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:

> I understand that the science is very compelling. However, notice that
> the test subjects still had to be conscious, and focusing their
> attention in a very particular way, to answer these questions.

Any researcher worth their salt would reject blind test participants where
the data suggested they wern't paying attention. In addition, paying
attention doesn't necessarily mean that one is stressed. And a good test is
designed and executed so that stress and fatique do not inhibit sensitivity.
And it is very dificult to conduct such tests, but not impossible.

As for focussing on particulars 'too much' inhibits musical appreciation or
understanding, I think this is nebulous in terms of subjective audio
testing. Read what I write in the following paragraph and note how it can
be interpreted in BOTH ways because two completely different approaches are
be considered 'musical' and also you could turn the two described situations
upside down vis a vis each other and come to the same conclusion.

The best musicians are <<<VERY>>> focussed on the particulars of what they are
doing. For example, in my field of musical expertise, (classical organ playing)
many players improvise in the older strict styles as well as play the printed
baroque literature, and a curious thing sometimes happens: in the improvisations,
a strong tactus is maintained with a precision driving rhythm which can lead up to
a wonderful building up of tensions and relaxations as a musical idea is exploited
and then curbed naturally as fatique sets in, and the performer starts to run into
mental roadblocks. This is the excitement of improvisation, and it is HARD THINKING
WORK on the part of the performer. Nobody suggests all this is unmusical. But with
some of these players playing printed literature is completely different, they shift
the tactus and driving rhythm of baroque music putting in lots of rubato and agogic
accents where there could be tight driving rhythm in wanting to be 'expressive.'
Why? During the improvisation, the mind isn't wandering - it's concerned with the
formal task at hand, whereas the highly prepared performance is relatively automatic
by definition. Is one 'better' than the other? Sort of a silly question, I think.


> I think
> that leaves an "opening"--in which certain kinds of small changes in
> the sound leave a conscious impression under other listening
> conditions, such as being involved with music.

The unbiased evidence actually indicates that emotional involvement with the music
actually reduces sensory perception. A strange idea perhaps at first
glance, except when one considers that music BEGINS in the mind and requires
training (formal or otherwise) to get it to be a sensory experience.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> Okay, I guess you are thinking of "states of consciousness" as
> something like new age. I've read a couple books on consciousness..
> have you read any? They discuss the different levels of
consciousness,
> and how damage to different parts of the brain affect them. For
> example, higher consciousness can be disrupted while core
consciousness
> is not, in Damasio's theory. To suggest that consciousness is both a
> complex phenomenon that can enter different states and be composed of
> parts, and yet to suggest that it can be scientifically researched,
> doesn't seem odd to me at all.

No one is saying that consciousness can't be researched. What I at
least have trouble understanding is why you think research into
consciousness is going to offer us any clues about how to make DBTs
better. That's partly because I doubt that DBTs either can be or need
to be made better. If, as Stewart has pointed out, DBTs are sensitive
to the limits of what the auditory nerve can transmit, that would seem
to be as good a tool as we need for our purposes.

> > > It can also be easily observed that a DBT
> > > which encourages the listener to focus on one part of their
> > experience
> > > over another will change the state of consciousness.
> >
> > Not unless you've got a definition of "state of consciousness" that
> can
> > explain how the mere procedures of a DBT can alter it. (But please
> see
> > my last point before you try.)
> >
> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > "Normal listening" is not a scientific concept. It is your
> baseless
> > > > speculation that there is some meaningful difference between
what
> > you
> > > > call "normal listening" and some other kind. Despite your
tossing
> > > > around of terms like "hypothesis," you are being supremely
> > > > unscientific.
> > >
> > > Actually the different states of attention are something we can
> > easily
> > > make hypotheses about and test.
> >
> > Ah, now they're "states of attention." (A phrase I doubt you'll
find
> > too often in your psychology literature, BTW.) Again, you'll have
to
> > define this term in order to make your assertion even meaningful.
> > That's what I mean by saying you are being unscientific.
>
> Attention and consciousness are overlapping phenomena. But anyway,
the
> area is so broad and complex I can't define it here. Would we say
that
> we have to define "intelligence" precisely before we can start to
> investigate it?

