Sighted Testing IS King!! Silly me - all those years wasted...

[E-Stat]

Nowhere in the original presentation was there any mention of long term testing, nowhere, so why then could you possibly think it relevant to ask such a question that is entirely without merit......or are you telling us that it takes you that long to convince yourself?

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

[magictooth]

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

E-Stat, I posted my reply above, and I see that you've replied to Bruce's comment much later. Do you have anything to say about my comments? Is there any part of that blind test that you can accomplish in your home and at your own pace disagreeable? What about my question with regards to real researchers? Why should they drug and cut up 100 people in the name of science when there really is no need?

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, I posted my reply above, and I see that you've replied to Bruce's comment much later. Do you have anything to say about my comments?

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove, much less publish. Consequently, I'd really rather spend my time listening to music (I'm doing that on my computer right now), watching movies on my new HD video system, riding my motorcycle, and ice skating to conducting cable trials. I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival of new speakers that are to be shipped later this month. When I get them, I plan to immerse myself in hearing my music collection anew.

Sorry if that disappoints you.

rw

[magictooth]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove, much less publish. Consequently, I'd really rather spend my time listening to music (I'm doing that on my computer right now), watching movies on my new HD video system, riding my motorcycle, and ice skating to conducting cable trials. I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival of new speakers that are to be shipped later this month. When I get them, I plan to immerse myself in hearing my music collection anew.

Sorry if that disappoints you.

rw

No, it doesn't disappoint nor does it surprise. I'm not asking you to do anything you don't want to do. I presented a logical and easy to do experiment but you refuse.

Your reply here is a pathetic cop-out. In any case, E-Stat, you still didn't answer my original question: why is it that you believe that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

[E-Stat]

In any case, E-Stat, you still didn't answer my original question: why is it that you believe that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

I have never seen a DBT published which found audible differences between stereo components described as "dynamic contrasts", "tonal color", "imaging", "soundstage reproduction" or any of the many other attributes we as audiophiles listen for.

With music DBTs don't seem to be sensitive enough to differentiate anything but gross differences. Those differences are described as loudness, or large band frequency response differences such as brightness or boominess.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results. For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

[musicoverall]

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

I have never seen a DBT published which found audible differences between stereo components described as "dynamic contrasts", "tonal color", "imaging", "soundstage reproduction" or any of the many other attributes we as audiophiles listen for.

With music DBTs don't seem to be sensitive enough to differentiate anything but gross differences. Those differences are described as loudness, or large band frequency response differences such as brightness or boominess.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results. For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

Thanks for this quote. Very well said. As I posted elsewhere, blind testing seems pointless to me and now I see a possible explanation why. This makes a lot of sense.

[magictooth]

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing

...For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

Please note the bold that I put in your quote.

Hmm, so an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller is expounding his theories about how the neural pathways interact. That's great science there. Reading the above makes me wonder how we can even walk and talk at the same time.

Has this POV ever been vetted in a professional journal? Is it the Lancet? No, the NEJM? No, how about a specialized journal that most people wouldn't read?

I don't really understand how if you are using your "right brain" function, that it automatically shuts off your "left brain" and that you can't switch back and forth instantaneously. I thought that the neural impulses travel pretty much at the speed of electricity. The only case where this above POV might be applicable is in severe epileptics who've had the surgery to separate both halves of their brains.

Even in the extreme epileptic case, I have serious doubts as to whether there'd be any mental deficit related to "switching between" right and left hemisphere activities.

The idea that for subtle differences, a blind test is not accurate is garbage as well. If it were true, you wouldn't find a convergence of test results to 50% (ie guesswork as to which component is being listened to). His beliefs have yet to be proven. I would be happy to see a real proof on the subject if only to shut everybody up about this debate.

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

[E-Stat]

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

Null Hypothesis

We approach music appreciation very differently, Mr. Tooth.

rw

[musicoverall]

Please note the bold that I put in your quote.

Hmm, so an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller is expounding his theories about how the neural pathways interact. That's great science there. Reading the above makes me wonder how we can even walk and talk at the same time.

Has this POV ever been vetted in a professional journal? Is it the Lancet? No, the NEJM? No, how about a specialized journal that most people wouldn't read?

I don't really understand how if you are using your "right brain" function, that it automatically shuts off your "left brain" and that you can't switch back and forth instantaneously. I thought that the neural impulses travel pretty much at the speed of electricity. The only case where this above POV might be applicable is in severe epileptics who've had the surgery to separate both halves of their brains.

Even in the extreme epileptic case, I have serious doubts as to whether there'd be any mental deficit related to "switching between" right and left hemisphere activities.

The idea that for subtle differences, a blind test is not accurate is garbage as well. If it were true, you wouldn't find a convergence of test results to 50% (ie guesswork as to which component is being listened to). His beliefs have yet to be proven. I would be happy to see a real proof on the subject if only to shut everybody up about this debate.

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

I can't speak for all "yeasayers" but I certainly am not discussing science - I'm discussing music and listening. I view that as more of an art than a science. I believe Mr Kuller would agree, hence there is no need for any scientific journal articles.

Have you ever watched, say, a basketball game for pleasure? Then have you ever served as a statistician for a game? You watch it entirely differently. Just an example of how the right brain and left brain work differently while performing the same activity. I can tell you that listening to music for pleasure and listening for component differences is totally different. One is pleasurable, the other is hard work!

