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

[Guest]

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

On 3 Apr 2005 15:57:50 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>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?

That would be because lots of experiments have shown it to be the most
sensitive method for detecting signals with known differences.

> You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
>experimentation.

Correct.

> 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?

Simple, really. Put the same known differences into two signals which
are tta tke limnit of detection by quick-switch DBT, and no other
method will reveal them. Care to provide any evidence that this is not
the case?

This is *not* rocket science, nor is it new.


>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.

No, we're all talking about *listening* tests, which involve all
aspects of human consciousness. You are the one guilty of
reductionism, because anything which does not fit your prejudice is
automatically rejected on that single basis.

>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.

True enough, but can you show *any* evidence that these differences
are *audible*?

>The answer to your question is, I don't know.

I do. There are *always* differences, but unless they are electrically
gross, they are not audible.

> 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.

You can also pick up about $5,000 if you publish those results in this
newgroup.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2p3pu01p7q@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> 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?

It doesn't. Quick switching is done strictly for the purpose of determining
whether there is a difference between 2 signals--or not. It tells you
nothing about which signal is better, or more satisfying over the long haul.
How do we know that quick switching is more sensitive? I imagine someone,
somewhere, sometime manufactured 2 signals whose difference was known and
then experimented to find out what means of comparison enabled the subject
to detect the smallest differences.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

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

nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 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

Hi Bob,

You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it. Very
good point.

But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?

I've already read enough about psychoacoustics to provide a partial
answer. One way we know is by doing experiments in which we ask
subjects to indicate, via forced-choice or some other way, whether they
heard a difference. A test in which the subject cannot report
correctly hearing a difference leads to two conclusions:

(1) The ear couldn't resolve the difference (under these conditions)
(2) Consciousness can't resolve the difference (under these conditions)

[ or (3) the test was broken ]

So, at least some of the experiments we do to determine what the ear
can hear aren't able to separate what consciousness can resolve from
what the ear can resolve. In any given test, the resolving power of
consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important observation,
because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity that
responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving power.

Here's a quote from Moore, "An Introduction to the Psychology of
Hearing", page 65 -

On the question of intensity discrimination (the ability to tell apart
two tones different in intensity) --

(note that the standard figure for one difference limen is usually
regarded as 0.5 to 1 dB for white noise)

"Such studies have indicated that information from only a small number
of neurones is sufficient to account for intensity discrimination. The
number required seems to be about 100. Indeed, if the information
contained in the firing rates of all the 30000 neurones in the auditory
nerve were used optimally, then intensity discrimination would be much
better than it actually is ... It appears that, for most stimuli,
intensity discrimination is not limited by the information carried in
the auditory nerve, but by the use made of that information at more
central levels of processing."

This is only one example, so it doesn't prove anything, but to me it
suggests that the resolving power of the ear/brain could be better,
under ideal conditions, than shows up in a standard psychoacoustical
test.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it. Very
> good point.
>
> But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?

Umm, usually it's bleedin' obvious, mate!

> I've already read enough about psychoacoustics to provide a partial
> answer. One way we know is by doing experiments in which we ask
> subjects to indicate, via forced-choice or some other way, whether
they
> heard a difference. A test in which the subject cannot report
> correctly hearing a difference leads to two conclusions:
>
> (1) The ear couldn't resolve the difference (under these conditions)
> (2) Consciousness can't resolve the difference (under these
conditions)

You're not answering my question: Why are these two separate
possibilities? Alternatively, why should I care about whether we failed
to be conscious of a difference between two sounds because

a) There was no difference in the signal reaching the brain, or
b) There was a difference in the signal reaching the brain, but the
brain did not react differently to them?

All I care about is, are we conscious of a difference? And all
available evidence suggests that a quick-switching DBT is the most
sensitive test for answering that question.
>
> [ or (3) the test was broken ]
>
> So, at least some of the experiments we do to determine what the ear
> can hear aren't able to separate what consciousness can resolve from
> what the ear can resolve. In any given test, the resolving power of
> consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important
observation,
> because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity that
> responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
> stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
> different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving power.

But this is trivial. Of course different people, at different times,
concentrating on different things, may (will) hear differently. You
seem to be under the impression that all of psychoacoustics is based on
a half dozen listening tests. There have been lots of tests, of lots of
people, and no evidence that any kind of listening allows you to hear
distortion that's 100 dB down.

