[cjl]

  The thrust of my argument is not about fatigue, but about the experience of listening over the longer term in general. If a subtle difference becomes a large difference with the addition of time, might a difference below the threshold of human abx testing and conscious awareness also become larger with the addition of time?

In general, most of the evidence I've seen supports it being the other way around - a subtle but perceptible difference in a fast-switch A/B will not be perceived as a difference at all in longer term testing.

 

[AutumnCrown]

  In general, most of the evidence I've seen supports it being the other way around - a subtle but perceptible difference in a fast-switch A/B will not be perceived as a difference at all in longer term testing.

What evidence is that?

 

[sonitus mirus]

 
What evidence is that?

 
I've never seen any evidence established to suggest that long-term listening would reveal a difference when fast A/B switching could not identify any difference.  
 
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5549
 
A synopsis of the paper for those that do not have access to the AES library.
 
http://tinyurl.com/hogskga

 

[spruce music]

Well there is the issue of echoic memory.
 
Your brain can access the direct perceptions of the hearing system for a few seconds.  Perhaps as long as 15 seconds though probably shorter.  At that point, something like mp3 compression is done to the raw perception and that is stored in longer term memory.
 
Testing of various things like distortion, masking etc. find that shorter times and instant switching give much better discernment at lower levels than when longer intervals of sound or when there is a delay switching between one source and another.
 
OOPS....now I see the second link in the post above is about this very test.
There was a test done years back and published where a distortion box that made 2.5 % distortion was given to members of a hifi society.  Half the boxes were clean and half were dirty (distorting).  You got to take it home insert prior to your preamp and listen until you though it was a dirty of clean box.  Some took 9 weeks to decide. Results were random.  These people then came in, and took a test with the same box only able to switch quickly and did so every few seconds.  It was clearly detected almost 100%.   Then a box with 1% distortion was used and it too easily detected in quick switching.
 
I know it is popular to think otherwise, but having tried some things myself and reading how this works, shorter is better and more discerning.  Which is why a rig that causes listener fatigue long term would almost surely be heard as different in a quick switch.

 

[AutumnCrown]

   
I've never seen any evidence established to suggest that long-term listening would reveal a difference when fast A/B switching could not identify any difference.  
 
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5549
 
A synopsis of the paper for those that do not have access to the AES library.
 
http://tinyurl.com/hogskga

Thank you for the paper. I don't have a subscription for the full one.
 
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and evidence of absence is hard to come by. Why not be open minded about it? One way to refute my theory with evidence would be to demonstrate that there aren't cumulative auditory effects of any kind that cross the threshold from unconscious to conscious experience. This sounds like it would require expensive equipment and an advanced knowledge of neuroscience, or might even be currently impossible. I think it's generally understood that many processes do traverse this threshold, and I don't see why audio processing ones mightn't be among them.

 

[AutumnCrown]

 
These people then came in, and took a test with the same box only able to switch quickly and did so every few seconds.  It was clearly detected almost 100%.   Then a box with 1% distortion was used and it too easily detected in quick switching.
 

  I believe that they also failed the blind test, and only the engineer group who did not do the take home passed?

 

[sonitus mirus]

Thank you for the paper. I don't have a subscription for the full one.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and evidence of absence is hard to come by. Why not be open minded about it? In order to refute my theory with evidence, you would have to demonstrate that there aren't cumulative auditory effects of any kind that cross the threshold from unconscious to conscious experience. This sounds like it would require expensive equipment and an advanced knowledge of neuroscience, or might even be currently impossible. I think it's generally understood that signs that many processes do traverse this threshold, and I don't see why audio processing ones mightn't be among them.

I'm trying to be open minded and rational. It is just pressure waves, not X-rays. If you can't identify any audible difference in what has been shown to be the most effective method, I don't see any reason why it could have long-term impact on the listener. If there is some effect, there must be a cause.

It is certainly possible that there is a difference that might cause some measurable change with the listener that is extremely challenging for most people to identify in an ABX test, but that evidence is for someone to demonstrate for such a claim to hold any value. We can't waste our time attempting to refute all possible ideas.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  I believe that they also failed the blind test, and only the engineer group who did not do the take home passed?

The test was all blind. Both the "golden ears" and amateurs took random boxes home and listened for as long as they wanted on their own equipment. None of the testers demonstrated that they could hear any differences in the extended listening test.

Only the amatuers would test in fast AB testing. In 45 minutes, they all could hear a difference, and they could even identify a smaller difference using this same testing method.

Basically, the small audible difference was simply not identified when listening for long periods of time on familiar, high quality equipment.

