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

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d25hfd0sb0@news4.newsguy.com...
> 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.

Since testing is an unnatural act, the results of any test are suspect as
far as the body of subjectivist audiophiles is concerned. Ideally then, one
has to come up with a test protocol wherein the subject does not know he's
being tested. Then objection is that the subject is not 'on his mettle',
and the results can't really be trusted. As you can easily see, there is a
valid objection to both approaches, such that it's impossible to draw any
conclusions.

I'm giving the matter some thought, and I hope to eventually think of a way
to obtain useful objective results that will be acceptable to both sides of
the argument. So far, it seems that every proposal has some sort of
drawback that makes it invalid to either the subjectivists or the
objectivists--usually both!

Cheers,

Norm

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

> 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?

One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to
interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds, the
sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that the
only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify
sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would
remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental
reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis.

One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source
material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to
music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is
highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when
hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to
music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds
and transmitting them to the brain. And another thing we know from
experiments that have been done already is that people are better at
identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than
music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music
actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably
better explanations for this).

A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT
differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity
likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might be
responsible for?

bob

 

[Guest]

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to
> interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds,
the
> sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that
the
> only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify
> sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would
> remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental
> reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis.

It seems perfectly consistent to me that putting a gap in a
quick-switching test decreases sensitivity, if the subject is still
trying to hear differences in sound (as opposed to registering musical
impressions).


>
> One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source
> material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to
> music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is
> highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when
> hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to
> music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds
> and transmitting them to the brain.

Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum have always
maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently in
hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how would
you know if that were true? Wouldn't that require listening tests that
could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of listening
modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"? Have these
tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode be
controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult problem--has
someone solved it?)?


> And another thing we know from
> experiments that have been done already is that people are better at
> identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than
> music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music
> actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably
> better explanations for this).

What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response differences are
audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something like
jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so much
jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be heard
first on signals with transients?

>
> A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT
> differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity
> likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might
be
> responsible for?
>
> bob

I agree, I was not able to perfectly control my mental reactions to
music. As you mention, hearing something twice affects this. Instead
of hearing it as "two" clips of music, I hear it as one piece of music
that happens to repeat some details; and the second repetition has
different musical feeling than the first. Just by observing my own
experience, I've noted that listening to a piece of music all the way
through, then clearing the pallete with other pieces of music, then
taking a break, and only then listening again, seems to replicate my
musical reaction better. Perhaps I will be successful in reducing the
variation in reactions to music below the threshold of difference
between cables. Note that audiophiles say cables are *vastly*
different; I think that's probably an exaggeration, but if there is any
truth to the idea that a cable really matters to the musical
perception, it should show up in my listening.

Best,
Mike

 

[Guest]

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

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d2aea30u6s@news2.newsguy.com...
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to
> interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds, the
> sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that the
> only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify
> sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would
> remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental
> reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis.
>
> One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source
> material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to
> music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is
> highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when
> hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to
> music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds
> and transmitting them to the brain. And another thing we know from
> experiments that have been done already is that people are better at
> identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than
> music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music
> actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably
> better explanations for this).
>
> A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT
> differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity
> likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might be
> responsible for?

This is a reasonable argument. If the source is white or pink noise, it
might be easier to detect a very slight difference. If you can tell the
difference between interconnects using noise as a source, but not music,
then I would say you can tell the difference---period.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Mossey wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test
to
> > interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds,
> the
> > sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that
> the
> > only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously
identify
> > sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would
> > remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental
> > reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis.
>
> It seems perfectly consistent to me that putting a gap in a
> quick-switching test decreases sensitivity, if the subject is still
> trying to hear differences in sound (as opposed to registering
musical
> impressions).

"Putting a gap in a quick-switching test" is an oxymoron. The point is
that any gap, in any listening comparison, will reduce sensitivity. And
there is no reason other than pure faith to believe that your listening
comparison will be any different.

> > One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source
> > material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to
> > music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is
> > highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when
> > hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to
> > music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up
sounds
> > and transmitting them to the brain.
>
> Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum

For the record, I am neither.

> have always
> maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently in
> hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how
would
> you know if that were true?

You mean, besides sheer common sense and the absolute lack of
countervailing evidence?

> Wouldn't that require listening tests that
> could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of listening
> modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"?

Your ear does not "enjoy music." It only reacts to rapid changes in air
pressure. That's how we know that it doesn't operate differently.