> Here's a quote from Moore, "An Introduction to the Psychology of
> Hearing", page 65 -
>
> On the question of intensity discrimination (the ability to tell
apart
> two tones different in intensity) --
>
> (note that the standard figure for one difference limen is usually
> regarded as 0.5 to 1 dB for white noise)
>
> "Such studies have indicated that information from only a small
number
> of neurones is sufficient to account for intensity discrimination.
The
> number required seems to be about 100. Indeed, if the information
> contained in the firing rates of all the 30000 neurones in the
auditory
> nerve were used optimally, then intensity discrimination would be
much
> better than it actually is ... It appears that, for most stimuli,
> intensity discrimination is not limited by the information carried in
> the auditory nerve, but by the use made of that information at more
> central levels of processing."
>
> This is only one example, so it doesn't prove anything, but to me it
> suggests that the resolving power of the ear/brain could be better,
> under ideal conditions, than shows up in a standard psychoacoustical
> test.

That's certainly a creative interpretation.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2005 15:57:50 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> That would be because lots of experiments have shown it to be the
most
> sensitive method for detecting signals with known differences.
>
> > You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
> >experimentation.
>
> Correct.
>
> > 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?
>
> Simple, really. Put the same known differences into two signals which
> are tta tke limnit of detection by quick-switch DBT, and no other
> method will reveal them. Care to provide any evidence that this is
not
> the case?

I see the point you are making.. quick-switch is the most sensitive of
the available methods, by this reasoning.

However, what I asked was, "How do you know that quick-switch provides
*complete* conscious access to the signal?"

In other words, how do you know that *any* feature of the signal that
can be detected under *any* condition, can be detected under
quick-switch conditions?

The obvious answer is that we *can't* detect every feature of the
signal simply because in a finite time there's too much to pay
attention to.

This notion of "feature of the signal" requires some clarification.
Take vision. We know a lot about the visual cortext. Some neurons
respond to shape, some to line direction, some to color. These are all
features of a visual scene.

Moore (1989) says that much less is known about the auditory context.
Not many neurons in it respond to pure tones and test signals. What
"features" it can detect are somewhat a mystery (as of 1989), although
we can safely assume they have something to do with the needs of the
human organism -- to recognize the sounds of other animals and to
recognize speech.

>
> This is *not* rocket science, nor is it new.

It *is* psychology/neurology and needs to be informed by our
understanding of the whole brain, from sensory perception to
consciousness.

>
>
> >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.
>
> No, we're all talking about *listening* tests, which involve all
> aspects of human consciousness. You are the one guilty of
> reductionism, because anything which does not fit your prejudice is
> automatically rejected on that single basis.

In what way is asking questions and investigating "rejection"?

Secondly, I'm glad you agree that listening tests involve
consciousness. I believe my point above was in response to Bob who had
*separated* consciousness from the ear's function.

>
> >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.
>
> True enough, but can you show *any* evidence that these differences
> are *audible*?
>
> >The answer to your question is, I don't know.
>
> I do. There are *always* differences, but unless they are
electrically
> gross, they are not audible.
>
> > 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.
>
> You can also pick up about $5,000 if you publish those results in
this
> newgroup.

I tried once to entice a local audiophile to help me with the promise
of money. He backed out. I DO have a problem finding people who want
to do blind tests. I really have no perspective to say how widespread
this is, but certainly among local people I've talked to, there's not
much interest.

As I said from the beginning, blind testing is necessary to check what
we know.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d2p3pu01p7q@news1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > 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?
>
> It doesn't. Quick switching is done strictly for the purpose of
determining
> whether there is a difference between 2 signals--or not.

Isn't this a short hand for asking "if there is any difference between
two signals in features that can be detected under any reasonable
listening condition"? Aren't you implicitly saying that *any* feature
of the signal is available to consciousness in quick-switching?

>It tells you
> nothing about which signal is better, or more satisfying over the
long haul.
> How do we know that quick switching is more sensitive? I imagine
someone,
> somewhere, sometime manufactured 2 signals whose difference was known
and
> then experimented to find out what means of comparison enabled the
subject
> to detect the smallest differences.
>
> Norm Strong

Okay - 2 signals whose difference was known -- they differed in
specific features. Isn't any conclusion about the best means of
comparison relative to the specific features of difference?

