Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (
More info?)
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Surely you would agree that there is something counterintuitive about
> the claim that we are more likely to hear differences between things
if
> we do not try to hear differences between them. And before you object
> tht this isn't what you said, I will agree that it isn't what you
said.
> But I would argue that what you actually said reduces to this.
>
It is counterintuitive, and paradoxical. But human perception and
performance is full of such paradoxes. I'm an amateur musician and
I've talked to a lot of musicians, and it is pretty common for a
musician to say that "trying too hard" interferes with their
performance. I've also heard martial artists say that. It is VERY
common for a musician to say that focusing too much on the details
destroys a balanced sense of the whole (notice the relevance to
quick-switch testing that focuses on a very small moment of
experience).
It is easy enough to observe that paying attention to some part of
your experience changes it, so that it is hard to observe your own
natural responses. For example, try to be aware of your eyeblinks
and count the number in one minute, but *without* any sense that
you are changing your natural pattern. Or note that bodyworkers can
ask a person to pay attention to their breathing, and can
see immediately that the depth or rate of their breathing changes
with this attention.
My own ideas for testing protocols aren't free from these effects.
If there is any truth to the idea that trying too hard, or conscious
focus on contrast, can interfere with listening, quick-switch
testing is going to be susceptible to these effects even more.
If we can get a grant of about a million dollars, we could pipe music
into subjects while they lie in a PET scanner. Then they wouldn't
have to consciously try to do anything at all. Of course PET
scanners create an enormous background noise.
> Nonetheless, I have already agreed that while I think your
"unconscious
> contrast" hypothesis is implausible, it's at least thoughtfully
> rendered, and I hope you are successful in testing it.
Well, thank you.
> >
> > Anyway, the world isn't black-and-white. Contrast isn't evil. It
> can
> > be simultaneously true that a quick-switch test is doomed by its
> > emphasis on contrast, while contrast is still important.
> >
> > >
> > > > But this doesn't
> > > > represent how people actually listen to music, or how they
enjoy
> > it.
> > >
> > > True, but you are not trying to measure enjoyment. You are trying
> to
> > > measure contrast--as you yourself said!
> >
> > I never said I was trying to "measure" contrast.
>
> You used the word "contrast," and measuring it is exactly what you
are
> doing. Specifically, you are measuring the contrast between these two
> interconnects against the threshold below which humans cannot detect
> sonic contrasts.
Okay, that's true, I am looking for differences. However, I'm not
necessarily looking for the conscious perception of contrast.
Once an audio engineer described to me a blind listening test on
cartridges he did with a panel. The members of the panel rated
the sound quality after each listen. They also chatted with each other
between sessions. The engineer said he noticed informally that
sometimes
the panel chatted about the music they had just heard, while sometimes
they chatted about the sound of the cartridge. In his opinion, the
better cartridges inspired people to talk about the music.
Now, never mind that this test was not scientific or controlled. I'm
only using it to suggest a possibility--that outside observers could
see that a person reacts differently to different things, while at the
same time the person doesn't have to be aware of the difference. Or
the person could be aware of the difference but attribute it to the
wrong thing.
I've had enough life experience to realize that other people are
observing my emotions and reactions to things, sometimes seeing stuff
that I'm not aware of.
Maybe we could do some kind of audio test where somebody observes
the subject, rather than having the subject give their own
observations.
But that's tricky. For now, what I'm trying to explain is this:
I my own tests I tried to function as an observer of
my own musical enjoyment, rather than an observer of sound.
This is actually a difficult or maybe
impossible thing to do. But I tried. Sometimes I found myself
listening to a cable and just really enjoying it or noticing all
sorts of pleasant musical details. Sometimes I found myself not
enjoying the music. I wrote these observations down. And more than
half the time, my observations fit a pattern: more enjoyment with
the Transparent cable compared to the Radio Shack. I couldn't
consciously point to the differences in sound while I was listening.
So that's why my test was different than quick switch.
>
> > I was always trying
> > to note my reactions as objectively as possible, including the
> reaction
> > of enjoying the music. Typically I would note *how* or *what* was
> > enjoyable. My hypothesis is that cables may differ is what aspects
> of
> > the music they bring to conscious enjoyment.
> >
> > I'm trying to devise a test that is closer to natural listening.
But
> > it's a terribly difficult job. I would absolute agree with you
that
> we
> > can't reproduce a natural listening environment and simultaneously
> test
> > people. That's the whole problem! But quick-switch tests are
about
> > the furthest thing from musical enjoyment I can imagine.
>
> Well, of course, but that's not what they're designed for. And I'm
not
> sure that a protocol designed to enhance musical enjoyment would be
the
> most effective means of determining sonic differences. That's where
we
> differ.
>
> bob
It could be (this is probably what you believe) that all the details in
a musical signal that the ear can actually hear are available in the
act of short-term comparison of sound. If this were true, then I would
agree that quick-switch testing would be the gold standard of
comparison.
But how do we know this is true? Can we determine this is true from
quick-switch testing? If all the tests we do involve the same mode
of listening, can we infer things about other modes of listening?
I'm seriously posing these questions in case you or anyone else wants
to
take a shot at them.
Best,
Mike