or at least none you have mentioned to date, why is it exactly that you are so confident you can set aside your biases better than the majority of humanity?

Observation. I observe on this thread plenty of perceptual bias - you've shown it more times than I care to count for example. Just as I'm confident by observation that I have two hands, so I'm confident I'm less biassed then you, just to take one example.

You use a circular argument..."I am able to set aside my biases sufficiently well that the normal problems beset by mere mortals do not apply to me.

I'm a mortal too but just not a normal one, yes.

I can hear the difference "X", and as I can set aside my biases I know that is correct' (or not, no right or wrong, gotta keep it fluffy)

You're making stuff up here so I'll just humour you

Look, I too am completely sure I can run the 100 m in under ten seconds, so sure in fact that I have no need to go on to the track, lay down my ciggies and beer, take off me thongs and time my run. I am sure 99.99% of the population can't do what I do, but I base my ability to do so on my spiritual journey.

And your claimed surety is based on what? What are you observations?

 

[opus111]

The truth is a search for what aspires you.

Cannot follow what you're saying, sorry.

If that search is based on falsehood, then it makes the search for satisfaction, delight and ecstasy much harder if not impossible. You will be turning left when you should be turning right. And turning right when you should be turning left.

And what would 'based on falsehood' mean in this particular example? I already have a portion of delight from my designs, I'd like more if its possible.

If the notion is that it is all individual preference and not based on any logic that translates to others, then I don't think we have business having this forum and any discussion of gear. Mep just said the Mytek is a great DAC. By what you are saying, that could mean absolutely nothing because that satisfaction is not based on any kind of truthfulness to the source.

I'm not of the view that its 'all individual preference' so this looks to be a strawman.

I did not limit it to distortion. I limit it to some way of knowing we are right other than a feeling. My old job relied on being right and knowing that for sure. It fueled my career. We had to win both subjectively and objectively. That type of approach resulted to our technology being mandatory in blu-ray format and billions of devices. So I speak from experience of what it takes to be right here. Sure, if there is not much at stake, one can relax the criteria all one wants. It just isn't a convincing argument.

I can't see how this is relevant to what I've been writing.

Most everyone hears linear distortion (e.g. simple level changes, frequency roll off, etc.). What is left then is non-linear distortion. Take out both of these and you have the source with no modification. If the point is that we are searching for modification of the source, then let's state that clearly because I didn't think that was the goal.

Is noise modulation a non-linear distortion too?

I don't think we are similarly situated. I have given examples above. I have built audio technologies that I thought were good, only to have them fail in objective evaluation. We looked, found out why and fixed it and then won the same tests. I know therefore that such testing has fundamental value. We not only won the tests, we also won the consumer at larger. Prior to this work, I had spent 20 years as an audiophile just like the next guy. It was not until I did so professionally, had access to incredible resources and ability to invent/make technological changes that I realized there is so much more. So no, I don't speak as a free agent. I speak as someone who has spent time on both sides of the fence and find it impossible to bypass the merits of proper evaluation of gear, devoid of things that distort the result.

So what keeps you less than free? Your beliefs? Beliefs can be jettisoned - after all, no-one is born with them.

 

[Vincent Kars]

Sorry, I did not realize that the debate was mainly centered on evaluating differences between digital files using headphones or similar situations. Considering the OP I should have guessed. It is not really my current interest.

Don’t think so.
It is about if you hear a difference; do you think it is real or might it be your perception fooled you once again?
In other words; trust your ears and mistrust your perception.

 

[terryj]

Just this once then I'll continue - if you're slow again then to the back of the class with you, and find yourself a remedial teacher.

Like!

Observation.

You observed your lack of 'being affected by bias' (hmm, gotta be better wording than that) by testing if it was true? Must have missed it, point me to the post please.

And your claimed surety is based on what? What are you observations?

Actually, I'll give this one a big thumbs up, good point.



How about 'I observe the sun goes across the sky, obviously it circles the earth as I detected no movement of my body. It remained in place all the time the sun moved. Science claims many things (ever since the schism from the church, left it for the poorer) and I don't accept that my perceptions of this event are at fault. I am a subjectivist, and my 'feelings' or senses are enough to explain this. The sun most definitely moves around the earth'.



Still, I CAN assure you that if I was not laid up in hospital with a recurrence of my gout, I would have shown that show pony Bolt a thing or two.

 

[opus111]

You observed your lack of 'being affected by bias' (hmm, gotta be better wording than that) by testing if it was true? Must have missed it, point me to the post please.

I didn't say I'd posted about my lack of expectation bias, just that I'd observed the lack of expectation in myself.

How about 'I observe the sun goes across the sky, obviously it circles the earth as I detected no movement of my body. It remained in place all the time the sun moved.

Seems fair enough as an observation yes.

Science claims many things (ever since the schism from the church, left it for the poorer) and I don't accept that my perceptions of this event are at fault.

I see no reason to believe your perceptions are at fault here.

I am a subjectivist, and my 'feelings' or senses are enough to explain this. The sun most definitely moves around the earth'.

Yep - from the point of view of an observer on the earth, its reasonable.So, your point is?

 

[terryj]

I didn't say I'd posted about my lack of expectation bias, just that I'd observed the lack of expectation in myself.

Ah yes, the dance. Sorry. Dang, better get me some of that remedial teaching.