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2005 15:57:50 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> That would be because lots of experiments have shown it to be the
most
> sensitive method for detecting signals with known differences.
>
> > You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
> >experimentation.
>
> Correct.
>
> > 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?
>
> Simple, really. Put the same known differences into two signals which
> are tta tke limnit of detection by quick-switch DBT, and no other
> method will reveal them. Care to provide any evidence that this is
not
> the case?
>
> This is *not* rocket science, nor is it new.
>
>

Quick question, Stewart. Have you ever heard a component which sounded
good at first, then became annoying over time? For example, maybe
something a little bright, which at first gave the cymbals an
impressive sheen, and then sounded harsh or fatiguing over time?

If so, I'm next going to ask about the possibility of integration in
sensory perception.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

On 4 Apr 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>> The objectivist position is absolutely *not*
>> reductionist, it accepts all possibilities.
>
>I thought that science can never test *all* possibilities.

Exactly, which is why all possibilities must be accepted *until* such
time as testing discards some of them.

> 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.

Please try not to misinterprtet what I say.

>> 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."

So provide some evidence to back them up.

> 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.

Life is short.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it. Very
>good point.
>
>But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?

Blind testing.

>I've already read enough about psychoacoustics to provide a partial
>answer. One way we know is by doing experiments in which we ask
>subjects to indicate, via forced-choice or some other way, whether they
>heard a difference. A test in which the subject cannot report
>correctly hearing a difference leads to two conclusions:
>
>(1) The ear couldn't resolve the difference (under these conditions)
>(2) Consciousness can't resolve the difference (under these conditions)
>
>[ or (3) the test was broken ]
>
>So, at least some of the experiments we do to determine what the ear
>can hear aren't able to separate what consciousness can resolve from
>what the ear can resolve.

You'll find a set of graduated listening tests on Arny Krueger's PCABX
website.

> In any given test, the resolving power of
>consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important observation,
>because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity that
>responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
>stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
>different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving power.

Have you any idea what the above is supposed to mean?

>Here's a quote from Moore, "An Introduction to the Psychology of
>Hearing", page 65 -
>
>On the question of intensity discrimination (the ability to tell apart
>two tones different in intensity) --
>
>(note that the standard figure for one difference limen is usually
>regarded as 0.5 to 1 dB for white noise)
>
>"Such studies have indicated that information from only a small number
>of neurones is sufficient to account for intensity discrimination. The
>number required seems to be about 100. Indeed, if the information
>contained in the firing rates of all the 30000 neurones in the auditory
>nerve were used optimally, then intensity discrimination would be much
>better than it actually is ... It appears that, for most stimuli,
>intensity discrimination is not limited by the information carried in
>the auditory nerve, but by the use made of that information at more
>central levels of processing."
>
>This is only one example, so it doesn't prove anything, but to me it
>suggests that the resolving power of the ear/brain could be better,
>under ideal conditions, than shows up in a standard psychoacoustical
>test.

All systems are capable of being optimised, but very few actually are.
I cannot run 100 metres in ten seconds, and you cannot hear
differences between nominally competent cables or amplifiers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2vave01r2f@news2.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 3 Apr 2005 15:57:50 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >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?
> >
> > That would be because lots of experiments have shown it to be the
> most
> > sensitive method for detecting signals with known differences.
> >
> > > You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
> > >experimentation.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Simple, really. Put the same known differences into two signals which
> > are tta tke limnit of detection by quick-switch DBT, and no other
> > method will reveal them. Care to provide any evidence that this is
> not
> > the case?
>
> I see the point you are making.. quick-switch is the most sensitive of
> the available methods, by this reasoning.
>
> However, what I asked was, "How do you know that quick-switch provides
> *complete* conscious access to the signal?"
>
> In other words, how do you know that *any* feature of the signal that
> can be detected under *any* condition, can be detected under
> quick-switch conditions?
>
> The obvious answer is that we *can't* detect every feature of the
> signal simply because in a finite time there's too much to pay
> attention to.
>
> This notion of "feature of the signal" requires some clarification.
> Take vision. We know a lot about the visual cortext. Some neurons
> respond to shape, some to line direction, some to color. These are all
> features of a visual scene.
>
> Moore (1989) says that much less is known about the auditory context.
> Not many neurons in it respond to pure tones and test signals. What
> "features" it can detect are somewhat a mystery (as of 1989), although
> we can safely assume they have something to do with the needs of the
> human organism -- to recognize the sounds of other animals and to
> recognize speech.