 

[AutumnCrown]

I'm trying to be open minded and rational. It is just pressure waves, not X-rays. If you can't identify any audible difference in what has been shown to be the most effective method, I don't see any reason why it could have long-term impact on the listener. If there is some effect, there must be a cause.

It is certainly possible that there is a difference that might cause some measurable change with the listener that is extremely challenging for most people to identify in an ABX test, but that evidence is for someone to demonstrate for such a claim to hold any value. We can't waste our time attempting to refute all possible ideas.

The label of "most effective method" is not a permanent or immutable qualification. It seems my post was a bit less empirically-grounded than is normal for this forum. I am making an argument that is certainly on the edge of falsifiability, if not beyond it. I thought it was interesting, but I'm observing that people here are more interested in defending current testing methodologies than discussing their potential limitations. By the way, it's not just pressure waves, it's also a human brain.

 

[AutumnCrown]

The test was all blind. 

Pardon, I meant they also failed the abx test.

 

[spruce music]

The test was all blind. Both the "golden ears" and amateurs took random boxes home and listened for as long as they wanted on their own equipment. None of the testers demonstrated that they could hear any differences in the extended listening test.

Only the amatuers would test in fast AB testing. In 45 minutes, they all could hear a difference, and they could even identify a smaller difference using this same testing method.

Basically, the small audible difference was simply not identified when listening for long periods of time on familiar, high quality equipment.

Yes, this is correct. 

 

[castleofargh]

 

I'm trying to be open minded and rational. It is just pressure waves, not X-rays. If you can't identify any audible difference in what has been shown to be the most effective method, I don't see any reason why it could have long-term impact on the listener. If there is some effect, there must be a cause.

It is certainly possible that there is a difference that might cause some measurable change with the listener that is extremely challenging for most people to identify in an ABX test, but that evidence is for someone to demonstrate for such a claim to hold any value. We can't waste our time attempting to refute all possible ideas.

The label of "most effective method" is not a permanent or immutable qualification. It seems my post was a bit less empirically-grounded than is normal for this forum. I am making an argument that is certainly on the edge of falsifiability, if not beyond it. I thought it was interesting, but I'm observing that people here are more interested in defending current testing methodologies than discussing their potential limitations. By the way, it's not just pressure waves, it's also a human brain.

but where did that argument come from? IMO you're reversing the problem at hand.  with my admittedly more and more partial experience of audio forums, the advocates for a longer listening to notice more differences, are in general those who also believe their experience in audio somehow protects them from placebo and expectation biases. in a word, they believe they can assess sound with casual listening. 
so if they're wrong about the later, and they are if they belong to the human race.  why should we expect them to be right about the former, that was most likely a direct conclusion of them being using the wrong testing method out of overconfidence?
 
would you have had the thought for that argument if some hunch of yours didn't contest some abx tests? on what basis did you decide that the abx test should be the one with limitations on asserting a given situation?
I understand from your previous posts that some people rubbed your nose in some BS ABX conclusions to try and "prove" stuff the test probably didn't actually prove. but blame those guys for not understanding what an abx test can and cannot demonstrate. the method itself has nothing to do with it and you're the one who came with a loaded argument and topic title. so I don't think it's fair to put the partisan bias on us.

 

[AutumnCrown]

 
would you have had the thought for that argument if some hunch of yours didn't contest some abx tests? on what basis did you decide that the abx test should be the one with limitations on asserting a given situation?
I understand from your previous posts that some people rubbed your nose in some BS ABX conclusions to try and "prove" stuff the test probably didn't actually prove. but blame those guys for not understanding what an abx test can and cannot demonstrate. the method itself has nothing to do with it and you're the one who came with a loaded argument and topic title. so I don't think it's fair to put the partisan bias on us.

 
Your first questions seem to be about my person, and If you are trying to detect possible sources of bias in me, there are plenty I'm sure, but that is a separate issue from my argument itself. Many a scientists' work has co-existed with or even been enhanced by their biases and hunches. No one is free from them. You admit to having a partiality yourself, but I'm not particularly interested in where the discomfort with ambiguity I perhaps incorrectly observe came from, I merely observed that it seems to exist because it seems a stumbling block for this particular discussion. I observed that there is a general trend in favor of scientific positivism rather than critique of empirical methodologies because my argument is contrasted with it. I'm not putting anything on you other than that. If you or anyone else is incapable of finding a purely theoretical discussion interesting you are free to make the case for why it shouldn't be had. This thread has a question mark because it is not an assertion but a question. The answers I've received seem to be a collective "no" but few answerers seem to acknowledge that there exist phenomena that current abx testing cannot analyze or detect, and those that do don't want to talk about those phenomena. I don't think that this forum is only for "applied sound science", is it?

