[Antony6555]

 
[size=10.8333px]  [/size]
[size=10.8333px] Audiophiles like to make all sorts of subjective claims, but very few are verified by dbt. And audio engineers don't consider subjective experiences evidence of anything. Will this change? Even if it is proven that the process of dbt influences the results, subjective impressions will still not be accepted by the scientific community. Psychological state is already known to have a major influence in determining listening experience. Furthermore, without a controlled setting (dbt) someone could simply claim they heard a difference when they didn't.[/size]
[size=10.8333px]  [/size]
[size=10.8333px] In short, performance will continue to improve. Will it be audible? Potentially, at least for transducers (as Uncle Eric said, some sources and amps are already effectively transparent.) Will it be driven by the subjective impressions of audiophiles? No[/size]

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I bought a change-ringing CD as a souvenir and played it occasionally, and Jenny showed no interest in it at all - except if I played it on what was then my big system, with Klipsch La Scala speakers and powered subwoofers, in which case she would react in exactly the same way as if she was hearing the live sound.
 
Clearly there was something about the waveform fidelity produced by that system that sounded convincing, at least to a dog.  I wish science would isolate that kind of factor.

Great story.  Now that seems like a promising DBT or case study.  I'm honestly more inclined to accept the DBT results of one or two conditioned canines like Jenny over a sampling of 50 random humans.    

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

Now that seems like a promising DBT or case study.  I'm honestly more inclined to accept the DBT results of one or two conditioned canines like Jenny over a sampling of 50 random humans.    

Absolutely.  People talk about "taking the human factor out" ... and that's exactly what it was.  It was a definite yes-no test about something.  No lies, no faking, no ego.  She was a very sweet dog.  And useful!

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

Quote:

Now that seems like a promising DBT or case study.  I'm honestly more inclined to accept the DBT results of one or two conditioned canines like Jenny over a sampling of 50 random humans.    

Absolutely.  People talk about "taking the human factor out" ... and that's exactly what it was.  It was a definite yes-no test about something.  No lies, no faking, no ego.  She was a very sweet dog.  And useful!

That is about as much as can be expected from you guys now. Abuse, allegations and ridiculous science.

 

[Jaythesail]

A bunch of Australian's are working on, and having success with a chip, that is implanted into the upper spinal cord to inhibit all pain reception received by the brain.
 
It is not unfeasible to think that in the near future we may be able to transmit audio directly into the brain, bypassing the ears as a sound to electrical converter.
 
Isn't that, after all, the end goal of hifi? Not to create air vibrations that mimic that of actual musical instruments but to create the perception of being there and listening to the real thing. The ear is just the final stage in the transmission, from the media, to the transport, the amp, the speakers etc etc... The ears of everyone are different and also usually damaged to some degree, so to me it makes perfect sense that in the search for true audio hifi we would aim to bypass the ears. This to me is no different that any attempt to remove variations in sound due to the acoustics of a room by using headphones instead.
 
Thats my two cents

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

 
Quote:

Quote:

Now that seems like a promising DBT or case study.  I'm honestly more inclined to accept the DBT results of one or two conditioned canines like Jenny over a sampling of 50 random humans.    

Absolutely.  People talk about "taking the human factor out" ... and that's exactly what it was.  It was a definite yes-no test about something.  No lies, no faking, no ego.  She was a very sweet dog.  And useful!

That is about as much as can be expected from you guys now. Abuse, allegations and ridiculous science.

Hey, calm down.  No abuse intended, no allegations made, and no science of any kind mentioned ... except perhaps a parallel approach in which a non-human, non-subjective before/after difference might be identified as the starting point for further inquiry.
 
I have observed that human DBTs - while impeccable in theory - can be imperfect in practice.  I have long advocated an alternative approach, in which "before" and "after" are first quantified neutrally - perhaps by analysis of two analog waveforms, or two digital datastreams, or in some other undeniable, hard-number, hard-evidence fashion.  If you tell an engineer, "These two cables sound different," he'll scoff.  Show him two different datastreams, and he'll get interested.  (Conversely, if the datastreams are identical, then the argument is over for all of us right there.)
 
If the hard evidence shows differences, we can first try to explain how and why, and second, we can then use human DBT to find out if the differences are reliably audible.
 
In my original canine example, one system produced symptoms in a disinterested canine test subject identical to the live sound.  I think it would have been interesting and perhaps valuable to have isolated the parameters that caused that result.  Was it bandwidth?  Volume?  Dynamic range?  Or what?  Are you saying you find no intrigue in that situation?  In which case, sadly, it's you who has no instinct for science.

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

It is not unfeasible to think that in the near future we may be able to transmit audio directly into the brain, bypassing the ears as a sound to electrical converter.
 
Isn't that, after all, the end goal of hifi? Not to create air vibrations that mimic that of actual musical instruments but to create the perception of being there and listening to the real thing.

 
This kind of carries on from my previous post ...
 
Not unfeasible, no.  It might happen.  But at the moment we're stuck with air vibrations, and my point is very simple.  If a listener hears a difference, that can only mean the air vibrations are different.  So let's analyze those vibrations, and demonstrate - with precision and rigor - that they are different.  Or not.  That's where we should start.  Because DBT is about testing the threshold effect of things already known to be different.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

Quote:

 
Quote:

Quote:

Now that seems like a promising DBT or case study.  I'm honestly more inclined to accept the DBT results of one or two conditioned canines like Jenny over a sampling of 50 random humans.    

Absolutely.  People talk about "taking the human factor out" ... and that's exactly what it was.  It was a definite yes-no test about something.  No lies, no faking, no ego.  She was a very sweet dog.  And useful!

That is about as much as can be expected from you guys now. Abuse, allegations and ridiculous science.