Four things that have come to my attention since 1990 in brain research:

1) the brain seems hardwired to recognize/respond to certain rythmic
patterns
2) the brain seems hardwired to respond to certain harmonic patterns
3) the ear cortex iteself has "memory" that can fill in missinng signal if
the sound has been memorized, iindepent of the remaining brain (this just
reported recently).
4) the brain may respond to ultrasonic sound when it is part of a natural
sound, and to have the presence of same increase musical pleasure. Whether
the ear is the mechanism for this is not clear. And the findings are too
new to have yet been replicated.

All of this suggests that the human processing of and response to music is
far more complicated than we ever imagined.

>
> >
> > This is *not* rocket science, nor is it new.
>
> It *is* psychology/neurology and needs to be informed by our
> understanding of the whole brain, from sensory perception to
> consciousness.
>

You said it. My remarks above simply emphasize it.

> >
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > No, we're all talking about *listening* tests, which involve all
> > aspects of human consciousness. You are the one guilty of
> > reductionism, because anything which does not fit your prejudice is
> > automatically rejected on that single basis.
>
> In what way is asking questions and investigating "rejection"?
>

It is heresy to question "the truth". Can you better define 'dogma'?


> Secondly, I'm glad you agree that listening tests involve
> consciousness. I believe my point above was in response to Bob who had
> *separated* consciousness from the ear's function.

And continues to do so in every argument. Perhaps you will convince him to
stop.

>
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > True enough, but can you show *any* evidence that these differences
> > are *audible*?
> >
> > >The answer to your question is, I don't know.
> >
> > I do. There are *always* differences, but unless they are
> electrically
> > gross, they are not audible.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > You can also pick up about $5,000 if you publish those results in
> this
> > newgroup.
>
> I tried once to entice a local audiophile to help me with the promise
> of money. He backed out. I DO have a problem finding people who want
> to do blind tests. I really have no perspective to say how widespread
> this is, but certainly among local people I've talked to, there's not
> much interest.

I think the reason is, there is little riding on the outcome. Most people
are satisfied using their own sighted hearing, flawed as it may be, to make
decisions regarding their audio systems.

>
> As I said from the beginning, blind testing is necessary to check what
> we know.

So long as the test is designed in such a way as to not interfere with the
phenomenon under study.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> I tried once to entice a local audiophile to help me with the promise
> of money. He backed out. I DO have a problem finding people who
want
> to do blind tests. I really have no perspective to say how
widespread
> this is, but certainly among local people I've talked to, there's not
> much interest.

It's very widespread. It is a matter of unshakable faith among a large
number of self-professed audiophiles that blind tests are useless
because their results don't agree with their own, sighted experiences.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
Very
> >good point.
> >
> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
>
> Blind testing.

I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you say
that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this circular?


>
> >I've already read enough about psychoacoustics to provide a partial
> >answer. One way we know is by doing experiments in which we ask
> >subjects to indicate, via forced-choice or some other way, whether
they
> >heard a difference. A test in which the subject cannot report
> >correctly hearing a difference leads to two conclusions:
> >
> >(1) The ear couldn't resolve the difference (under these conditions)
> >(2) Consciousness can't resolve the difference (under these
conditions)
> >
> >[ or (3) the test was broken ]
> >
> >So, at least some of the experiments we do to determine what the ear
> >can hear aren't able to separate what consciousness can resolve from
> >what the ear can resolve.
>
> You'll find a set of graduated listening tests on Arny Krueger's
PCABX
> website.

How do graduated listening tests help to disentangle the effects of
consciousness and the physical ear?

By the way, I checked out Arny's site. It seems to be partially
broken--the home page brings up an FAQ and I had to poke around before
I found an actual page that let me download something. Also, the
"listening room" page comes up blank on two browsers that I tried.

Here's a quote from Norman, "Memory and Attention" (1969) :

"We would
like to peel back the different levels one by one, starting with an
understanding of the sensory organs, moving through sensation and
perception and finally ending at decision making and thinking.
... One problem is that no process can be analyzed in isolation. We
can, for example, analyze sensations only through the responses
made by our experimental subjecs, and these responses must be the
result of the whole structure of their psychological processes, from
sensation through decision making."




>
> > In any given test, the resolving power of
> >consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important
observation,
> >because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity that
> >responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
> >stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
> >different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving power.
>
> Have you any idea what the above is supposed to mean?

