[Clarkmc2]

No, what I am asking is how does your evaluation inform improvements YOU may make in the system differently from any other person evaluating it in another way. What is the end result for the one using your method. That is, you?
 
What your answer could inform me of is the why of this whole exercise for you. And why anyone else might care, which I hope they will of course.
 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

No, what I am asking is how does your evaluation inform improvements YOU may make in the system differently from any other person evaluating it in another way. What is the end result for the one using your method. That is, you?
 
What your answer could inform me of is the why of this whole exercise for you. And why anyone else might care, which I hope they will of course.
 

The end result is an accurate system. If someone else uses a different method of evaluating accuracy they end up with a different system. From my point of view, any attempt to evaluate accuracy in a manner that is divorced from the musical concepts is absurd, but of course we know that is not the prevailing view here.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying. I know you will be suffering the slings and arrows of others because your system is not quantifiable. There is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. I will leave it to others to issue further editorial comment, thanks for the explanation.
 
It might help your cause to explain that you are not ignorant of the science of recording and reproduction, but you prefer another approach to the evaluation of results. There should be less contention that way. For what it is worth, even Jim Anderson still uses his ears and musical experience. Every good recording pro does.
 

 

[drez]

My issue with most DBT is that you are placing extra stress on human auditory memory, which is already tenuous to begin with, and then unsurprisingly come up with consistent null results.  If you gave a maths problem from advanced mathematics course from university to the general population, you would also get  consistent null results.  I don't think all DBT are flawed, ABX where test subject has labelled options and can change between them at leisure is one method I have found to produce non-null results.  But honestly what is the purpose of DBT - if you hear something, you hear it whether it is imaginary or not - proof or disproof, especially using null-prone DBT, is all but irrelevant - if other people also perceive it, then they also perceive it.  

 

[bigshot]

From my point of view, any attempt to evaluate accuracy in a manner that is divorced from the musical concepts is absurd,

That is the drop dead EASIEST audio problem to solve... If you want to improve the musicality of your system, get better music.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

That is the drop dead EASIEST audio problem to solve... If you want to improve the musicality of your system, get better music.

Do you remember that I define "system" as the entire chain from recording hall and microphones, to playback speakers and room?

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying. I know you will be suffering the slings and arrows of others because your system is not quantifiable. There is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. I will leave it to others to issue further editorial comment, thanks for the explanation.

There is no reason it can't be quantifiable. Again with the visual analogy, suppose we are interested in making copies of images of faces that preserve the emotion on the face. The "emotion on the face" is a matter for objective study, something that everyone agrees is an objective concept. For me, the kinds of things in music that matter are potentially quantifiable-- the only problem is that certain scientists ignore them, probably because those scientists can't perceive them. There is no reason that PRaT can't be broken down into quantifiable/measurable concepts, but that's not going to happen when the likes of Ethan Winer call it nonsense. Facial expressions are regarded as a matter for scientific study because everyone except autistic people find them so obvious.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

I did not address your analogy to facial recognition because I did not feel that it applies. You're talking about different perceptual mechanisms so there's every chance of tripping up from a technical point of view. Take the origins of facial recognition, it is a skill that develops very soon after birth and requires no conscious effort or training. The finer points of language processing kick in later and form the foundation for perceiving elements of music (pitch, rhythm, etc.). If you mean to talk about pattern recognition in listening to and performing music, then you're talking about more complex patterns of learning. (to be continued...)

Okay, I am talking about pattern recognition in listening/performing music. The facial recognition analogy is not about the deep brain structure -- it has two points. (1) to drive home the point for people like Bigshot who don't seem to understand musical pattern recognition. (2) to try to explain that certain types of musical pattern recognition become very concrete, specific, and widespread when they are trained, analogous to the way everyone understands facial recognition. But also analogously, some people cannot recognize faces, and people without musical training can't recognize these patterns nor even, apparently, imagine what it would be like to recognize them.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

If you gave a maths problem from advanced mathematics course from university to the general population, you would also get  consistent null results.  

 
This analogy doesn't work. A lack of knowledge about how to solve a problem, does not invalidate the problem itself. This is a different issue than determining if something is objectively audible, or if something is affected by various psychoacoustic factors. There is no "knowledge" about audio that would lead to an ability to hear an extended frequency range, for instance. I do not doubt, however that someone could be trained to listen to compression artifact's, and similar elements - if that is what you are getting at. 
 
 
Quote:

I don't think all DBT are flawed, ABX where test subject has labelled options and can change between them at leisure is one method I have found to produce non-null results.  But honestly what is the purpose of DBT - if you hear something, you hear it whether it is imaginary or not - proof or disproof, especially using null-prone DBT, is all but irrelevant - if other people also perceive it, then they also perceive it.  

 
If you mean the options are labeled A, and B, or something that doesn't given any information about what product/sample they are reviewing, I see no problem with this. Nor do I have problems with the reviewer controlling the switching time and frequency. The purpose of the DBT is to determine if what you are hearing is the result of an actual audible change to the output, or if it is the result of psychoacoustic factors. Whether that distinction is important to you, is another matter entirely. 
 