Hey, calm down.  No abuse intended, no allegations made, and no science of any kind mentioned ... except perhaps a parallel approach in which a non-human, non-subjective before/after difference might be identified as the starting point for further inquiry.
 
I have observed that human DBTs - while impeccable in theory - can be imperfect in practice.  I have long advocated an alternative approach, in which "before" and "after" are first quantified neutrally - perhaps by analysis of two analog waveforms, or two digital datastreams, or in some other undeniable, hard-number, hard-evidence fashion.  If you tell an engineer, "These two cables sound different," he'll scoff.  Show him two different datastreams, and he'll get interested.  (Conversely, if the datastreams are identical, then the argument is over for all of us right there.)
 
If the hard evidence shows differences, we can first try to explain how and why, and second, we can then use human DBT to find out if the differences are reliably audible.
 
In my original canine example, one system produced symptoms in a disinterested canine test subject identical to the live sound.  I think it would have been interesting and perhaps valuable to have isolated the parameters that caused that result.  Was it bandwidth?  Volume?  Dynamic range?  Or what?  Are you saying you find no intrigue in that situation?  In which case, sadly, it's you who has no instinct for science.

So using a dog for DBTs is not ridiculous science? It is interesting and comical, but are you expecting to be taken seriously? You wheel out the 'lies, faking and ego' criticisms of those who disagree with you and don't accept a reaction?
 
I agree about analysis of waveforms and data streams. In the case of data streams that has been proven time and again that you get what you put in and any corruption will be heard as a broken up signal. As for wavelengths, I am sure Nick_Charles and Uncle Erik have tried that and found no difference. Indeed if there was a difference, how come cable companies have not already latched onto that and pushed it as a reason as to why their cable is better?
 
You can also try this as a test
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/516323/audio-diffmaker-find-out-if-that-cable-tweak-or-other-change-actually-makes-an-audible-difference
 
the AudioDiffMaker, to see if there is a change which is audible.

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

 
So using a dog for DBTs is not ridiculous science?

I think using a dog as a disinterested test subject is excellent science.  Pioneers in space travel, medicine, and a hundred other disciplines would agree with me.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

You stand by the flaws in DBT with humans, but promote audio testing a dog. I am sure you can see where I am coming from.
 
The bottom line is that audiophiles do not like the results of DBTs as the results are contrary to so much they hold true. Sometimes the arguments against DBTs are spurious to say the least, such as they are designed to guarantee a fail. I think you have hit new heights (or should that be lows) with, we can learn so much from a dog!

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

You stand by the flaws in DBT with humans, but promote audio testing a dog. I am sure you can see where I am coming from.
 
The bottom line is that audiophiles do not like the results of DBTs as the results are contrary to so much they hold true. Sometimes the arguments against DBTs are spurious to say the least, such as they are designed to guarantee a fail. I think you have hit new heights (or should that be lows) with, we can learn so much from a dog!

You misunderstand me.  I'm not an audiophile, I support DBT passionately, while recognizing its potential flaws, which I think are very different from what "audiophiles" claim, I hold nothing to be true until rigorously proven, and I wasn't DBTing a dog.  I merely noticed that one of my systems had an unidentified quality that excited the same reaction in a dog as live sound, and I wondered what that quality was, and I wished I knew.  My point was not to learn from a dog, but to want to learn what factor influenced that dog.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

Quote:

I bought a change-ringing CD as a souvenir and played it occasionally, and Jenny showed no interest in it at all - except if I played it on what was then my big system, with Klipsch La Scala speakers and powered subwoofers, in which case she would react in exactly the same way as if she was hearing the live sound.
 
Clearly there was something about the waveform fidelity produced by that system that sounded convincing, at least to a dog.  I wish science would isolate that kind of factor.

Great story.  Now that seems like a promising DBT or case study.  I'm honestly more inclined to accept the DBT results of one or two conditioned canines like Jenny over a sampling of 50 random humans.    

Sorry InnerSpace, I have read back and I was reacting as much to this post which, I should have spotted was by Anaxilus. I get the ego comment thrown at me all the time, which is annoying as I can continually show I go where the science is, respect those who bring greater knowledge and accept mistakes made by me.

 

[Anaxilus]

Well someone brought some seriously thin skin into the discourse when it was clear no single person was 'called out'.  Also thinking a dog w/ superior hearing and smell would offer science nothing as a biological subject is just odd and prejudicial.  We use animals and insects everyday to learn about our world in REAL science.  I find your superiority complex in trying to poison the well baffling honestly.  It is not hard to train or condition an intelligent animal to perform within a specific set of test conditions.  I certainly don't want this to be a DBT thread either but how you don't see humans bringing their own set of complex and uncontrolled variables is beyond me. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Anaxilus, I have been the subject of all sorts of abuse, you included on this forum. It is not unreasonable that I do call anyone who dishes out abuse.  You allege 'thin skinned' and then you insult with the comment 'superiority complex'. That is how you behave, I am used to it, but that does not mean I find it acceptable or unworthy of challenging. Please notice that I do not see your behavouir as an excuse to return the insult.
 
Something else which you regularly do is misrepresent what I have said. I called into question dogs and DBTs. Now you are posting as if I have decried the use of dogs and animals in science as a whole. Wrong, again.
 
This thread is about the study of what knowledge we have about audio. We have far more to learn from humans than dogs.

 

[Anaxilus]

Well that's how your posts read to me.  I have no idea what your point of contention is about dogs then so no point to comment further on it.  On the other note, there's plenty of finger pointing to go around.  I've even defended you at times.  I'll just chalk it up to a bad hair day.  Not once have I ever claimed victim status regardless of the degree of derision.  I'll leave it there.