> Have these
> tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode be
> controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult
problem--has
> someone solved it?)?

Have you ever actually cracked a textbook on psychoacoustics? You
certainly seem to be interested enough in the subject. You would be
amazed at what has actually been tested--and what has been eliminated
as a realistic possibility as a result of those tests.

> > And another thing we know from
> > experiments that have been done already is that people are better
at
> > identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than
> > music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music
> > actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably
> > better explanations for this).
>
> What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response differences
are
> audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something
like
> jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so
much
> jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be heard
> first on signals with transients?

We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you offer any
physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything other
than frequency response?
>
> >
> > A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT
> > differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of
familiarity
> > likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect
might
> be
> > responsible for?
> >
> > bob
>
> I agree, I was not able to perfectly control my mental reactions to
> music. As you mention, hearing something twice affects this.
Instead
> of hearing it as "two" clips of music, I hear it as one piece of
music
> that happens to repeat some details; and the second repetition has
> different musical feeling than the first. Just by observing my own
> experience, I've noted that listening to a piece of music all the way
> through, then clearing the pallete with other pieces of music, then
> taking a break, and only then listening again, seems to replicate my
> musical reaction better. Perhaps I will be successful in reducing
the
> variation in reactions to music below the threshold of difference
> between cables. Note that audiophiles say cables are *vastly*
> different; I think that's probably an exaggeration, but if there is
any
> truth to the idea that a cable really matters to the musical
> perception, it should show up in my listening.

I'm fairly certain the opposite is true: That we can find cables that
would be differentiable in a standard quick-switching DBT, but not by
your method. But I'm not willing to test that assertion, because I
seriously doubt your method could differentiate anything that wasn't
physically broken.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d205od0cd6@news3.newsguy.com...
> 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.

If, after all this time, you are not really sure, is it really worth the
effort?
I would think that straining that hard to detect some minor difference
between cables (even if it exists) would detract from simply enjoying
the music.

- Gary Rosen

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2cshv0v4i@news1.newsguy.com...
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Mossey wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to
> > interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds,
> the
> > sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that
> the
> > only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify
> > sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would
> > remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental
> > reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis.
>
> It seems perfectly consistent to me that putting a gap in a
> quick-switching test decreases sensitivity, if the subject is still
> trying to hear differences in sound (as opposed to registering musical
> impressions).
>

Absolutely right, and IMO there is a difference and it gets to the crux of
the matter.

>
> >
> > One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source
> > material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to
> > music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is
> > highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when
> > hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to
> > music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds
> > and transmitting them to the brain.
>
> Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum have always
> maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently in
> hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how would
> you know if that were true? Wouldn't that require listening tests that
> could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of listening
> modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"? Have these
> tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode be
> controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult problem--has
> someone solved it?)?
>

I've thoroughly enjoyed your articulate and persuasive presentation for the
case for thoughtful evaluation of quick-switch testing. You have presented
it more powerfully than I was able to in a long, long thread here about a
year ago. And in particular, I argued the case for a control test which --
no -- had not been done to get at the possibility you reference. It is why
I and ohters have avoided concluding that because a quick switch blind test
shows no difference, there is no musical difference. And why we continue
to do other forms of critical listening in making our own listening
discisions.

BTW, I proposed a specific test protocol to get at the control issue, and
tried to solicit interest within the group in joining together to put this
issue to rest. It was met with little enthusiasm by the objectivists here.


>
> > And another thing we know from
> > experiments that have been done already is that people are better at
> > identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than
> > music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music
> > actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably
> > better explanations for this).
>
> What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response differences are
> audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something like
> jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so much
> jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be heard
> first on signals with transients?
>

I cut a test high-speed disk copy of some Brubeck today, while configuring a
computer. Just for fun...never tried to record at 52X before. Then for
even more fun, thew it on the main system. My ears bled. Then realized I
had copied MP3 files (albeit 196k) and in combination with the high speed
cutting it was disasterous on the piano transients and sharp breathing on
the sax (don't know which was the culprit but I intend to reburn same media
at 4x to find out).