Of course *I* have an idea, but I guess you are saying you don't have
an idea. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

>
> >Here's a quote from Moore, "An Introduction to the Psychology of
> >Hearing", page 65 -
> >
> >On the question of intensity discrimination (the ability to tell
apart
> >two tones different in intensity) --
> >
> >(note that the standard figure for one difference limen is usually
> >regarded as 0.5 to 1 dB for white noise)
> >
> >"Such studies have indicated that information from only a small
number
> >of neurones is sufficient to account for intensity discrimination.
The
> >number required seems to be about 100. Indeed, if the information
> >contained in the firing rates of all the 30000 neurones in the
auditory
> >nerve were used optimally, then intensity discrimination would be
much
> >better than it actually is ... It appears that, for most stimuli,
> >intensity discrimination is not limited by the information carried
in
> >the auditory nerve, but by the use made of that information at more
> >central levels of processing."
> >
> >This is only one example, so it doesn't prove anything, but to me it
> >suggests that the resolving power of the ear/brain could be better,
> >under ideal conditions, than shows up in a standard psychoacoustical
> >test.
>
> All systems are capable of being optimised, but very few actually
are.
> I cannot run 100 metres in ten seconds, and you cannot hear
> differences between nominally competent cables or amplifiers.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Let's say you can run 100 meters in 20 seconds. To run it in 10
seconds would require you to be twice as fast or twice as strong.
That's a wide difference, and I would agree with you we can be safe
saying that it is impossible.

However, the ear is not characterized by one sensitivity number. It's
simply a misrepresentation to say that the ear "hears distortion down
to -X db", whatever X is. In fact, the ear doesn't "hear distortion."
It recognizes and processes features of the sound. Distortion changes
those features and thus changes the representation of the sound on the
auditory cortex.

The ear produces a vast amount of data in the 30000 nerve fibers in the
auditory nerve, and consciousness filters and processes that
information. Consciousness is not something fixed--it can take on a
vast array of states, have many modes of filtering data and attention.
I'm not suggesting there is a single "optimized" state of
consciousness. It is clear that in some states, consciousness is
completely insensitive to certain features of the sensory data. In
other states it is far more attuned. I'm hypothesizing that there are
features of an audio signal that correspond to "realism" to which
consciousness can be attuned in a state of "musical enjoyment" and that
the brain's sensitivity *to these specific features* is far greater
than suggested by general psychoacoustical knowledge.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 3 Apr 2005 15:57:50 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >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?
> >
> > That would be because lots of experiments have shown it to be the
> most
> > sensitive method for detecting signals with known differences.
> >
> > > You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
> > >experimentation.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Simple, really. Put the same known differences into two signals which
> > are tta tke limnit of detection by quick-switch DBT, and no other
> > method will reveal them. Care to provide any evidence that this is
> not
> > the case?

> I see the point you are making.. quick-switch is the most sensitive of
> the available methods, by this reasoning.

> However, what I asked was, "How do you know that quick-switch provides
> *complete* conscious access to the signal?"

Enough already. We go through this thicket of supposed neuropsychological mysteries
ever year or so on RAHE it seems. And as ever it seems the main reason subjectivists
engage in this sophistry is simply because blind test results don't accord with sighted test
results often enough for their tastes. You guys start from the premise that subjective
'sighted' comparison is in some way a reliable reality-test, and leap off from there into
propositions about ways that blind testing might be flawed. Well, sorry, but
your premise is *wrong* and thus your leaps are , shall we say, premature if not
outright presumptuous.

The well-established fact is, sighted comparison is a *demonstrably poor and unreliable*
reality-test for audible difference. Science abandoned it decades ago. You can experience its
massive potential for delusion yourself, in any 'phantom switch' situation.
The sort of strenuous, bass-ackwards rhetorical
calisthenics you and Harry engage in to bend reality to fit the subjectivist view,
are IMO little more than special pleading for what science long ago
verified to be a *bad method*. All the neurological findings in the
world are unlikely to change that, just as they are unlikely to render
'eyewitness testimony' inherently reliable.

Taking the broad view of the audio reportage as it is practiced today,
wouldn't these rhetorical energies be better spent advocating the
*abandoning* of this demonstrably bad method, rather than speculating on how
its far-too-infrequently-used scientific alternative *might* be flawed?



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

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

On 6 Apr 2005 00:39:11 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Quick question, Stewart. Have you ever heard a component which sounded
>good at first, then became annoying over time? For example, maybe
>something a little bright, which at first gave the cymbals an
>impressive sheen, and then sounded harsh or fatiguing over time?

