Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted August 6, 2019 Volunteer Posted August 6, 2019 37 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: I spent some time talking about how IMO probabilities and significance levels are objective tests. Subjective interpretation of tests and research results are something else again. You seem to spend far more time talking about how unreliable blind-testing is and very little time on sighted testing. I’m interested (but don’t think I’ve asked directly) to know how you see their usefulness compared to each other when testing for audible differences
rocky500 Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) For me personally there is no sighted testing. Not in the way it is always referred to on here. find just leaving a component in for days and just listening to it on and off over time, for me, works out the best to pick what I like best. Continuous Instant switching with sighted or blind testing seems to make everything sound the same to me. Edited August 6, 2019 by rocky500 1
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted August 6, 2019 Volunteer Posted August 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, rocky500 said: For me personally there is no sighted testing. Not in the way it is always referred to on here. As far as I know, sighted testing means you know which component you are listening to. It has zero to do with how quickly or often you switch. It could be instantaneous switching or it could be months apart. Same for blind testing. Switching can be as rapid or slow as you like. The key being you don’t know which component you are listening to 1
Grant Slack Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 3 hours ago, proftournesol said: The reason why I raised my question is that, surely, we listen to systems, not components. This happens irrespective of whether we are listening blind or sighted, and our assessment is always an assessment of the complete system rather than a component. The best (or worst) we can say is that this component change sounds different/no different in this system to me. Of course, I am also a part of 'the system', as is the room. It may sound different to you because you are a different system to me. The same component in a different system will likely sound different. Measurement and A/B/X testing may be helpful in understanding some of the differences, but, at the end of the day it's really about musical enjoyment, a totally subjective experience. Hello Michael, forgive me for re-bolding your post to align with my reply. I certainly agree with the principle of your thoughts. However, the bolded bit is not consistent with what I understand to be the point of having output and input stages on separate audio components. The whole point of these stages is so that, with proper usage, the same component in a different system will unlikely sound different. In general, voltages across a component interface are matched, and output stages have a much lower impedance than the matching input stages. Do this right, and the variable that you raised is accounted for. Of course, it comes a bit unraveled when the component in question has an uneven frequency response. A cartridge with a tailing frequency response might sound fairly neutral in a system that sports loudspeakers with a rising response, but very soft when the loudspeakers have a tailing response. But, for a flat-response, or neutral-sounding, component, its contribution should not be system-dependent. Another proviso: some of the more esoteric audio gear makes no attempt to interface neutrally. For instance, some power amps have a high output impedance. To me, this is a design failure, as it deliberately makes something system-dependent and impossible to design as having a particular sonic aspect. The designer is effectively saying "here is a random tone generator; plug it in and hear whatever happens next." Is that even design? But, for modern electronics, well-designed, with a neutral frequency response and with 'standard' interfaces, I believe that your statement in bold needn't be. regards, Grant 1
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 14 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said: You seem to spend far more time talking about how unreliable blind-testing is and very little time on sighted testing. Blind testing is the topic but I have also mentioned sighted listening IIRC in this thread (maybe elsewhere) 14 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said: I’m interested (but don’t think I’ve asked directly) to know how you see their usefulness compared to each other when testing for audible differences Sighted listening as a test is subject to bias and false positives as far as I understand. Blind testing is subject to systematic bias with usual methods and false negatives as far as I understand and gave you one reference.At the very least we do not know the objective measures of the test (which I have mentioned several times) Sighted listening for me is a default condition in that this is the way we will actually listen to music as it pleases us and when neither interested in testing our equipment or ourselves. 3 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said: As far as I know, sighted testing means you know which component you are listening to. It has zero to do with how quickly or often you switch. It could be instantaneous switching or it could be months apart. Same for blind testing. Switching can be as rapid or slow as you like. The key being you don’t know which component you are listening to typically blind testing has rapid abx switches, at least not happening over weeks of leisurely listening. I have previously mentioned about extended sighted listening as preferred by many and potentially (my theory) the impact of cumulative effects of many small differences over time when listening in a relaxed and natural environment. 1
Ittaku Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Blind testing is the topic but I have also mentioned sighted listening IIRC in this thread (maybe elsewhere) It's not really. The topic is whether ASR measurements correlate with anything meaningful...