> >
> > A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT
> > differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity
> > likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might
> be
> > responsible for?
> >
> > bob
>
> I agree, I was not able to perfectly control my mental reactions to
> music. As you mention, hearing something twice affects this. Instead
> of hearing it as "two" clips of music, I hear it as one piece of music
> that happens to repeat some details; and the second repetition has
> different musical feeling than the first. Just by observing my own
> experience, I've noted that listening to a piece of music all the way
> through, then clearing the pallete with other pieces of music, then
> taking a break, and only then listening again, seems to replicate my
> musical reaction better. Perhaps I will be successful in reducing the
> variation in reactions to music below the threshold of difference
> between cables. Note that audiophiles say cables are *vastly*
> different; I think that's probably an exaggeration, but if there is any
> truth to the idea that a cable really matters to the musical
> perception, it should show up in my listening.

Right on. If you think the above repetition is polluting, just consider
what constant switching does to our ability to hear nuances in musical
reproduction (which is not sound, but is a subjective interpretation by the
brain).

 

[Guest]

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> > Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum
>
> For the record, I am neither.
>
> > have always
> > maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently
in
> > hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how
> would
> > you know if that were true?
>
> You mean, besides sheer common sense and the absolute lack of
> countervailing evidence?

You are dodging the question. First of all, I'm sure you will be the
first to agree that "common sense" can be wrong. Secondly, my own
common sense tells me that quick-switching obscures differences. And
thirdly, you are dodging my question which is to ask about the current
evidence: was it gathered in a way that accounts for a different "mode
of hearing," or a way that could rule this out? And given that this is
such a difficult problem (akin to understanding consciousness) how was
it solved?

>
> > Wouldn't that require listening tests that
> > could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of
listening
> > modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"?
>
> Your ear does not "enjoy music." It only reacts to rapid changes in
air
> pressure. That's how we know that it doesn't operate differently.

You are taking a highly reductionist approach. There is much more I
could learn about psychoacoustics and neurology, I admit that. And if
I find some time between my other four hobbies I will check out a book
on psychoacoustics from the library. (I have an account at the Caltech
library.) But I'm suspicious of a reductionist approach, especially
its ability to rule out possibilities.

>
> > Have these
> > tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode
be
> > controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult
> problem--has
> > someone solved it?)?
>
> Have you ever actually cracked a textbook on psychoacoustics? You
> certainly seem to be interested enough in the subject. You would be
> amazed at what has actually been tested--and what has been eliminated
> as a realistic possibility as a result of those tests.
>
> > > And another thing we know from
> > > experiments that have been done already is that people are better
> at
> > > identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than
> > > music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music
> > > actually obscures differences (though there are other and
probably
> > > better explanations for this).
> >
> > What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response differences
> are
> > audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something
> like
> > jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so
> much
> > jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be
heard
> > first on signals with transients?
>
> We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you offer
any
> physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything
other
> than frequency response?

Well I'm addressing your argument that the results of pink noise
suggest it is better than music as a test stimulus. I'm asking "for
what effects?" I'm interested in all of audio, not just interconnects.
In fact the effects of amplifiers and recorders are probably more
interesting to me than interconnects.

The argument that interconnects could only affect frequency response is
reductionist. That's its weakness.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

"Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d2fl8g016ir@news1.newsguy.com...

> Right on. If you think the above repetition is polluting, just consider
> what constant switching does to our ability to hear nuances in musical
> reproduction (which is not sound, but is a subjective interpretation by
the
> brain).

If "nuances in musical reproduction" are heard by "... a subjective
interpretation by the brain", then how do you know whether any differences
perceived are due to differences in the source material, rather than
changes in the subject's mood, health, internal distractions etc.?

- Gary Rosen

 

[Guest]

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

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d2cshv0v4i@news1.newsguy.com...
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching
test to
> > > interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few
seconds,
> > the
> > > sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible
that
> > the
> > > only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously
identify
> > > sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference
would
> > > remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental
> > > reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis.
> >
> > It seems perfectly consistent to me that putting a gap in a
> > quick-switching test decreases sensitivity, if the subject is still
> > trying to hear differences in sound (as opposed to registering
musical
> > impressions).
> >
>
> Absolutely right, and IMO there is a difference and it gets to the
crux of
> the matter.
>
> >
> > >
> > > One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source
> > > material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction
to
> > > music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it
is
> > > highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently
when
> > > hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions
to
> > > music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up
sounds
> > > and transmitting them to the brain.
> >
> > Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum have
always
> > maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently
in
> > hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how
would
> > you know if that were true? Wouldn't that require listening tests
that
> > could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of
listening
> > modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"? Have
these
> > tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode
be
> > controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult
problem--has
> > someone solved it?)?
> >
>
> I've thoroughly enjoyed your articulate and persuasive presentation
for the
> case for thoughtful evaluation of quick-switch testing. You have
presented
> it more powerfully than I was able to in a long, long thread here
about a
> year ago. And in particular, I argued the case for a control test
which --
> no -- had not been done to get at the possibility you reference. It
is why
> I and ohters have avoided concluding that because a quick switch
blind test
> shows no difference, there is no musical difference. And why we
continue
> to do other forms of critical listening in making our own listening
> discisions.
>
> BTW, I proposed a specific test protocol to get at the control issue,
and
> tried to solicit interest within the group in joining together to put
this
> issue to rest. It was met with little enthusiasm by the objectivists
here.
>