No.

OTOH, it is common to hear reviewers report that various bits of audio
gear require extensive 'breaking in'. What they actually mean is that
*they* need time to become accustomed to subtle changes in balance. In
some cases of course, e.g. cables, this is mere fancy, used to sell
magazines.

>If so, I'm next going to ask about the possibility of integration in
>sensory perception.

Don't bother. You have yet to show *any* evidence to back your flights
of fancy, and there is a *vast* reservoir of evidence which shows that
you are incorrect. You seem ever more anxious to come up with
'hypotheses' which are not rooted in *any* observational evidence.
--

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:
> >
> > You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
Very
> > good point.
> >
> > But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
>
> Umm, usually it's bleedin' obvious, mate!
>
> > I've already read enough about psychoacoustics to provide a partial
> > answer. One way we know is by doing experiments in which we ask
> > subjects to indicate, via forced-choice or some other way, whether
> they
> > heard a difference. A test in which the subject cannot report
> > correctly hearing a difference leads to two conclusions:
> >
> > (1) The ear couldn't resolve the difference (under these
conditions)
> > (2) Consciousness can't resolve the difference (under these
> conditions)
>
> You're not answering my question: Why are these two separate
> possibilities? Alternatively, why should I care about whether we
failed
> to be conscious of a difference between two sounds because
>
> a) There was no difference in the signal reaching the brain, or
> b) There was a difference in the signal reaching the brain, but the
> brain did not react differently to them?

You should care because consciousness reacts to different features of
the senses in different states. It's my hypothesis that in a state of
musical enjoyment and broad attention, consciousness reacts to
different features of the signal than in a state of "listening closely
for differences." The conclusion about what is audible cannot be
transferred from one situation to the next.

Note this situation: perhaps what IS audible in a quick-switch test is
NOT audible in listening for enjoyment. That's a possibility, too.
For example, a slight change in tonal balance that shows up in the
quick-switch test, but due to adaptation of the ear in long-term
listening isn't noticeable at all.

I would guess that listening tests which are designed to promote
listening to music for enjoyment would give different data about the
ear than, say, listening tests that involve test tones. Now, I don't
have the breadth of experience to say what's true about every listening
test out there, but certainly every test I've been pointed to was NOT
designed to promote musical enjoyment.

For example, I checked out Arnie's pcabx site tonight and listened to a
couple samples. The samples sounded horrible, harsh and lacking in
realism. The way the samples repeated with no pause had a fatiguing
effect on my ear. When I tried to quick-switch, there was a moment of
silence which made the start of the next sample so abrubt it was
impossible to listen to it in, what is for me, a "normal" way.

If this site at all represents ABX testing in general, I have very
little faith in psychoacoustical knowledge--or to be more precise, how
that knowledge applies to my ears under listening conditions.


>
> All I care about is, are we conscious of a difference? And all
> available evidence suggests that a quick-switching DBT is the most
> sensitive test for answering that question.
> >
> > [ or (3) the test was broken ]
> >
> > So, at least some of the experiments we do to determine what the
ear
> > can hear aren't able to separate what consciousness can resolve
from
> > what the ear can resolve. In any given test, the resolving power
of
> > consciousness may be the limit. But this is an important
> observation,
> > because consciousness is a highly malleable, non-static entity that
> > responds to (1) the test directions, (2) the nature of the test
> > stimulus, (3) subtle cues in the people around, etc. etc. Under
> > different conditions, consciousness may have more resolving power.
>
> But this is trivial.
> Of course different people, at different times,
> concentrating on different things, may (will) hear differently.

Let's leave aside "extraordinary" claims. Doesn't this "trivial" fact
relate to your ability to generalize the results of quick-switch
testing? Are you confident that whatever you hear in a quick-switch
test relates directly to what you hear in normal listening? Are you
confident that everything you hear in a blind test also makes a
conscious impression during normal listening? (see above example about
tonal balance)

> You
> seem to be under the impression that all of psychoacoustics is based
on
> a half dozen listening tests. There have been lots of tests, of lots
of
> people, and no evidence that any kind of listening allows you to hear
> distortion that's 100 dB down.

I don't claim any specific powers of ear (where does the 100 number
come from?), but I wonder if these "lots of tests" had some basic
features in common--e.g. that they did not promote listening for
enjoyment or "gut" realism. If they are anything like Arnie's ABX
site, I'm very concerned.