 

[spruce music]

Your OP:
 
"People often speak of fatigue as something that is cumulative, that it takes minutes or hours for a strident headphone to become fatiguing. This suggests that there is a complex psychological time interaction between the equipment and the brain. The time limitations of blind tests have been noted by others. In plain. English, because time magnifies certain aspects of sound, there may be effects too subtle to be noticed in time-limited blind tests, and the fatigue effect is evidence of this.

Does this make any sense? I've had a lot of coffee today, so it might not 

"
 
It has been answered.  What causes fatigue.  Well there is a muscle in the ear whose job is to close down sensitivity to overly loud sounds.  Usually called upon around and above 80 db of sound level.  Why would strident phones make this more of an issue over time?  Because that is likely to be an excess of energy in the 3-5 khz band where our hearing is most sensitive. You propose this effect one that would be missed in short term blind testing.  Would it? Does time magnify the effect? Is the effect subtle too subtle for time limited tests?
 
You have been told the answer to your question is no, this is not a flaw of blind tests.  Firstly because you need not limit time they can be done as long as anyone wishes.  You ignored that as it didn't play into your idea of a flaw.  You have then been shown evidence short testing is the more sensitive.  You ignored that too.  So then:
 
"The answers I've received seem to be a collective "no" but few answerers seem to acknowledge that there exist phenomena that current abx testing cannot analyze or detect, and those that do don't want to talk about those phenomena. "
 
So yes, you got a no, because that is the correct answer.   You then make the leap to proclaiming there exist a phenomena abx testing cannot anaylyze or detect.  That is a faulty conclusion. Faulty on more than on count.  Firstly the testing could be done until fatigue is detected comparing one version against another.  The fact you didn't and most don't isn't an issue. Secondly for something to in time cause fatigue it will have an energy imbalance that will be detected quickly in short comparisons without having to experience fatigue.
 
So you questioned, "another flaw of blind tests?" (btw what were the others), and that query has been answered.  If you don't like the answer I would ask, what evidence would you accept that long term listening fatigue is an issue that can be discerned in blind testing?  There is no one refusing to talk about this because it isn't an issue or a flaw or a problem.  You simply appear unable to accept that answer.
 
 

 

[AutumnCrown]

Interesting, thanks for the information about fatigue. Do you have a source for that information?
 
Quote:

   
So yes, you got a no, because that is the correct answer.   You then make the leap to proclaiming there exist a phenomena abx testing cannot anaylyze or detect.  That is a faulty conclusion.
Firstly the testing could be done until fatigue is detected comparing one version against another.  The fact you didn't and most don't isn't an issue. Secondly for something to in time cause fatigue it will have an energy imbalance that will be detected quickly in short comparisons without having to experience fatigue.
 
 

 
You seem to be claiming there is not one example of any auditory event, in the whole of scientific literature, that cannot be viewed in a standard format abx test. That is certainly possible, but is quite a lofty claim itself. You also seem to be implying that there never will be such an event, which seems like a stretch. I am not "proclaiming there exist a phenomena (sic) abx testing cannot analyze", I am saying that there could be a class of events that do not show up in abx testing due to time limitations. If no one has anything to say about this, they can just say so, there is no need to claim that you know for certain that they can't possibly exist. Do you understand the difference between presenting evidence that such effects don't show up in a standard abx/blind test, and presenting evidence that they are categorically impossible? I've been presented with the former, dressed up as the latter, but they are not the same thing.
 
To reiterate, the flaw of blind tests that I allude to in my OP is not a failure to account for fatigue, it is the possibility of subliminal effects building over time to eventually be noticeable in one way or another. There seems to be the idea here that if you cannot locate an event within the paradigm of abx testing, it cannot exist. Sonitic mirus said "If there is some effect, there must be a cause". I think what he really meant was "if there is some effect, you must present a cause within the paradigm of my current understanding", but that's not how science or truth works.
 

   
You have been told the answer to your question is no, this is not a flaw of blind tests.  Firstly because you need not limit time they can be done as long as anyone wishes.  You ignored that as it didn't play into your idea of a flaw.  You have then been shown evidence short testing is the more sensitive.  You ignored that too.  So then:
 

I am not ignoring anything, including, unfortunately, your rudeness. I simply am not convinced that a single test, or even a multitude of similar tests means that abx testing is the end-all be-all of auditory science, but I guess anything short of this means that I am "ignoring" the study for you. A key aspect of that study, and abx testing, no, scientific experimentation in general is that it is valid within a specific context. As the authors stated, " The A/B/X test was proven to be more sensitive than long-term listening for this task." That's my emphasis. I doubt that "delineating the limits of all aspects of human hearing and auditory processing" is an appropriate use for this study. This is exactly what I am talking about is a flaw with blind tests - because people like you use them incorrectly.