anyone in LA want to help me do a blind test?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I live in Pasadena, CA. I'm interested in doing blind tests on
interconnect cables, using a long-listening protocol rather than a
quick switching protocol. I've already done 12 trials and scored 9/12
correct- not statistically significant yet, but I'm learning under what
conditions I perform better, so there is still a chance I could reach a
statistically significant positive result. Unfortunately these tests
take a while and I've lost the help of my prior assistant. If you want
to help, I'd also help you with blind tests in trade. Anyone
interested?

If so, don't reply to this email. It is a free account to receive
spam. Reply to

mpm
At
alumni
Dot
caltech
Dot
edu

-Mike

PS. or post here
 

bernie

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2003
12
0
18,560
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I live in Pasadena also. Sounds like a fun project--fraught with the
possibility of frustration. Oh, boy! Feel free to e-mail me at
bernmart@earthlink.net.

Cheers, Bernie
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a
long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of
my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too
hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any
change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).


---MIKE---
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

---MIKE--- wrote:
> I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how
a
> long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound
of
> my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such
as
> temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose
too
> hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than
any
> change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).
>
>
> ---MIKE---

You might be right, but I need to do the test to find out.

-Other Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"---MIKE---" <twinmountain@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:d1t2nr01drr@news1.newsguy.com...
> I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a
> long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of
> my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as
> temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too
> hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any
> change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).
>
>
> ---MIKE---

The atmospheric pressure, humidity, state of your sinuses, etc., should all
be uncorrelated
with which of the two cables being compared is in use. So those random
variables should
not invalidate a long enough series of tests with a significant deviation
from chance.

I'm not a "believer" in high end cable myself but I'm all in favor of tests
like this being done.
After all, I've been wrong about things before.
 

Scott

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
379
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

---MIKE--- wrote:
> I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a
> long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of
> my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as
> temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too
> hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any
> change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).
>
>

While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather than a
"quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't
possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour, per
day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal
variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching cables
once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete exhaustive
tests.

Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of sound,
these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon
"quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a
period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing
one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the course
of a single afternoon.

The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter
outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those
variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs.
non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed in
that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind
model can be tainted.

-Scott
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

John P. Green wrote:
> "---MIKE---" <twinmountain@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:d1t2nr01drr@news1.newsguy.com...
> > I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see
how a
> > long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the
sound of
> > my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables
such as
> > temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose
too
> > hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than
any
> > change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).
> >
> >
> > ---MIKE---
>
> The atmospheric pressure, humidity, state of your sinuses, etc.,
should all
> be uncorrelated
> with which of the two cables being compared is in use. So those
random
> variables should
> not invalidate a long enough series of tests with a significant
deviation
> from chance.
>
> I'm not a "believer" in high end cable myself but I'm all in favor of
tests
> like this being done.
> After all, I've been wrong about things before.

I'm not sure myself about high-end cables. I tend to doubt they do
anything. However, a few years ago I listened carefully and thought
they were doing something. Was I imagining this? I did an informal
blind test with the help of a friend, which involved several five
minute listening sessions to cables. Every four sessions was either
ABAB or ABBA, unknown to me. We did 16 sessions which gave me four
chances to guess the order ABAB or ABBA. I guessed right all four
times. Not only that, but I was quite confident that I knew what I was
hearing.

But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I had
another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials. This
time I got five right and three wrong, which isn't very promising.
Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew which
cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong
expectation bias can be.

But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial involved
four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or six
hours of real time to get through all that.

So I want to do some more tests.

-Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Scott <scm207@charter.net> wrote:
> ---MIKE--- wrote:
> > I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a
> > long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of
> > my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as
> > temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too
> > hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any
> > change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).
> >
> >

> While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather than a
> "quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't
> possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour, per
> day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal
> variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching cables
> once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete exhaustive
> tests.

> Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of sound,
> these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon
> "quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a
> period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing
> one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the course
> of a single afternoon.