As for proof of cable sonics (or proof against), I think those that care about such things are the ones that need to have at it. Why in the world would cable companies go to all the time and expense to perform the experiments you're recommending? They're already convinced of cable sonics! They don't need the proof you seem to require. I can appreciate your POV (even if it seems I don't and even though I don't agree) but cable companies wouldn't appreciate your willingness to spend THEIR money for YOUR satisfaction i.e proof.

Personally speaking, when I feel the need to test every sensory perception I have, such as the tastes of my favorite foods, colors, and other experiences, I'll blind test cables. It's that simple. I either trust my senses or I don't - and I do. BTW, your turntables do not sound different until you blind test them, according to your beliefs.

[Monstrous Mike]

The orignal post showed an example, regardless of how unscientific, of how senses and observations can be skewed. Further, there are hundreds of examples of this from all aspects of life.

Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong.

Yes, I've interpreted my observations incorrectly on many occasions. Sometimes I am aware of it, like when I watch an illusionist, sometimes I am not, like when I grab the wrong beer in the pub.

Conclusions are tricky business and the brain will tend to push us towards the conclusion that we desire. If you are not aware of that or think you can always control it, then you will reach more incorrect conclusions than you should.

[musicoverall]

Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong..

Then let me be the first. My conclusions have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.

[FLZapped]

Rant mode on

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

This is not true. You are constantly evaluating what you are listening too, even before you start playing the music. You'll go and pick out different music on different days based on mood. This is an evaluative process. You may find yourself listening to a piece that yesterday was great and today is grating.....an evaluative process.....

Pretty clear indicaton that the brain halves do not function independantly of each other as is being eluded to here. While one hemisphere may dominate, it does not, by any means, ignore the other, unless forced to do so. Enter the DBT and sensory deprivation(damn, you mean science understands this already?).

The writer also doesn't seem(want?) to understand that the differences, if audible, will stand out in a switched test, making the decision process moot. They are different or not, and that is usually the criteria for such a test. Looking for what one prefers requires the use of a MOS test and is a totally different subject matter.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

Music is fairly close to noise as a model and therefore can generally be used as a testing source where noise would be used. No big deal. One just has to understand it's limitations. This argument is only valid to those who don't understand that these limitations are already well known in the scientific community.

One of the oustanding problems is that audiophiles wouldn't accept testing with tones, even though that's all music really is when you get down to it. The scientific community continues to bow to their pressure in order to appease them, which is impossible, they're hopelessly infected with Audio Nervana Nervosa.

Mr. Kuller has done nothing except to spew hyperbole. He only understands enough to apease the audiophile in himself and the crowd he hangs with.

Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period. This is all very easily predicted by math(oh damn, a science) and so far, no one has proven any of the theories wrong on this. There have been some refinements along the way, but when you get right down to it, the basic formula, or theory if you will, still holds true. Therefore, the selling of cable and/or wire as a needed "sonic upgrade" in one's system is nothing more than psychology. The making of a passive component somehow active against all known physics. Of course, audiophiles reject this notion as easily as they do any test that shows the folly of their supposed wisdom. Heaven forbid that the audiophile community ever accepts that machine testing is orders of magnitude beyond our hearing capability when it comes to measurement of minute differences among components.

If audiphiles were really serious about the truth, they would be beating down the doors of the cables companies to perform tests run by an independant laboratory and freely publish the results. Why won't the cable companies do this voluntarily, because their three-ring marketing manuevers would be exposed for what they are, a circus of psychological manipulation designed to spur impulse buying.

rant mode off

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period.

Except of course for shielding and noise rejection. Speaking of which, what metric quantifies the shielding characteristics of say Belden 19364 SJT cord or 89259 coax? I just reviewed the specification sheet for each and could not locate any. What did I overlook?

rw

[FLZapped]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove,

rw

Not being a researcher, true, nothing to prove, false. -Bruce

[E-Stat]

Why should they drug and cut up 100 people in the name of science when there really is no need?

What an utterly ridiculous comment. Are you trying out for drama class?

rw

[magictooth]

What an utterly ridiculous comment. Are you trying out for drama class?

rw

LOL, another sidestep of a reasonable question (as asked a couple of posts up).

In reply to this post, the comment is taken out of context - as you well know. The reason behind this comment is that if, as you so firmly believe, sighted testing is as good as blind testing, then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

[E-Stat]

In reply to this post, the comment is taken out of context - as you well know.

I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.

The reason behind this comment is that if, as you so firmly believe, sighted testing is as good as blind testing, then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.

rw

[magictooth]

I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.


Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.

rw

You need to reread the posts. It is pretty clearly delineated what I was referring to. If you can't get it after a couple more tries, well we probably shouldn't be talking about it anyways.

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph (and entire point of view on this subject), this is another self serving pile of junk. This is the classical "my hypothesis makes sense for my point of view, hence it is correct." Take another example: religious leaders condemn a homosexual lifestyle as leading to the moral decay and the descent into the seething morass of the general population. It makes sense if it fits your view of the world. Is it proven? Or how about some people who spout off about video games leading to an elevated level of violence these days. It makes sense because there's lots of violence in some games and that has to rub off on the players. Has this been proven?

The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

[E-Stat]

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph...

It simply answers your last objection.

...then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

I guess I need to repeat the relevant part of Kuller's comments that preclude your concern.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results.

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw

[FLZapped]

The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

Which does point out that E-Stat indeed has something to prove against his own words.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

Take as long as you need to convince yourself. That's fine by me, but don't expect that to ever be accepted scientifically.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Cowboy, oh is that funny. Wrong, but funny.

-Bruce