I don't claim that the ear can hear any very small signal. But I
suspect certains kinds of very small signals can be heard with
precision better than suggested by standard psychoacoustical testing.

-Mike


>
> > Here's a quote from Moore, "An Introduction to the Psychology of
> > Hearing", page 65 -
> >
> > On the question of intensity discrimination (the ability to tell
> apart
> > two tones different in intensity) --
> >
> > (note that the standard figure for one difference limen is usually
> > regarded as 0.5 to 1 dB for white noise)
> >
> > "Such studies have indicated that information from only a small
> number
> > of neurones is sufficient to account for intensity discrimination.
> The
> > number required seems to be about 100. Indeed, if the information
> > contained in the firing rates of all the 30000 neurones in the
> auditory
> > nerve were used optimally, then intensity discrimination would be
> much
> > better than it actually is ... It appears that, for most stimuli,
> > intensity discrimination is not limited by the information carried
in
> > the auditory nerve, but by the use made of that information at more
> > central levels of processing."
> >
> > This is only one example, so it doesn't prove anything, but to me
it
> > suggests that the resolving power of the ear/brain could be better,
> > under ideal conditions, than shows up in a standard
psychoacoustical
> > test.
>
> That's certainly a creative interpretation.
>
> bob

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >> The objectivist position is absolutely *not*
> >> reductionist, it accepts all possibilities.
> >
> >I thought that science can never test *all* possibilities.
>
> Exactly, which is why all possibilities must be accepted *until* such
> time as testing discards some of them.

Here's how I would describe it. Science formulates models and tests
them. It is not really possibilities that are discarded, but rather
models that are discarded. At any given time we have an idea of the
model that fits the data best. However, that is no guarantee that the
model is complete or that it correctly predicts all possibilities and
impossibilities. This is especially true in modelling the brain. All
of our current models of the brain are vastly simpler than the brain
itself.

A given possibility is likely or unlikely depending on the current
model and how much faith we have in the completeness of that model.
I'm not likely to be able to jump to the moon because we have very
complete and accurate knowledge of what that would take and how far
outside the model it is.

The objectivists have said that digital produces no audible distortion
because it is 100 dB down, or whatever. And that this is so far
outside the range of what the ear can perceive that it is effectively
impossible. That's a good argument, I agree.

However, I'm not so sure that our models of perception are that
accurate, that the current models can be used to decide what's
impossible.

-Mike


-Mike



>
> > 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.
>
> Please try not to misinterprtet what I say.
>
> >> 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."
>
> So provide some evidence to back them up.
>
> > 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.
>
> Life is short.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2vb0c01r4t@news2.newsguy.com...
> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:d2p3pu01p7q@news1.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>> It doesn't. Quick switching is done strictly for the purpose of
> determining
>> whether there is a difference between 2 signals--or not.
>
> Isn't this a short hand for asking "if there is any difference between
> two signals in features that can be detected under any reasonable
> listening condition"? Aren't you implicitly saying that *any* feature
> of the signal is available to consciousness in quick-switching?
>
>>It tells you
>> nothing about which signal is better, or more satisfying over the
> long haul.
>> How do we know that quick switching is more sensitive? I imagine
> someone,
>> somewhere, sometime manufactured 2 signals whose difference was known
> and
>> then experimented to find out what means of comparison enabled the
> subject
>> to detect the smallest differences.
>>
>> Norm Strong
>
> Okay - 2 signals whose difference was known -- they differed in
> specific features. Isn't any conclusion about the best means of
> comparison relative to the specific features of difference?

I think I see what you mean here: If the 2 signals differ only by loudness
quick switching might work best, but if they differ in some other way,
perhaps a longer period will prove more sensitive? This may very well be
true, but I'd have to see at least one example before I'd buy into that
hypothesis.