> The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter
> outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those
> variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs.
> non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed in
> that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind
> model can be tainted.

> -Scott

That might make more sense if the listeners claimed to be able to hear the
difference on some days and not others. But in most if not all ABX/DBT,
the listener *does* claim to hear a difernece *during the test*. IN an
ABX, the listener basically *has* to report 'hearing' a difference between
A and B -- that is, during the 'sighted' portion of the test; otherwise
the test is meaningless -- it's just guessing in the literal sense.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Scott wrote:
> ---MIKE--- wrote:
> > I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see
how a
> > long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the
sound of
> > my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables
such as
> > temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose
too
> > hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than
any
> > change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).
> >
> >
>
> While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather
than a
> "quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't

> possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour,
per
> day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal

> variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching
cables
> once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete
exhaustive
> tests.
>
> Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of
sound,
> these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon

> "quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a
> period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing

> one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the
course
> of a single afternoon.
>
> The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter
> outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those
> variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs.
> non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed
in
> that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind
> model can be tainted.
>
> -Scott

As a kind of similar point, I've also thought that the kind of quick
switch test that switches *while the music is in progress* is nonsense.
The idea is that you are supposed to tell if you hear a change right
at the moment you switch--well of course you hear a change, because the
music itself is changing!

To clarify my intended protocol (and the same one I've used in past
tests) : I listen for about five minutes to each cable, enough time to
settle in and hear it at music. I don't try to compare cables
directly--I'm not comparing "what I hear now" to my memory--but instead
I'm just taking notes on my current musical experience without trying
to think too much about which cable it is. I ask that my assistant do
four trials, hooking up the cables in the order ABAB, ABBA, BABA, or
BAAB. This means that I'm getting a good sense of contrast through the
four trials--at least twice the cable switches to the other one. My
job after the four trials is to guess whether the middle two were the
same or different.

I've done twelve trials overall, but in two separate periods with
vastly different equipment and setup. 4/4 in the first set, and 5/8 in
the second set.

"Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because
they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right next"
(the sound placed in time, that is) to another one. But this doesn't
represent how people actually listen to music, or how they enjoy it.
After all, if a piece of audio equipment is beautiful-sounding, (or a
violin is, or a piano is, or a string quartet is), then it sounds
beautiful "on its own." You don't need to put it right next to
something else to be able to hear the beauty. Likewise, if a piece of
audio equipment has some sort of character--if it is either ugly or
beautiful--it should sound that way after you've settled in with it.
It shouldn't be necessary to compare the sound to something else to
determine this, and it fact I think that contrast tests obscure
differences because they prevent the listener from settling in and
hearing a piece of music, over its natural span of time, hearing it as
actual *music*.

-Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> I'm not sure myself about high-end cables. I tend to doubt they do
> anything. However, a few years ago I listened carefully and thought
> they were doing something. Was I imagining this? I did an informal
> blind test with the help of a friend, which involved several five
> minute listening sessions to cables. Every four sessions was either
> ABAB or ABBA, unknown to me. We did 16 sessions which gave me four
> chances to guess the order ABAB or ABBA. I guessed right all four
> times. Not only that, but I was quite confident that I knew what I
was
> hearing.
>
> But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I
had
> another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials. This
> time I got five right and three wrong,

Ah, then your earlier assertion that you'd gotten 9 out of 12 correct
was statistically irrelevant. You cannot just add up the results of
different tests as you go along. You generally need to decide in
advance how many trials you are going to do (and how many correct you
are shooting for).

Besides, you described this as "a similar test." If it was not exacly
the same test--same cables, system, room, protocol--there would be no
comparison at all between the two.

> which isn't very promising.
> Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew
which
> cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong
> expectation bias can be.

Yeah, ain't it the truth.

> But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial
involved
> four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or
six
> hours of real time to get through all that.

I would think fatigue would make you less confident about what you were
hearing, not more, but it's possible. Next time, don't try to do it all
in a single day.

> So I want to do some more tests.

