Member of the Trade: The Audio Guild Aka: TempAccount555
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
6,609
Likes
554
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is the benchmark for "establishing audibility"? Does it have to be a DBT?
Unless you can come up with some other means of adequately controlling for the problems arising from sighted listening (vanity and ego don't count), then yes.
If it's too difficult to prove by dbt abx you could try to be cheap and do what the Japanese did and use EEG machines. They couldn't prove conscious awareness of ultrasound but they proved physiological effects from it.
Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is the benchmark for "establishing audibility"? Does it have to be a DBT?
YES !, unequivocably YES !
Models do not predict audibility, sighted tests are just far too open to human bias, we have all been victims of fanciful thinking where you imagine a difference even if it is an A:A test as has been done by several mischevious researcher types, long term tests are simply not proven to be sensitive enough, see Tom Nousaine's "Flying Blind" gotta be DBT !
There are many positive DBTs out there !, the argument that all DBTs are null is just not true !
Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it's too difficult to prove by dbt abx you could try to be cheap and do what the Japanese did and use EEG machines. They couldn't prove conscious awareness of ultrasound but they proved physiological effects from it.
Yeees but there are a few question marks about Oohashi's paper, Ashihara and Kiryu tried to replicate it and they suggested that it may have been due to IMD from the speaker arrangement rolling back into the audible spectrum and creating distortion peaks not the ultrasonics themselves, when a different speaker arrangement removed the IMD the results were nulled.
Originally Posted by aristos_achaion /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's "sound science", not "sound nihilism". If accounting for inconvenient observation isn't part of your science, I'm afraid your sound science isn't very sound.
I was simply stating that comments like:
"Try using setup X and compare it to setup Y and see if your ears can hear the difference" isn't scientific unless proper DBT methodology is applied and agrees with the well proven theories of electronic engineering (which are firmly established in physics and chemistry). If it doesn't agree with well proven theories of electronics engineering, the burden of proof shifts to the minority view.
This is a sound science forum, and it's the only haven left for people who want objective perspectives and doesn't need to be tainted with faith based garbage unless there's evidence to back it up.
Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was simply stating that comments like:
"Try using setup X and compare it to setup Y and see if your ears can hear the difference" isn't scientific unless proper DBT methodology is applied and agrees with the well proven theories of electronic engineering (which are firmly established in physics and chemistry). If it doesn't agree with well proven theories of electronics engineering, the burden of proof shifts to the minority view.
This is a sound science forum, and it's the only haven left for people who want objective perspectives and doesn't need to be tainted with faith based garbage unless there's evidence to back it up.
I don't think this is helpful to criticize my observations as "faith based garbage" simply because they are subjective in nature. I have good experience here and I'm trying to share valid observations from an applied knowledge standpoint.
You can politely criticize the value of subjective observations but you have no insight into the inherent quality of those same observations.
Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can politely criticize the value of subjective observations but you have no insight into the inherent quality of those same observations.
Two Track here are two statements. They are both based on an scenario where you have heard a subjective change in SQ with a different cable. Which one do you think is not appropriate for the sound science forum?
"I believed I heard a difference between two cables so I did an blind ABX listening test to check it was not placebo, here are the results"
or
"I heard a difference between two cables, it doesn't need to be verified as I have 20 years experience in the recording industry"
Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think this is helpful to criticize my observations as "faith based garbage" simply because they are subjective in nature. I have good experience here and I'm trying to share valid observations from an applied knowledge standpoint.
You can politely criticize the value of subjective observations but you have no insight into the inherent quality of those same observations.
Get off your high horse. It doesn't matter how many years you've been listening to cables. If anything your hearing is worse than the younger people here. Back up your statements with a DBT to get everybody off of your back. I'm not buying the whole "I don't have time to DBT" thing since you've posted in this subforum about 100-200 times in the past few weeks alone.
Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think this is helpful to criticize my observations as "faith based garbage" simply because they are subjective in nature. I have good experience here and I'm trying to share valid observations from an applied knowledge standpoint.
You can politely criticize the value of subjective observations but you have no insight into the inherent quality of those same observations.
Despite the fact that I still disagree that your subjective viewpoints (regardless of your level of experience) certainly do not belong in the sound science forum, I will admit that I have been a bit testy - I've had a stressful week.
Please accept my apologies on my rudeness; I should have been more polite and constructive in my criticism.
twotracks, you're a real glutton for pain. I doubt you think it's fun fending off all these people but I've been having quite a kick watching these few months
Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Two Track here are two statements. They are both based on an scenario where you have heard a subjective change in SQ with a different cable. Which one do you think is not appropriate for the sound science forum?
"I believed I heard a difference between two cables so I did an blind ABX listening test to check it was not placebo, here are the results"
or
"I heard a difference between two cables, it doesn't need to be verified as I have 20 years experience in the recording industry"
I think both statements are valid. I think people who have critical listening skills have valid observations and I'm not convinced that ABX testing is really a good procedure for capturing sound quality differences.
Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Despite the fact that I still disagree that your subjective viewpoints (regardless of your level of experience) certainly do not belong in the sound science forum, I will admit that I have been a bit testy - I've had a stressful week.
Please accept my apologies on my rudeness; I should have been more polite and constructive in my criticism.
Thank you Catharsis. I appreciate that. As well I could have been more constructive in my earlier criticism of Mr. Winer.
I should add that I am a bit puzzled that I'm not being given credit for the scientific papers and evidence I have presented that back up my opinions and experiences in audio.
It is one of many factors that suggest to me that no amount of valid ABX testing will ever be enough for some here to change their mind.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