I'd say you have to define it before you can use it in a sentence.

> > > You are wrong when you say it isn't
> > > scientific. It would be a difficult area to control, for sure.
> But
> > > when you say it is "unscientific," I think that you preferring to
> > deny
> > > the fuzzy and uncertain areas, because it is easier to be
> absolutely
> > > sure of things.
> >
> > Ad hominem, and wrong. I'm not denying it because it's uncertain;
I'm
> > denying it because it's meaningless. You're trying to make this
sound
> > very erudite, methinks, when what you are really arguing is far
more
> > pedestrian. This has nothing to do with "states of consciousness,"
> > whatever they are. What you really mean, if I read your earlier
posts
> > right, is that people who take DBTs are concentrating on the wrong
> > things, and the protocols of those tests prevent them from
> > concentrating on the right things.
> >
> > If that's what you really mean, I'll be happy to explain where I
> think
> > you are wrong.
>
> Well, I thought of one argument that I'm wrong. Brains are
> well-interconnected and pretty good at learning to sense things, if
> they are anyway to be sensed. I know that DBT's usually involve
> training.
>
> But go ahead, tell me where I'm wrong.

I said, "Where I *think* you are wrong." Part of that has to do with
the limits of the auditory nerve, which suggests that there isn't much
of a window for improvement. But even leaving that aside, you are
assuming flaws in DBTs that aren't there. In a well-run DBT, the
switching control is in the hands of the test subject. The subject can
listen to A, B, and X for as long as he likes. So the argument that
DBTs prevent one from concentrating on something is just false.

Now, granted, most research is done with test tones and brief snippets,
rather than long pieces of music. But that's not because the
researchers are blind to other possibilities, as you have suggested.
It's because past research has demonstrably shown that this is the most
sensitive way to test. If you want the most sensitive test, you don't
put long time gaps between samples, and you don't use samples in which
a lot of masking is likely to occur.

That's why I don't think your approach has much chance of success. It's
not just that it has to be better than switching quickly while
listening to pink noise. It's that it has to be SO MUCH better as to
more than make up for the fact that you are now dealing with severe
masking and auditory memory problems.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

On 10 Apr 2005 15:23:15 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I would change my mind if I either did myself, or found in the
>pscychoacoustical literature, experiments testing the various theories
>of consciousness I have.

If so, that is laudible. However you can only have experiements that
test your ideas if your ideas are so constructed as to be testable. Any
ideas that requrie testing "states of consciousness" are likely to be so
formed as to be essentially untestable for the foreseeable future since
we really don't even have a good theory of what consciousness is, other
than the observable facts of being asleep or awake.

>Now, this is *really* going to draw ridicule from the objectivists, I
>think there may be more possibilities in life than can be known or
>tested by science.

There are many ideas that cannot be tested by science. There is no
problem in expressing such ideas so long as you don't claim that they
are scientific ideas.

The idea of "god" as defined by most mainstream theologians is
fundamentally untestable scientifically for example. Many people
nevertheless believe in god, even scientists. The scientists generally
don't claim that the idea of "god" is a scientific one.

But if something is what you call "a possibility" then it should in
principal be something that can be observed, if existant. If we cannot
actually observe people distinguishing between cables by sound alone
then we have no reason to say that such a thing exists, particularly
when there is so much evidence that they can't.

> So even if I convince myself that my favorite
>amplifier doesn't actually sound "smooth" or whatever, I will probably
>always feel some fondness for it and suspect that maybe there's
>something "real" about its sound. I wouldn't try to describe these
>feelings as scientific, however.

That's the important part. So long as you don't claim that your
feelings are "scientific" or necessarily exist in the real world you are
really unassailable. There remain plenty of rational ways to
distinguish between sonically identical units which no one should attack
you for. If you spend twenty thousand dollars on an amplifier that
sounds no different from a thousand dollar amplifier because you just
happen to like the way the expensive one looks, why should anyone
complain? Unless you stole the money to get it or something similar,
anyway.




Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.

 

[chung]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Chung wrote:
snip
>> > I would agree it is a very good hypothesis those differences can't
> be
>> > heard. Strictly speaking, since the ear is nonlinear, its response
> to
>> > signal S + D is not the response to S plus the response to D. So
> it
>> > isn't strictly valid to reason by saying "the response to D is
> zero,
>> > hence the response to S + D equals the response to S".
>>
>> That last sentence is rather meaningless, since distortion is only
>> present when there is a signal. No signal, no distortion. You cannot
>> measure a response to distortion in the absense of signal.
>
> That's exactly my point. Strictly speaking, saying that the
> "distortion" is below 0 dB SPL doesn't directly imply the ear can't
> hear it.

The point is that when people say you cannot hear distortion below
-100dB, they mean distortion in the presence of the signal. That is, a
signal accompanied by distortion -100dB down (or less) cannot be
differentiated from a signal with no distortion (or another signal
accompanied by other forms of distortion -100dB or less).

Now the evidence is no one has been able to hear it. What is your basis
in implying that the ear can possibly hear it?

>
>>
>> Now, more to the point, if any artifact less than 100 dB down from FS
> is
>> not audibly detectible by itself, it is even less likely to be
> audibly
>> detectible in the presence of a strong signal.
>>
>> Any non-linearity in the ear would simply make it less sensitive to
>> small signals in the presence of strong signals.
>>
>
> That's more to point, and I understand that. However, there is one
> kind of nonlinear system that would be an exception to this rule. That
> is a system which is not very sensitive to level, but very sensitive to
> time. A signal below 0 dB SPL would not have a detectable edge.
> However, a very small distortion of a signal at 95 db SPL would be a
> small change in the detectable edge.

95 dB means a power ratio of 3.15E9. The signal has 3 billion times the
power of the distortion. You think that the change in the detectible
edge is detectible? What is the reference for detection, another signal
with no distortion?

Since no one has been able to hear such effects, that pretty much
settles it, no?

I can think of all kinds of possible scenarios. I can think that
elephants can fly. But to argue that a test is not sensitive on the
basis of what's possible in your mind with no evidence is rather
pointless, no? It's like saying that since we don't know everything,
there is possibly a universe somewhere where 1+1 is not 2, so we should
be careful when we state that 1+1=2.

>
> No doubt you can tell me the limits of the ear's sensitivity to time.

Not necessary to do so. You can either hear it, or you can't. Just
compare two tones with different amounts of distortion, and see at what
distortion levels you can tell them apart. I highly recommend quick
switching, ABX style, comparison, though. In fact, this would be a good
test of the sensitivity of quick switching compared to long slow switching.

And why would the sensitivity of the quick switching DBT (which you seem
to be against) depend on whether we fully understand the "limits of the
ear's sensitivity in time"?

 

[Guest]

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

"Ed Seedhouse" <eseedhouse@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d370l402s19@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 8 Apr 2005 00:52:15 GMT, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >IOW, it is your "hypothesis" that you can achieve a higher state of
> >consciousness that will allow you to hear differences missed by all the
> >ordinary shmoos who have ever taken DBTs in the past.
>
> And all he has to do to change *my* mind about it is to actually provide
> convincing evidence that he is right, as opposed to vague speculations.
> A properly done double blind experiment showint that he or someone else
> actually can beat chance in distinguishing between wires for example.
>
> What would change his mind, I wonder? One of the hallmarks of a
> scientific approach to gathering knowlege is the willingness to be
> convinced by evidence that one is wrong. What experiment would do that
> in his case? He hasn't mentioned any so far as I remember.
>

Once again we have an objectivist arguing that the way to overcome doubts
about the limitations of DBT'ng is to use DBT's. Does anybody see anything
wrong with this picture?