Some questions:
--what cables (and length)?
--what system?
--did you level-match, and how?
--did you also try doing a quick-switching test for comparison?

bob
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d205od0cd6@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I had
> another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials. This
> time I got five right and three wrong, which isn't very promising.
> Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew which
> cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong
> expectation bias can be.
>
> But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial involved
> four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or six
> hours of real time to get through all that.
>
> So I want to do some more tests.
>
Even if you can tell the difference, if it requires this amount of careful
test listening to discern differences, is it worth the cost? When I listen
to music I like to forget about everything else and simply enjoy the trip.
Tests of the kind you wish to conduct appear interesting enough (for young
folks with young hearing) engaging in the audio hobby trip, but not the
enjoying the music trip.
 

chung

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
465
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> ---MIKE--- wrote:
>> > I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see
> how a
>> > long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the
> sound of
>> > my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables
> such as
>> > temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose
> too
>> > hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than
> any
>> > change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective).
>> >
>> >
>>
>> While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather
> than a
>> "quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't
>
>> possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour,
> per
>> day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal
>
>> variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching
> cables
>> once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete
> exhaustive
>> tests.
>>
>> Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of
> sound,
>> these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon
>
>> "quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a
>> period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing
>
>> one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the
> course
>> of a single afternoon.
>>
>> The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter
>> outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those
>> variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs.
>> non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed
> in
>> that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind
>> model can be tainted.
>>
>> -Scott
>
> As a kind of similar point, I've also thought that the kind of quick
> switch test that switches *while the music is in progress* is nonsense.
> The idea is that you are supposed to tell if you hear a change right
> at the moment you switch--well of course you hear a change, because the
> music itself is changing!
>
> To clarify my intended protocol (and the same one I've used in past
> tests) : I listen for about five minutes to each cable, enough time to
> settle in and hear it at music. I don't try to compare cables
> directly--I'm not comparing "what I hear now" to my memory--but instead
> I'm just taking notes on my current musical experience without trying
> to think too much about which cable it is. I ask that my assistant do
> four trials, hooking up the cables in the order ABAB, ABBA, BABA, or
> BAAB. This means that I'm getting a good sense of contrast through the
> four trials--at least twice the cable switches to the other one. My
> job after the four trials is to guess whether the middle two were the
> same or different.
>
> I've done twelve trials overall, but in two separate periods with
> vastly different equipment and setup. 4/4 in the first set, and 5/8 in
> the second set.
>
> "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because
> they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right next"
> (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one. But this doesn't
> represent how people actually listen to music, or how they enjoy it.
> After all, if a piece of audio equipment is beautiful-sounding, (or a
> violin is, or a piano is, or a string quartet is), then it sounds
> beautiful "on its own." You don't need to put it right next to
> something else to be able to hear the beauty. Likewise, if a piece of
> audio equipment has some sort of character--if it is either ugly or
> beautiful--it should sound that way after you've settled in with it.
> It shouldn't be necessary to compare the sound to something else to
> determine this, and it fact I think that contrast tests obscure
> differences because they prevent the listener from settling in and
> hearing a piece of music, over its natural span of time, hearing it as
> actual *music*.
>
> -Mike

As a control, can you also ask your assistant to use a sequence that is
different than the 4 you have shown? You only want to find out if the
middle two are the same or different, so I do not see why you need to
limit the number of possible sequences to those 4.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> As a kind of similar point, I've also thought that the kind of quick
> switch test that switches *while the music is in progress* is
nonsense.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is good scientific evidence
that you are wrong.

> The idea is that you are supposed to tell if you hear a change right
> at the moment you switch--well of course you hear a change, because
the
> music itself is changing!

A case for using minimalist drone in DBTs.