Quote:

Okay, I am talking about pattern recognition in listening/performing music. The facial recognition analogy is not about the deep brain structure -- it has two points. (1) to drive home the point for people like Bigshot who don't seem to understand musical pattern recognition. (2) to try to explain that certain types of musical pattern recognition become very concrete, specific, and widespread when they are trained, analogous to the way everyone understands facial recognition. But also analogously, some people cannot recognize faces, and people without musical training can't recognize these patterns nor even, apparently, imagine what it would be like to recognize them.

 
Of course, even the person who does not immediately recognize the emotion being displayed, can still see the face, describe its features. Likewise with sound - not recognizing the pattern doesn't mean they cannot hear the notes - e.g. that inability to understand the pattern, does not affect perceived audibility. 

 

[bigshot]

Do you remember that I define "system" as the entire chain from recording hall and microphones, to playback speakers and room?

Some parts of that chain are going to affect certain aspects than others. If you don't like the melody, changing the power plug won't help.

(By the way, in your chain, you forgot the musicians.)

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
Of course, even the person who does not immediately recognize the emotion being displayed, can still see the face, describe its features. Likewise with sound - not recognizing the pattern doesn't mean they cannot hear the notes - e.g. that inability to understand the pattern, does not affect perceived audibility. 

That is a different topic. You are using the analogy the wrong way. The topic I'm talking about is evaluating or characterizing the behavior of devices for which there is no controversy there is audible change, such as (1) recording hall, (2) miking technique (positions and mike choices), (3) playback speakers and room acoustics.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Some parts of that chain are going to affect certain aspects than others. If you don't like the melody, changing the power plug won't help.
(By the way, in your chain, you forgot the musicians.)

We're not trying to evaluate the musicians or the music; we are trying to evaluate the behavior of the system that is used to get the music from point A to point B.

 

[bigshot]

You said you can't separate the sound from the musical aspects. So you should include the source of the music in your chain.

If you find your headphones lack rhythm, I'd suggest replacing the drummer.

 

[drez]

Quote:

This analogy doesn't work. A lack of knowledge about how to solve a problem, does not invalidate the problem itself. This is a different issue than determining if something is objectively audible, or if something is affected by various psychoacoustic factors. There is no "knowledge" about audio that would lead to an ability to hear an extended frequency range, for instance. I do not doubt, however that someone could be trained to listen to compression artifact's, and similar elements - if that is what you are getting at. 

 
From memory quite a few DBT's used audio professionals eg. sound engineers and musicians etc, which from the general population should be the people best equipped to discern small differences in audio, and DBT scientific methods should in theory help to assure that test subjects do not take the proverbial stroll down the garden path in terms of cognitive biasing, but to me I find some of the DBT test results puzzling, but then again I have not heard the test setups used in order to say whether I would also be duped into hearing differences that are not there.  To me any DBT should be accompanied by measurements taken of the equipment in order to better evaluate the results.  A DBT null result by itself could indicate a number of causal scenarios - the equipment might have no measurable differences, or the differences might be measurable but too small to be reliably discerned in the given test conditions - to me it is important to identify which of these two scenarios has actually occurred before offering the results as evidence of any particular theory.
 
For cables it could well be that metallurgy has no influence and that if all other factors are kept the same there will be no difference.  On that though I was wondering if I could clarify some of the questions I raised earlier:
 
-That metallurgy does not affect the speed at which signals pass through cables (white papers from boutique cable mfrs claim it does eg with cryo, OCC but the consensus here is that it has more to do with construction and dielectric.)  
-Is it impossible for metallurgy to affect reactive impedance or any other consequential metric of cable performance? (boutique cable mfrs often quote different measurements for different metallurgy - is this just slight of hand ie are they changing wire gauge etc?)
-That inductance and capacitance cannot affect signal phase as the cable is in minimum phase.
-That skin effect has inconsequential effect on signal phase and frequency response (I'm not sure what order of magnitude we are taking about in real world applications)

 

[BlindInOneEar]

I wonder.  I'm not very knowledgeable about TVs so perhaps some of the wiser minds here could help me out.  Let's imagine I see a film in a theater, one that wins Oscars for best picture, best actor and best actress among other accolades.  Now if I want to enjoy that film again, but this time in the comfort of my home, do I need to worry that my TV is somehow going to change the performances in the film when I watch it again?  I'm not talking about obvious issues, such as the smaller screen size at home as opposed to a theater, or problems such as lip syncing or color aberrations.  No, I'm talking about a more insidious issue, where a properly functioning TV is seemingly capably playing back the film, but is also altering the performances in the film itself.  Scenes that crackled with emotion and energy in the theater are now plodding and pedestrian.  Those Oscar winning performances are now dull and uninspired.  The direction itself now seems off, as if Francis Ford Coppola was replaced by Woody Allen.     
 
Has anyone experienced anything like that?  
 
Are there TV sets out there that are better at capturing the emotion and feeling that the actors tried to put into the scene?  That reveal more of the pace the director worked so hard to infuse into a gripping chase scene?  That are better at capturing the rhythm in a dialog between two actors?  That better reveal the timing in a series of cuts?  I guess more importantly, are there TV sets out there that while ostensibly working correctly, still manage to rob films of the pace, rhythm and timing that was present when the film was first played in theaters?  Or do all sets pretty much play back the film the way it originally ran?