Thanks for your comments. Even though I haven't posted here much
before, I've been thinking about these issues ever since I was a
freshman at Caltech in 1987. Not much has changed in the arguments put
forth by the objectivists; I remember the old "tubes are better" / "no,
you just like the sound of the distortion" going on in exactly the same
form back then, among students at Caltech. I've learned a lot about
mindfulness, musicianship, the philosophy of science, and so on that
bears on this question in the years since then. I think we need
evidence and as this is not my career I don't really have the
opportunity to investigate this; my main point here is that the
"objectivist" position has problems, I think best summed up by saying
that it is a reductionist view. This is not to say I know it's wrong;
just to say that I can believe it would mislead.

Best,
Mike

 

[Guest]

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

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d2i5iv01rl8@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:d2fl8g016ir@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> > Right on. If you think the above repetition is polluting, just consider
> > what constant switching does to our ability to hear nuances in musical
> > reproduction (which is not sound, but is a subjective interpretation by
> the
> > brain).
>
> If "nuances in musical reproduction" are heard by "... a subjective
> interpretation by the brain", then how do you know whether any differences
> perceived are due to differences in the source material, rather than
> changes in the subject's mood, health, internal distractions etc.?
>
> - Gary Rosen
>

That's why truly evaluative listening must be done over time, under varying
(and hopefuully relaxed) conditions. And why several independent
observations are better than just one persons, as that helps separate out
reality.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > > Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum
> >
> > For the record, I am neither.
> >
> > > have always
> > > maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently
> in
> > > hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how
> > would
> > > you know if that were true?
> >
> > You mean, besides sheer common sense and the absolute lack of
> > countervailing evidence?
>
> You are dodging the question. First of all, I'm sure you will be the
> first to agree that "common sense" can be wrong.

As you are about to demonstrate...

> Secondly, my own
> common sense tells me that quick-switching obscures differences.

That is because your common sense is ill-informed. The common sense of
someone who was at least passingly familiar with the psychoacoustics
literature would be very different.

> And
> thirdly, you are dodging my question which is to ask about the
current
> evidence: was it gathered in a way that accounts for a different
"mode
> of hearing," or a way that could rule this out? And given that this
is
> such a difficult problem (akin to understanding consciousness) how
was
> it solved?

It is your unproven assumption that there is even such a thing as
"different modes of hearing." Nothing we know about hearing perception
suggests that we *hear* music differently than we hear anything else.
(And yes, there have been plenty of psychoacoustics experiments dealing
with music. There are whole textbooks on the subject.)
>
> >
> > > Wouldn't that require listening tests that
> > > could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of
> listening
> > > modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"?
> >
> > Your ear does not "enjoy music." It only reacts to rapid changes in
> air
> > pressure. That's how we know that it doesn't operate differently.
>
> You are taking a highly reductionist approach.

Reductionism is only wrong if it leaves something out. What have I left
out about the operation of the ear?

> There is much more I
> could learn about psychoacoustics and neurology, I admit that. And
if
> I find some time between my other four hobbies I will check out a
book
> on psychoacoustics from the library. (I have an account at the
Caltech
> library.) But I'm suspicious of a reductionist approach, especially
> its ability to rule out possibilities.
>
> >
> > > Have these
> > > tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode
> be
> > > controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult
> > problem--has
> > > someone solved it?)?
> >
> > Have you ever actually cracked a textbook on psychoacoustics? You
> > certainly seem to be interested enough in the subject. You would be
> > amazed at what has actually been tested--and what has been
eliminated
> > as a realistic possibility as a result of those tests.
> >
> > > > And another thing we know from
> > > > experiments that have been done already is that people are
better
> > at
> > > > identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise
than
> > > > music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to
music
> > > > actually obscures differences (though there are other and
> probably
> > > > better explanations for this).
> > >
> > > What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response
differences
> > are
> > > audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something
> > like
> > > jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so
> > much
> > > jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be
> heard
> > > first on signals with transients?
> >
> > We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you offer
> any
> > physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything
> other
> > than frequency response?
>
> Well I'm addressing your argument that the results of pink noise
> suggest it is better than music as a test stimulus. I'm asking "for
> what effects?" I'm interested in all of audio, not just
interconnects.
> In fact the effects of amplifiers and recorders are probably more
> interesting to me than interconnects.
>
> The argument that interconnects could only affect frequency response
is
> reductionist. That's its weakness.