I don't recall saying you posted about a lack of expectation bias, I posted about your 'lack of being affected' by it. I even pointedly questioned my wording. You can go back and read it again just this once, might have to call for extra steps next time.

So, your point is?

Reasonably sure you got it.

 

[opus111]

Ah yes, the dance. Sorry. Dang, better get me some of that remedial teaching.

I'm not your personal tutor - go get it for yourself!

Reasonably sure you got it.

With the same degree of surety as in the claim about your sprinting prowess. That's all hunky-dory then.

 

[microstrip]

As I just explained to Opus, mine was the result of huge number of tests, subjective and objective, involving myself and countless others. It included consumers, expert listeners, and audiophiles.

On AVS Forum someone put up a test and asked people to vote for which clip is which. Turned out he had made a mistake and two of the clips were identical. Despite that, countless people voted they were different including a professional film mixer who has been in charge of audio production of many large budget Hollywood movies. He could not believe he was wrong. Nor could the guy that had created the test. So I showed them the binary comparison of the files being identical. They accepted it then.

What should one do with these results? Throw them out as human error? How can we not learn from them and shape how we evaluate audio?

We can learn if we know the exact numbers of "countless" people and how many tests were carried in total. Then compare the results with the test done with proper chips - people would also make errors, it is part of the statistics. Individual decisions are of little value in such situations, however when we analyze a group of many individuals the results should become valid - the confidence degree will depend on number.

In other words,

Trust your ears and mistrust your perception. Trust our ears and trust our perception.

 

[terryj]

I'm not your personal tutor - go get it for yourself!

Tsk tsk, oh dear. yet another instance of not reading posts, and you tell me to get remedial teaching, oh the irony. Either that, or your self awareness only extends to thinking you are the centre. Nope, not for one second did I have you in mind to do the teaching...that was reasonably clear from your earlier post, so praps my comprehension is not as bad as I feared.

thanks for clearing that up.

With the same degree of surety as in the claim about your sprinting prowess. That's all hunky-dory then.

Yep, confirmed you got the point

 

[treitz3]

Good morning, gentlemen of the thread. Let's lighten up the tone of the thread. The WBF is not about insults, mudslinging and chest pounding. Allow me to remind you that you are asked to communicate as if you were having a discussion with your college professor [no matter who you are responding too]. Cordial discussions are key to being a member here at the WBF. This post is not aimed at anybody in particular, just a friendly reminder. We are better than this.

Tom

 

[amirm]

I didn't say I'd posted about my lack of expectation bias, just that I'd observed the lack of expectation in myself.

Let's take the power supply example you gave. Seems to me the very reason to swap one for the other is the expectation that it has an effect on sound. Starting with that premise you then ascertained that it made things worse. It took effort to conduct that experiment and therefore some expectation of result was there or you would have not gone through the work.

If it were me in that situation, I would follow up with a blind test. I have done this and it undoes the outcome many times. Assuming you had done this, what would your conclusion be? That the power supply still had the negative effect on sound?

 

[opus111]

Let's take the power supply example you gave. Seems to me the very reason to swap one for the other is the expectation that it has an effect on sound.

No, that's a conjecture, not an expectation. If there was expectation then of course there'd be expectation bias.

If it were me in that situation, I would follow up with a blind test. I have done this and it undoes the outcome many times. Assuming you had done this, what would your conclusion be? That the power supply still had the negative effect on sound?

But in the absence of expectation bias, there's no need to do a blind test. Which was my original claim - that I do fine without blind testing.

 

[amirm]

No, that's a conjecture, not an expectation. If there was expectation then of course there'd be expectation bias.

But in the absence of expectation bias, there's no need to do a blind test. Which was my original claim - that I do fine without blind testing.

There is a simple test to prove this. Run a blind test for that power supply. Have someone be in charge of plugging on in vs the other. Do that a few times and see if that result matches your sighted observation. I am confident it would not and hence it would mean you did have expectation bias . We could argue with words or data like that. Which way you like to proceed?

 

[amirm]

Let me modify my last post a bit. Run the test but don't feel any obligation to report to us. I would think that your belief that you do not suffer from expectation bias is an important factor to get right. So it would seem to me that it is worth the few minutes it would take to figure that out for real. Borrowing your phrase, it is a conjecture that you are not subject to it .

 

[opus111]

There is a simple test to prove this.

You have a need to prove it? I don't.

Run a blind test for that power supply. Have someone be in charge of plugging on in vs the other. Do that a few times and see if that result matches your sighted observation. I am confident it would not and hence it would mean you did have expectation bias . We could argue with words or data like that. Which way you like to proceed?

I'm prepared to do it if you can show me a reason to. So far I see no return for such a work-up.

 

[FrantzM]

Opus111

I am lost here .. If you don't expect anything (let's forget about the term bias for now) .. then why would you swap PS or DAC chip or whatever? Supposing it doesn't sound right to you, then there is an implied assumption that a change is in order, No? So after the change, whatever it is, you would listen to what? TO ascertain that the change brings a different outcome? No? That assumption is an expectation of an outcome ...No? else why change anything?

 

[opus111]

I would think that your belief that you do not suffer from expectation bias is an important factor to get right.

If I had such a belief then I'd suspect I was deluding myself. But I have no such belief - what leads you to assume that I do?

So it would seem to me that it is worth the few minutes it would take to figure that out for real. Borrowing your phrase, it is a conjecture that you are not subject to it .

No, its an observation that I'm not subject to it.