> To clarify my intended protocol (and the same one I've used in past
> tests) : I listen for about five minutes to each cable, enough time
to
> settle in and hear it at music. I don't try to compare cables
> directly--I'm not comparing "what I hear now" to my memory--but
instead
> I'm just taking notes on my current musical experience without trying
> to think too much about which cable it is. I ask that my assistant
do
> four trials, hooking up the cables in the order ABAB, ABBA, BABA, or
> BAAB. This means that I'm getting a good sense of contrast through
the
> four trials--at least twice the cable switches to the other one. My
> job after the four trials is to guess whether the middle two were the
> same or different.

This protocol doesn't make a lot of sense, actually. What you are doing
is a standard same-different test, with two extra segments that are
useless (since you already know they are different from the segments
adjacent to them). I would suggest instead that you simply do a
same-different test, AA or AB (you could alternate or randomize which
cable is A), and allow yourself to listen more than once to each. This
should improve the sensitivity of your test.

One thing that's very important in a same-different test, by the way,
is that you have an equal number of same and different trials. That's
another reason you need to decide on the number of trials in advance.

> I've done twelve trials overall, but in two separate periods with
> vastly different equipment and setup. 4/4 in the first set, and 5/8
in
> the second set.
>
> "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because
> they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right next"
> (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one.

And yet you described your test above as giving you "a good sense of
contrast." You are playing with words here. Contrast is exactly what we
are trying to determine.

> 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!

> After all, if a piece of audio equipment is beautiful-sounding, (or a
> violin is, or a piano is, or a string quartet is), then it sounds
> beautiful "on its own." You don't need to put it right next to
> something else to be able to hear the beauty. Likewise, if a piece
of
> audio equipment has some sort of character--if it is either ugly or
> beautiful--it should sound that way after you've settled in with it.
> It shouldn't be necessary to compare the sound to something else to
> determine this, and it fact I think that contrast tests obscure
> differences because they prevent the listener from settling in and
> hearing a piece of music, over its natural span of time, hearing it
as
> actual *music*.

Such is your hypothesis. All available evidence suggests you are wrong,
but if you think otherwise you should definitely test it.

bob
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure myself about high-end cables. I tend to doubt they do
> > anything. However, a few years ago I listened carefully and
thought
> > they were doing something. Was I imagining this? I did an
informal
> > blind test with the help of a friend, which involved several five
> > minute listening sessions to cables. Every four sessions was
either
> > ABAB or ABBA, unknown to me. We did 16 sessions which gave me four
> > chances to guess the order ABAB or ABBA. I guessed right all four
> > times. Not only that, but I was quite confident that I knew what I
> was
> > hearing.
> >
> > But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I
> had
> > another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials.
This
> > time I got five right and three wrong,
>
> Ah, then your earlier assertion that you'd gotten 9 out of 12 correct
> was statistically irrelevant. You cannot just add up the results of
> different tests as you go along. You generally need to decide in
> advance how many trials you are going to do (and how many correct you
> are shooting for).
>
> Besides, you described this as "a similar test." If it was not exacly
> the same test--same cables, system, room, protocol--there would be no
> comparison at all between the two.

Look, I never claimed I had achieved anything that was statiscally
sound, nor was my earlier assertion submitted to a peer-reviewed
refereed journal. I'm an interested as you in doing this test
properly, and I certainly plan to do as you say, decide the number of
trials in advance. I was simply suggesting that I thought it was worth
continuing the exploration. However, I still don't have an assistant
so it will have to wait until someone wants to help. (I can't find any
audiophile clubs in LA... anyone know of one?)

>
> > which isn't very promising.
> > Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew
> which
> > cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong
> > expectation bias can be.
>
> Yeah, ain't it the truth.

Yes, and let me say that I think expectation bias exists alongside real
differences in cables--or at least that's my hypothesis. So the test
has to be carefully designed. And in the end I might just think that
cables aren't worth it, if they can only be heard under highly
specialized conditions.

>
> > But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial
> involved
> > four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or
> six
> > hours of real time to get through all that.
>
> I would think fatigue would make you less confident about what you
were
> hearing, not more, but it's possible. Next time, don't try to do it
all
> in a single day.

To me, fatigue makes it harder to be in touch with my reaction to
music. Easier to imagine something.