Only if it leaves something out. So I'll ask again, what am I leaving
out? You went to CalTech. I'd be embarrassed to admit in this company
how I fulfilled my science distribution requirement. So you tell me:
What can interconnects do to a signal besides affect freuency response?

bob

 

[Guest]

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

On 1 Apr 2005 00:44:16 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

>> We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you offer any
>> physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything other
>> than frequency response?
>
>Well I'm addressing your argument that the results of pink noise
>suggest it is better than music as a test stimulus. I'm asking "for
>what effects?"

Audible differences of any kind. Incidentally, your 'common sense' is
also at fault regarding quick-switched comparisons. We know this
because, when small differences are deliberately introduced between
signals, the most sensitive technique for discovering those
differences is quick switching DBT. This is not some handwaving
theorising, this is practical results from real listening tests.
That's why big professional organisations such as Harman International
use quick-switch DBTs in their everyday R&D.

> I'm interested in all of audio, not just interconnects.
> In fact the effects of amplifiers and recorders are probably more
>interesting to me than interconnects.
>
>The argument that interconnects could only affect frequency response is
>reductionist. That's its weakness.

You're dodging the question. He did not argue that interconnects can
only affect FR, he asked if *you* could suggest any mechanism for any
other effect. Can you?

BTW, if you could use a few thousand bucks, there's an outstanding
prize for *anyone* who can demonstrate an ability to hear differences
among cables.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 1 Apr 2005 00:52:03 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Even though I haven't posted here much
>before, I've been thinking about these issues ever since I was a
>freshman at Caltech in 1987. Not much has changed in the arguments put
>forth by the objectivists; I remember the old "tubes are better" / "no,
>you just like the sound of the distortion" going on in exactly the same
>form back then, among students at Caltech.

Why would anything have changed? 2+2 is likely to remain 4
indefinitely, and tubes are unlikely to stop generating euphonic
artifacts.

It's the 'subjectivists' who seem to come up with ever more fanciful
theories, but can never provide any real experimental evidence to back
them up.

> I've learned a lot about
>mindfulness, musicianship, the philosophy of science, and so on that
>bears on this question in the years since then. I think we need
>evidence and as this is not my career I don't really have the
>opportunity to investigate this; my main point here is that the
>"objectivist" position has problems, I think best summed up by saying
>that it is a reductionist view. This is not to say I know it's wrong;
>just to say that I can believe it would mislead.

That is mere sophistry. The objectivist position is absolutely *not*
reductionist, it accepts all possibilities. It does however ask that
anyone making an extraordinary claim should acknowledge that *they*
have a responsibility to provide evidence to back that claim. It is
insufficient to claim 'we don't know everything' as a justification
for some wild fancy.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > > > Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum
> > >
> > > For the record, I am neither.
> > >
> > > > have always
> > > > maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work
differently
> > in
> > > > hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again:
how
> > > would
> > > > you know if that were true?
> > >
> > > You mean, besides sheer common sense and the absolute lack of
> > > countervailing evidence?
> >
> > You are dodging the question. First of all, I'm sure you will be
the
> > first to agree that "common sense" can be wrong.
>
> As you are about to demonstrate...
>
> > Secondly, my own
> > common sense tells me that quick-switching obscures differences.
>
> That is because your common sense is ill-informed. The common sense
of
> someone who was at least passingly familiar with the psychoacoustics
> literature would be very different.

I didn't expect you to use the word common sense to describe scientific
knowledge. That's "uncommon" sense in the sense that not many people
have that knowledge, and it is also not based on intuition.

I thought you were referring to the common experience: ask someone to
compare two sounds, and they will want them closer in time to hear the
differences better. Common sense is: feel confused or uncertain? Look
closer, listen closer. That's an intuition or a direct experience. It
needs to be investigated.