Norm

 

[Guest]

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

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d320cn02rr7@news3.newsguy.com...
> Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > > On 3 Apr 2005 15:57:50 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >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?
> > >
> > > That would be because lots of experiments have shown it to be the
> > most
> > > sensitive method for detecting signals with known differences.
> > >
> > > > You would say you know it from evidence gathered through
> > > >experimentation.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Simple, really. Put the same known differences into two signals which
> > > are tta tke limnit of detection by quick-switch DBT, and no other
> > > method will reveal them. Care to provide any evidence that this is
> > not
> > > the case?
>
> > I see the point you are making.. quick-switch is the most sensitive of
> > the available methods, by this reasoning.
>
> > However, what I asked was, "How do you know that quick-switch provides
> > *complete* conscious access to the signal?"
>
> Enough already. We go through this thicket of supposed neuropsychological
mysteries
> ever year or so on RAHE it seems. And as ever it seems the main reason
subjectivists
> engage in this sophistry is simply because blind test results don't accord
with sighted test
> results often enough for their tastes. You guys start from the premise
that subjective
> 'sighted' comparison is in some way a reliable reality-test, and leap off
from there into
> propositions about ways that blind testing might be flawed. Well, sorry,
but
> your premise is *wrong* and thus your leaps are , shall we say, premature
if not
> outright presumptuous.
>
> The well-established fact is, sighted comparison is a *demonstrably poor
and unreliable*
> reality-test for audible difference. Science abandoned it decades ago. You
can experience its
> massive potential for delusion yourself, in any 'phantom switch'
situation.
> The sort of strenuous, bass-ackwards rhetorical
> calisthenics you and Harry engage in to bend reality to fit the
subjectivist view,
> are IMO little more than special pleading for what science long ago
> verified to be a *bad method*. All the neurological findings in the
> world are unlikely to change that, just as they are unlikely to render
> 'eyewitness testimony' inherently reliable.
>
> Taking the broad view of the audio reportage as it is practiced today,
> wouldn't these rhetorical energies be better spent advocating the
> *abandoning* of this demonstrably bad method, rather than speculating on
how
> its far-too-infrequently-used scientific alternative *might* be flawed?
>

Dogma in action. Has it never occurred to you, Steven, that people
evaluating equipment on the "realism" of its sound may feel that they have
used the technique well to optimize, or partially optimize, their systems
and are suspicious of any test/group that claims using the auditory judgment
is invalid? And more importantly, that perhaps they are right since so many
audiophiles seem contnet to reject *science*. The man is doing a wonderful
job of explaining what the audiologists are saying (and it is not nearly as
simple as *you* would have us believe) and h y p o t h e s i z i n g what
the implications might be for audio evaluation. And since some of these
hypothesis are consistent with my own admittedly less intellectual
observations, I naturally find them intriquing and occasionally jump in to
comment on or amplify a point. Why don't you do the same from your
(negative) side of the argument, arguing with actual support of
contravailing "fact", rather than just trying to shout him down. "Enough
already, indeed!" I'm sorry if it threatens your beliefs. But reacting the
way you do may be human, but it is not scientific.

 

[Guest]

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d320du02rtn@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 6 Apr 2005 00:39:11 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Quick question, Stewart. Have you ever heard a component which sounded
> >good at first, then became annoying over time? For example, maybe
> >something a little bright, which at first gave the cymbals an
> >impressive sheen, and then sounded harsh or fatiguing over time?
>
> No.
>
> OTOH, it is common to hear reviewers report that various bits of audio
> gear require extensive 'breaking in'. What they actually mean is that
> *they* need time to become accustomed to subtle changes in balance. In
> some cases of course, e.g. cables, this is mere fancy, used to sell
> magazines.
>
> >If so, I'm next going to ask about the possibility of integration in
> >sensory perception.
>
> Don't bother. You have yet to show *any* evidence to back your flights
> of fancy, and there is a *vast* reservoir of evidence which shows that
> you are incorrect. You seem ever more anxious to come up with
> 'hypotheses' which are not rooted in *any* observational evidence.

Another threatened male of the genus "knowitallis". The man is sharing
scientific information from books on psychology and audiology, as you foks
challenenged him to do. And in so doing he is coming up with a far more
complex and rich set of possibilities than much of the simplistic posturing
here as to what science says and doesn't say about our hearing. He is
forming clearly stated hypothesis and calling them such. He is supporting
your call for evential evidence if any of them is to be supported. Why feel
so threatened?

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2005 00:58:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You've said that if you can't hear it, then you can't enjoy it.
> Very
>> >good point.
>> >
>> >But let's ask: how do we *know* if we can or can't hear it?
>>
>> Blind testing.

> I'll give you a chance to explain this--but it seems to me you are
> reasoning circularly. I believe you have said that we know
> quick-switch blind testing is very sensitive because it detects
> differences right at the limit of what we can hear. But now, you say
> that we know what we can hear via blind testing. Isn't this circular?

No, you're playing fast and loose with what 'hear' means. Not everything we
'hear' has acoustical cause.