|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Jon, that's false. posted by jj on April 24, 2003 at 18:48:51:
[ In fact, you are misrepresenting the history here, as well, as I have quite a while ago discussed quite a few issues about how to do listening tests. As all we have, up to and including your article, is the same old stuff, I see no reason to give you or others who will not learn from older work any more time and effort.You can search the database here, go do it. ]
jj,
I did search the board, and your posts regarding actual details are very scant. Your general response is to "go read the literature", without even providing much of a citation or reference as to WHAT literature.
Here are some posts where you made some concrete suggestions:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/16316.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/220578.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/prophead//messages/803.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/prophead/messages/829.htmlIt is my belief that listening tests designed to detect codec issues are not necessarily the best to detect other audio component sonics.
It is my strong contention that listening tests designed to maximize sensitivity to a single particular auditory effect, are not necesarily going to be the ones with maximum sensitivity to audio component sonics.
I asked about this earlier, with regard to the tests that determine JND's and thresholds, if any of these exact same tests, with the same set-up, same procedures, same equipment, same listeners, were ever used
to attempt to detect audible differences between audio components.The response that the tests inherent sensitivity to the item being detected shows this, begs the question, and is not a real answer.
[ Finally, your claim about "classic ABX". Provide evidence. Please. I want to see it. (For results in a DBT, please, not any kind of sighted test like you also seem to allow in your article.) ]The "classic" ABX tests I referred to, were the ones published in popular press magazines, and in audio society newsletters (which hardly qualify as a golden standard publication, due to the general lack of circulation and ready availability, absence of peer review, etc.), done by amateurs. You know, the ones which were supposed to have "proven" that all audio components (except loudspeakers) sound the same when below a certain THS, and not broken, etc.
I have not been referring to professional listening tests, as I noted in the original Part 1, these posts were not about YOUR listening tests at AT&T, or other professional listening tests done on codecs, etc.
They are about the kinds of amateur listening tests that are just about the only attempts at addressing audio component sonics out there, as no one has done a professional listening test for audio cables, CDPs, power amps, etc.
You have a history of jumping to the conclusion that when folks are discussing these amateur tests, that they are including YOUR tests, and those of your collegues. Some people might be doing this, but I specifically excluded the professionally done tests up front, but did not bother to append each paragragh with said disclaimer. I see now I should have.
As for my testing method, in the AES paper, the A and B are not known to the listener, so it is at the least, a single blind test, and can be made so that the conditions are double-blind equivalent.
Addition of the X forced choice at the end does not change any of that.
My presentation here was aimed at the individual, who may or may not wish to conduct the test blind.While I do encourage sighted listening by music lovers and audiophiles, and personally allow that they can actually hear things that are there and sonically different WITHOUT being completely biased and subject to placebo effects, etc., I do not state that such testing would hold much
water in terms of any formal scientific considerations, but if you are an individual, why do you NEED to be so formally scientific?
Jon Risch
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Jon, that's false. - Jon Risch 05/2/0315:51:52 05/2/03 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
