opaqueice;220976 Wrote: > Which of my experiments are you referring to? The one you did with NYCPhil
opaqueice;220976 Wrote: > And what vast majority of the "'research'"? (Nice polemical use of ' ' > marks by the way.) Last time I checked, the audio memory research was > precisely about distinguishing differences. The way it works is, they > play two sounds and see if the subject can differentiate them. Then > they make the difference smaller and repeat. Eventually the subject > can't hear a difference; that's the threshold. Then they change > something (like how far apart in time the two tones are played) and > repeat. That gives you threshold as a function of whatever you > changed. The results are that if you have to wait more than a few > seconds you are much less sensitive to the difference. > I wasn't entirely sure what 'research' you were referring to (there didn't seem to be any references in your post) - but anyway, just how does your audio memory research (above) relate to the enjoyment of reproduced audio in a home environment? mlsstl Wrote: > I'm of the opinion that it is impossible to make all parties happy when > it comes to blind audio testing. The urge to confirm a predetermined > conclusion is very strong, and very subtle. > > As others have noted, the goal of DBT is to eliminate the psychological > issues that pervade all human undertakings. To pretend that they don't > exist in audio, or that this is a special case where certain gifted or > trained individuals can look past their subconscious is silly. (If you > could consciously account for the subconscious, then it wouldn't be > "sub", would it?) > > The long term listening experience is a worthwhile goal, but it vastly > complicates and compromises the goal of maintaining single blindness to > the equipment in use, much less double. > > I see little other than a stalemate. I think you're missing my point. There > is nothing wrong with DBT as a methodology. However, because audio memory is short term, the sloppy 'scientists' amongst us, want to tailor their DBT test to take account of that But in doing so, they make the testing irrelevant because 'short term' is not how people listen to reproduced music in a home environment. To add to that, the one thing that a DB A/B test might actually be useful for, they insist on over-complicating by adding in parameters such as identification of the source or which is the better. Both of these extra decisions require significant elements of perception, which colours the experiment completely. So in summary, there's noting wrong with DBT, it just the way that people try to apply it to music reproduction is generally completely inappropriate. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37553 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