I've done a lot of investigating of my musical consciousness, and it
has become obvious to me that I can't be conscious of how a signal
affects me musically when I'm doing quick switching. This is "common
sense" in the sense that it is intuition, but it is also something
highly investigated.

When anyone tells me something, I generally ask (or think to myself)
the question, "How do you know?" I wonder how you know that quick
switching comparisons provide conscious access to all musical aspects
of a signal? You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
experimentation. I say, that's fine, but were the experimentors aware
how different modes of attention affect consciousness? So far, no one
has pointed me to an experiment that shows any attention to this. So I
wonder, how certain is this knowledge that quick-switching provides
complete conscious access to the signal?



>
> > And
> > thirdly, you are dodging my question which is to ask about the
> current
> > evidence: was it gathered in a way that accounts for a different
> "mode
> > of hearing," or a way that could rule this out? And given that
this
> is
> > such a difficult problem (akin to understanding consciousness) how
> was
> > it solved?
>
> It is your unproven assumption that there is even such a thing as
> "different modes of hearing." Nothing we know about hearing
perception
> suggests that we *hear* music differently than we hear anything else.
> (And yes, there have been plenty of psychoacoustics experiments
dealing
> with music. There are whole textbooks on the subject.)

"Different modes of hearing" refers to a very obvious subjective
phenomena. What you consciously experience depends on what you are
paying attention to. Very simple, and I don't see how you can disagree
with that.

So I'm asking, how does the research prove "what you are paying
attention to" doesn't matter? You've come back at me with a lot of
different responses but not an answer to my question. If you don't
want to answer it, that's fine. If you want to refer me to a specific
book, that's fine.


> >
> > >
> > > > Wouldn't that require listening tests that
> > > > could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of
> > listening
> > > > modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"?
> > >
> > > Your ear does not "enjoy music." It only reacts to rapid changes
in
> > air
> > > pressure. That's how we know that it doesn't operate differently.
> >
> > You are taking a highly reductionist approach.
>
> Reductionism is only wrong if it leaves something out. What have I
left
> out about the operation of the ear?

Reductionism in this sense is reducing something to components and
making irrelevant their interaction. You separated "enjoyment" (which
takes place across a large section of the brain) from "hearing" (which
I assume you mean refers to the physical ear and perhaps the auditory
cortex). In essense, you are saying the ear "doesn't operate
differently" because you have reduced it to a model in which there is
no connection between ear and consciousness.

>
> > There is much more I
> > could learn about psychoacoustics and neurology, I admit that. And
> if
> > I find some time between my other four hobbies I will check out a
> book
> > on psychoacoustics from the library. (I have an account at the
> Caltech
> > library.) But I'm suspicious of a reductionist approach,
especially
> > its ability to rule out possibilities.
> >
> > >
> > > > Have these
> > > > tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening
mode
> > be
> > > > controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult
> > > problem--has
> > > > someone solved it?)?
> > >
> > > Have you ever actually cracked a textbook on psychoacoustics? You
> > > certainly seem to be interested enough in the subject. You would
be
> > > amazed at what has actually been tested--and what has been
> eliminated
> > > as a realistic possibility as a result of those tests.
> > >
> > > > > And another thing we know from
> > > > > experiments that have been done already is that people are
> better
> > > at
> > > > > identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise
> than
> > > > > music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to
> music
> > > > > actually obscures differences (though there are other and
> > probably
> > > > > better explanations for this).
> > > >
> > > > What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response
> differences
> > > are
> > > > audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about
something
> > > like
> > > > jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with
so
> > > much
> > > > jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be
> > heard
> > > > first on signals with transients?
> > >
> > > We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you
offer
> > any
> > > physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything
> > other
> > > than frequency response?
> >
> > Well I'm addressing your argument that the results of pink noise
> > suggest it is better than music as a test stimulus. I'm asking
"for
> > what effects?" I'm interested in all of audio, not just
> interconnects.
> > In fact the effects of amplifiers and recorders are probably more
> > interesting to me than interconnects.
> >
> > The argument that interconnects could only affect frequency
response
> is
> > reductionist. That's its weakness.
>
> Only if it leaves something out. So I'll ask again, what am I leaving
> out? You went to CalTech. I'd be embarrassed to admit in this company
> how I fulfilled my science distribution requirement. So you tell me:
> What can interconnects do to a signal besides affect freuency
response?
>
> bob

To hypothesize that interconnects make an audible difference, all I
have to know is that they are part of the system. Anything that's a
part of a system can interact with the rest of the system.