>
> > So I want to do some more tests.
>
> Some questions:
> --what cables (and length)?
> --what system?
> --did you level-match, and how?
> --did you also try doing a quick-switching test for comparison?
>
> bob

Cables: 2M Radio Shack basic gold plated vs. the cheapest Transparent
cable (the one with no network boxes), also two meters.

Marantz CD player into Calfornia Audio Labs tube DAC into SP-6
preamplifier into B&K EX442 power amp into headphones. (Yes I'm using
a 200 wpc power amplifier to drive 600 ohm headphones - it sounded okay
to me). The cable between preamplifier and power amplifier was
swapped.

However, when I do this again I think I'm going to skip the
preamplifier and run the DAC straight into Antique Sound Lab tube
headphone amplifer.

I didn't level match but I was assuming that 2M of bare interconnect
cable doesn't have much effect, espcially into a 100 KOhm load (the
next test). That could be a flawed assumption.

Haven't tried a quick-switching test with this setup, although if I can
find any audiophiles in LA who can loan me an ABX box I'll try it.

Best,
Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > As a kind of similar point, I've also thought that the kind of
quick
> > switch test that switches *while the music is in progress* is
> nonsense.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. But there is good scientific
evidence
> that you are wrong.
>
> > The idea is that you are supposed to tell if you hear a change
right
> > at the moment you switch--well of course you hear a change, because
> the
> > music itself is changing!
>
> A case for using minimalist drone in DBTs.

Well what do you think the truth is? Do you think that it doesn't
matter that you use a changing signal during a quick switch test? Why
not?

>
> > To clarify my intended protocol (and the same one I've used in past
> > tests) : I listen for about five minutes to each cable, enough time
> to
> > settle in and hear it at music. I don't try to compare cables
> > directly--I'm not comparing "what I hear now" to my memory--but
> instead
> > I'm just taking notes on my current musical experience without
trying
> > to think too much about which cable it is. I ask that my assistant
> do
> > four trials, hooking up the cables in the order ABAB, ABBA, BABA,
or
> > BAAB. This means that I'm getting a good sense of contrast through
> the
> > four trials--at least twice the cable switches to the other one.
My
> > job after the four trials is to guess whether the middle two were
the
> > same or different.
>
> This protocol doesn't make a lot of sense, actually. What you are
doing
> is a standard same-different test, with two extra segments that are
> useless (since you already know they are different from the segments
> adjacent to them). I would suggest instead that you simply do a
> same-different test, AA or AB (you could alternate or randomize which
> cable is A), and allow yourself to listen more than once to each.
This
> should improve the sensitivity of your test.
>
> One thing that's very important in a same-different test, by the way,
> is that you have an equal number of same and different trials. That's
> another reason you need to decide on the number of trials in advance.

Okay, you might be right.

>
> > I've done twelve trials overall, but in two separate periods with
> > vastly different equipment and setup. 4/4 in the first set, and
5/8
> in
> > the second set.
> >
> > "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because
> > they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right
next"
> > (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one.
>
> And yet you described your test above as giving you "a good sense of
> contrast." You are playing with words here. Contrast is exactly what
we
> are trying to determine.

Not playing with words, Bob. I just didn't word this carefully.
Actually these concepts I'm trying to describe are pretty deep. That's
one thing I've noticed about "objectivists" like you--the world is much
more black-and-white to you. If you find an apparent contradiction in
my words, you assume that's a flaw to the core, instead of thinking
carefully about what I might mean.

One possible way to describe this is "conscious contrast" versus
"unconscious contrast." A quick-switch test uses conscious
contrast--the listener is actually trying to hear a difference, or even
if not, they can't escape noticing the moment of switch. I was
attempting to introduce unconscious contrast. That is, I was listening
by noting what I heard, taking each experience on its own--so no
emphasis on contrast in the listening. But I still wanted to have a
test that varied the conditions frequently, to "clear the palete" as it
were. There was no need for me to focus on changes, but let them work
in the background to change what came to my attention.

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. 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.