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 @Sir Sanders Zingmore Here is an example of what good objective testing looks like for a fairly common disease (Coeliac) and increasingly trendy topic of dietary gluten. We would only approach this degree of objectivity if there was a direct measure of perception that acted as a gold standard. Gold Standard for Coeliac = duodenal biopsy (histology) Other indirect tests Serologic analysis looking for antibodies to immunoglobulin(Ig) A in the blood AND for immunoglobulin(Ig) A levels. Antibodies to human immunoglobulin (Ig)A-tTG, IgA-gliadin, IgG-gliadin, and IgA-endomysial antibody. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for IgA tTG were 90.9%, 90.9%, 28.6%, and 99.6%. When adopting a 2-step approach using tTG first and then EMA the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value was 85.7%, 98.6%, 71.7%, and 99.7%, respectively. The use of nondeamidated IgA/IgG gliadin antibodies conferred no additional diagnostic benefit when considering the detection of adult celiac disease. Genetic Testing – Excellent Negative predictive value Testing Algorithm
Grant Slack Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 25 minutes ago, rocky500 said: For me personally there is no sighted testing. Not in the way it is always referred to on here. find just leaving a component in for days and just listening to it on and off over time, for me, works out the best to pick what I like best. Continuous Instant switching with sighted or blind testing seems to make everything sound the same to me. Hello Rocky, the impression I get from reading Floyd Toole's articles and listening to him talk, is that the human ability to discriminate sound in DBT is very sensitive. Very small differences indeed, are consistently and reliably detected in DBT conditions. If that is not happening for you, then it is probably because not all the following preconditions are met:- the test is experimentally sound the difference is audible at all the listener is not suffering from significant hearing impairment. Regards, Grant
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Ittaku said: It's not really. The topic is whether ASR measurements correlate with anything meaningful... I mentioned this on page 3 but was voted down. "meaningful" as related to the musical experience and thus how do you judge that. Edited August 6, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience
rocky500 Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 27 minutes ago, Grant Slack said: Hello Rocky, the impression I get from reading Floyd Toole's articles and listening to him talk, is that the human ability to discriminate sound in DBT is very sensitive. Very small differences indeed, are consistently and reliably detected in DBT conditions. If that is not happening for you, then it is probably because not all the following preconditions are met:- the test is experimentally sound the difference is audible at all the listener is not suffering from significant hearing impairment. Regards, Grant I never seen a DBT online where anyone has been able to decern the difference reliably between 2 with very small differences. 1
MLXXX Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 4 hours ago, LHC said: Yet another assumption. The test result was reported in a separate blog page here: http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6274 The statistical analysis of the 83 reported responses were given by 'Mans' in the comment section underneath (dated August 2018): the results were not statistically conclusive, but a clear indication of some testers able to hear some difference was noted. I didn't see the separate blog page until a moment ago. As you report, it was not conclusive. * * * I have a hunch that with very young subjects and the right music [or artificial sound effects] it might just be possible for some of them to distinguish the anti-aliasing filter used for conversion of a 96kHz sample rate recording to a sample rate of 44.1kHz. To guard against the possibility of adolescents and young adults hearing subtle differences near the upper frequency limit of their hearing, my personal preference would be to disseminate music at a sample rate of 48kHz. Interestingly, 48kHz is already the usual sample rate for the sound track of feature films as released on Blu-ray.
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 1 minute ago, rocky500 said: I never seen a DBT online where anyone has been able to decern the difference reliably between 2 with very small differences. The test is of unknown sensitivity, which doesn't help.
Ittaku Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 21 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: I mentioned this on page 3 but was voted down. The thumbs down was removed from this forum quite a while before that post, so that's not possible.
rantan Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ittaku said: The thumbs down was removed from this forum quite a while before that post, so that's not possible. yes it was........................very unfortunately, along with the departed and lamented "confused "and "sad" icons.
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Ittaku said: 39 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: I mentioned this on page 3 but was voted down. The thumbs down was removed from this forum quite a while before that post, so that's not possible. I meant people wanted to talk about it as part of on topic discussion. page 3 On 22/07/2019 at 11:34 AM, Audiophile Neuroscience said: It is turning into an off topic thread. I'll leave it there . If anyone wants to start other threads ..... On 22/07/2019 at 11:42 AM, Sir Sanders Zingmore said: I think we are on topic. Edited August 6, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience
MLXXX Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 4 hours ago, LHC said: @MLXXX For your awareness (sorry if you are already informed) Mark Waldrep looks to set up a more rigorous version of his previous hi-res listening test here: http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6494 I think this may be of interests to you. If you do participate I would be interested to follow your take on the experience. Well it may be interesting to see what results are obtained. I am too old to participate in the test as my high frequency upper limit is not far above 10kHz these days. A decade ago when my hearing was better I found I couldn't distinguish noise-shaped dithered 16 bit from original 24 bit hi-res music recordings. I'd suggest that listening tests for the ability to distinguish hi-res audio should primarily be undergone by people in their late teens or early 20s as their hearing will be less impaired by the ageing process. Undergraduate university students could be a good group of people to invite to participate.
rantan Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, MLXXX said: . Undergraduate university students could be a good group of people to invite to participate. They may well have advanced hearing impairment from a generation of listening to music via iPods/mobile phones and in ear monitors and headphones. I have met several who acknowledge this and it will be a common and major problem in the future.
MLXXX Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, rantan said: They may well have advanced hearing impairment from a generation of listening to music via iPods/mobile phones and in ear monitors and headphones. I have met several who acknowledge this and it will be a common and major problem in the future. A percentage of them will have advanced hearing impairment, and could well fail a hearing acuity test administered as a condition of participation in the testing. Most though should have a high-frequency hearing capability far beyond that of the average middle-aged adult. 1
LHC Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 1 hour ago, MLXXX said: have a hunch that with very young subjects and the right music [or artificial sound effects] it might just be possible for some of them to distinguish the anti-aliasing filter used for conversion of a 96kHz sample rate recording to a sample rate of 44.1kHz. If you meant to include Dr Crawford in that group, I assume he would be quite pleased.
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 51 minutes ago, Ittaku said: Sarcasm doesn't work very well in text... Con, if that was aimed at me, no sarcasm was intended.
Ittaku Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Con, if that was aimed at me, no sarcasm was intended. Like I was saying, it doesn't work very well... I was the one being sarcastic.
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted August 6, 2019 Volunteer Posted August 6, 2019 2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: typically blind testing has rapid abx switches, at least not happening over weeks of leisurely listening. Rapid switching is a common complaint about blind testing. There is no reason why it can’t be done over a period of any arbitrary length. 1
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Ittaku said: Like I was saying, it doesn't work very well... I was the one being sarcastic. Ah okay get it, so you forgot to use the emoji of absolution !
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said: Rapid switching is a common complaint about blind testing. There is no reason why it can’t be done over a period of any arbitrary length. It starts to become impractical but in theory I agree. So how's your satisfaction level with the new amp? No niggling disappointments ?
Recommended Posts