The answer to your question is, I don't know. If my listening tests
demonstrate interconnects make a difference, the next step would be to
investigate why. I wouldn't go into that step assuming that frequency
response is the difference, but I would try to be open to any
possibility.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

> I wonder how you know that quick
> switching comparisons provide conscious access to all musical aspects
> of a signal? You would say you know it from evidence gathered
through
> experimentation. I say, that's fine, but were the experimentors
aware
> how different modes of attention affect consciousness? So far, no
one
> has pointed me to an experiment that shows any attention to this. So
I
> wonder, how certain is this knowledge that quick-switching provides
> complete conscious access to the signal?

"Complete conscious access to the signal" depends, first, on the
ability of our ears and nervous system to deliver that signal to our
brain. There are real, physical, limits to what our ears can detect,
and we know that standard DBTs can get pretty close to those limits.

<snip>

> "Different modes of hearing" refers to a very obvious subjective
> phenomena. What you consciously experience depends on what you are
> paying attention to. Very simple, and I don't see how you can
disagree
> with that.
>
> So I'm asking, how does the research prove "what you are paying
> attention to" doesn't matter?

We don't really know what listening test subjects are paying attention
to. Seriously. All we know is that they can or cannot consistently
identify the difference between two things. (In fact, in a properly
designed ABX test, you could do exactly the test you described
earlier.) So far, no one has been able to show that they can hear
differences better by not using quick-switching comparisons. You could
be the first. But if you'll familiarize yourself a bit with the
psychoacoustics lioterature, you'll understand why some of us are
betting against you.

<snip>

> Reductionism in this sense is reducing something to components and
> making irrelevant their interaction. You separated "enjoyment"
(which
> takes place across a large section of the brain) from "hearing"
(which
> I assume you mean refers to the physical ear and perhaps the auditory
> cortex). In essense, you are saying the ear "doesn't operate
> differently" because you have reduced it to a model in which there is
> no connection between ear and consciousness.

I've done no such thing. All I've done is argued for priority. You have
to "hear" before you "enjoy." If you think otherwise, you have a very
strange notion of anatomy.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

I'm going to the Caltech library this afternoon to get a book on
pyschoacoustics. I imagine it won't tell me much about how this
information was derived from experiment but it will probably just
present the information. Nonetheless, it will be a start.

I agree that if you can't hear it, then you can't be consciously aware
of it.

My point is something like this: if you can't be consciously aware of
it, then you can't know if you can hear it.

My experience of consciousness, and I think the scientific evidence
backs me up in this, is that consciousness doesn't represent a
projection that contains all the information in the sensory input, but
picks and chooses among the available sensory information, and
*constructs* an experience based on an internal model.

There's a famous experiment in which subjects fail to see a
gorilla-suited man walk through a basketball game, when the subjects
are asked to focus on the ball. You cannot conclude from this
experiment that the eye can't see a gorilla. You CAN conclude that the
mode of attention blocked it from consciousness.

So, I'm not trying to argue with you: this is an honest question: how
does the research to determine what we "hear" separate that stage from
consciousness? How do you determine what you can hear in a way that
doesn't need to account for how consciousness is formed from that
signal? Brain implants in the auditory cortex?

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2005 00:52:03 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Even though I haven't posted here much
> >before, I've been thinking about these issues ever since I was a
> >freshman at Caltech in 1987. Not much has changed in the arguments
put
> >forth by the objectivists; I remember the old "tubes are better" /
"no,
> >you just like the sound of the distortion" going on in exactly the
same
> >form back then, among students at Caltech.
>
> Why would anything have changed? 2+2 is likely to remain 4
> indefinitely, and tubes are unlikely to stop generating euphonic
> artifacts.
>
> It's the 'subjectivists' who seem to come up with ever more fanciful
> theories, but can never provide any real experimental evidence to
back
> them up.
>
> > I've learned a lot about
> >mindfulness, musicianship, the philosophy of science, and so on that
> >bears on this question in the years since then. I think we need
> >evidence and as this is not my career I don't really have the
> >opportunity to investigate this; my main point here is that the
> >"objectivist" position has problems, I think best summed up by
saying
> >that it is a reductionist view. This is not to say I know it's
wrong;
> >just to say that I can believe it would mislead.
>
> That is mere sophistry. The objectivist position is absolutely *not*
> reductionist, it accepts all possibilities.