>
> > After all, if a piece of audio equipment is beautiful-sounding, (or
a
> > violin is, or a piano is, or a string quartet is), then it sounds
> > beautiful "on its own." You don't need to put it right next to
> > something else to be able to hear the beauty. Likewise, if a piece
> of
> > audio equipment has some sort of character--if it is either ugly or
> > beautiful--it should sound that way after you've settled in with
it.
> > It shouldn't be necessary to compare the sound to something else to
> > determine this, and it fact I think that contrast tests obscure
> > differences because they prevent the listener from settling in and
> > hearing a piece of music, over its natural span of time, hearing it
> as
> > actual *music*.
>
> Such is your hypothesis. All available evidence suggests you are
wrong,

Wow, pretty damning statement there.

> but if you think otherwise you should definitely test it.

Yup, we have to have objective evidence one way or another, I'll agree
with that.

-Mike

>
> bob

Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I was trying to have a balanced variety of conditions. But as Bob
says, it may be better to do a same/different test.

-Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi Norman,

You are speaking right to the dilemma. We want to test as a way of
learning what's true. What equipment brings maximum enjoyment? We
want objective evidence of that. But testing is usually an unnatural
environment. I'm trying to find a way to reconcile this. The
"objectivists" on rahe as far as I can see don't attempt to reconcile
it at all.

-Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Mossey wrote:

> > > "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests"
because
> > > they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right
> next"
> > > (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one.
> >
> > And yet you described your test above as giving you "a good sense
of
> > contrast." You are playing with words here. Contrast is exactly
what
> we
> > are trying to determine.
>
> Not playing with words, Bob. I just didn't word this carefully.
> Actually these concepts I'm trying to describe are pretty deep.
That's
> one thing I've noticed about "objectivists" like you--the world is
much
> more black-and-white to you.

Only parts of it, and we are careful to keep the discrete and the
continuous separate. I am suggesting that you are failing to do this,
and that your fuzzy language was symptomatic of that.

> If you find an apparent contradiction in
> my words, you assume that's a flaw to the core, instead of thinking
> carefully about what I might mean.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean. It's a concept that's been batted
around here before. I just think you're wrong.
>
> One possible way to describe this is "conscious contrast" versus
> "unconscious contrast." A quick-switch test uses conscious
> contrast--the listener is actually trying to hear a difference, or
even
> if not, they can't escape noticing the moment of switch. I was
> attempting to introduce unconscious contrast. That is, I was
listening
> by noting what I heard, taking each experience on its own--so no
> emphasis on contrast in the listening. But I still wanted to have a
> test that varied the conditions frequently, to "clear the palete" as
it
> were. There was no need for me to focus on changes, but let them
work
> in the background to change what came to my attention.

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.

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.
>
> 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.

> 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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Hi Norman,
>
> You are speaking right to the dilemma. We want to test as a way of
> learning what's true. What equipment brings maximum enjoyment? We
> want objective evidence of that. But testing is usually an unnatural
> environment. I'm trying to find a way to reconcile this. The
> "objectivists" on rahe as far as I can see don't attempt to reconcile
> it at all.

That's because we see this as two separate questions, with detection of
differences coming first. After all, if your ears can't deliver
different signals to your brain, there's no way for you to have
different levels of musical enjoyment, right?

It's your hyothesis that our ears really are delivering different
signals to our brain, but that if we try to focus consciously on those
differences, we won't detect them. Whereas if we focus instead on our
enjoyment of the music, we will become conscious of a difference.

I said in another post that the evidence is stacked up against you. It
is. The evidence suggests that ABX tests and similar DBTs are capable
of identifying sonic differences very close to the physical limits of
what the ear can detect. The evidence further suggests that the kinds
of differences that interconnects, say, can be responsible for are ones
for which we have a very short memory, so your protocol is likely to be
less sensitive than a quick-switch test.

But that's the existing evidence. You are welcome to throw new evidence
on the table, and you have my respect for your willingness to do so.

bob
 
G

Guest

Guest
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