I thought that science can never test *all* possibilities. I don't
mean to say this is valid reasoning to tear down any point of view we
disagree with. I think this is nonetheless quite a significant
difference between us, if you think that science can test *all*
possibilities.



> It does however ask that
> anyone making an extraordinary claim should acknowledge that *they*
> have a responsibility to provide evidence to back that claim. It is
> insufficient to claim 'we don't know everything' as a justification
> for some wild fancy.

I agree. However, notice that I don't think my hypotheses are "wild
fancy." I don't think it is wild fancy to suggest that choice of
attention can affect what we're conscious of. If I cannot find any
evidence for this position, I will eventually abandon it.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

> So, I'm not trying to argue with you: this is an honest question: how
> does the research to determine what we "hear" separate that stage
from
> consciousness? How do you determine what you can hear in a way that
> doesn't need to account for how consciousness is formed from that
> signal? Brain implants in the auditory cortex?

Not sure I'm getting you here. Everything we're talking about is
conscious. You can't do what audiophiles claim to do--notice a sonic
difference between A and B--any way but consciously. You listen to
Cable A for 5 minutes, then Cable X for 5 minutes, then you decide
whether your emotional response to the two selections is sufficiently
similar to determine that X is or is not A. You aren't separating
"hearing" from "consciousness." So why is this an issue?

bob

 

[Guest]

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > I wonder how you know that quick
> > switching comparisons provide conscious access to all musical
aspects
> > of a signal? You would say you know it from evidence gathered
> through
> > experimentation. I say, that's fine, but were the experimentors
> aware
> > how different modes of attention affect consciousness? So far, no
> one
> > has pointed me to an experiment that shows any attention to this.
So
> I
> > wonder, how certain is this knowledge that quick-switching provides
> > complete conscious access to the signal?
>
> "Complete conscious access to the signal" depends, first, on the
> ability of our ears and nervous system to deliver that signal to our
> brain. There are real, physical, limits to what our ears can detect,
> and we know that standard DBTs can get pretty close to those limits.
>
> <snip>
>
> > "Different modes of hearing" refers to a very obvious subjective
> > phenomena. What you consciously experience depends on what you are
> > paying attention to. Very simple, and I don't see how you can
> disagree
> > with that.
> >
> > So I'm asking, how does the research prove "what you are paying
> > attention to" doesn't matter?
>
> We don't really know what listening test subjects are paying
attention
> to. Seriously. All we know is that they can or cannot consistently
> identify the difference between two things. (In fact, in a properly
> designed ABX test, you could do exactly the test you described
> earlier.) So far, no one has been able to show that they can hear
> differences better by not using quick-switching comparisons. You
could
> be the first. But if you'll familiarize yourself a bit with the
> psychoacoustics lioterature, you'll understand why some of us are
> betting against you.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Reductionism in this sense is reducing something to components and
> > making irrelevant their interaction. You separated "enjoyment"
> (which
> > takes place across a large section of the brain) from "hearing"
> (which
> > I assume you mean refers to the physical ear and perhaps the
auditory
> > cortex). In essense, you are saying the ear "doesn't operate
> > differently" because you have reduced it to a model in which there
is
> > no connection between ear and consciousness.
>
> I've done no such thing. All I've done is argued for priority. You
have
> to "hear" before you "enjoy." If you think otherwise, you have a very
> strange notion of anatomy.
>
> bob

Bob, what you say here makes a lot of sense. It is like saying that
the brain is composed of two stages: ear and consciousness. A signal
that doesn't trigger the ear stage can't be propagated into the
consciousness stage.

I think we can agree that this is not really the best model for what we
are arguing here: the audibility of differences. We're not questioning
whether you can hear signal A and B -- of course you can hear both of
them. We're asking whether the two signals produce a different
response in stage 1, such that stage 2 could register a difference.

Also, to be more precise, don't we have to say something like "the
difference between the A and B response in stage 1 is below the noise
in stage 1"? I think we have to bring the concept of noise into it to
speak sensibly of a stage not being able to detect a difference.
Otherwise I'm not sure what it would mean for a system to "not respond"
to the difference.

Does this sound right to you? Or how would you clarify it? Note that
I'm not making any argument against your position here, I'm just trying
to put it into more precise conceptual form.

I realize that you were probably just speaking succinctly, but do note
that your statement above is a reduction of the situation (since I'm
always crying "reductionist" . Let's agree on the more precise
situation.

-Mike