Summit-Fi Random Thoughts

[801evan]

Maybe it is, but I don't care. I'm an anonymous person on here. I was just very surprised that medications could influence how I perceive music. Maybe others can relate

To wit, when I had a tetanus shot, I hear a bump in the upper mids. But ofc, i hear this emphasis in everyday life, not just in the music. It waned over a week later. What's just as related is stress, fatigue, irritability can bring emphasis on certain areas and/or change our sentiments on how the music is being played back.

 

[gregorio]

What's just as related is stress, fatigue, irritability can bring emphasis on certain areas and/or change our sentiments on how the music is being played back.

Absolutely. What we perceive/experience as “hearing” can be changed/affected, sometimes drastically so, by both physiological and psychological factors, both of which have been studied extensively. For example, ask yourself why you don’t hear a constant very loud thumping?

G

 

[801evan]

Absolutely. What we perceive/experience as “hearing” can be changed/affected, sometimes drastically so, by both physiological and psychological factors, both of which have been studied extensively. For example, ask yourself why you don’t hear a constant very loud thumping?

G

This is the flaw of A/B, ABX testing because acclimation to a beat will make A/A sound different. Only audio bullies use it as a tactic to put down people or a competing device.

 

[gregorio]

This is the flaw of A/B, ABX testing because acclimation to a beat will make A/A sound different.

Acclimation to a beat can make A/A sound different under certain circumstances but how does that cause a flaw in say ABX testing, which allows the tester to avoid those circumstances?

Only audio bullies use it as a tactic to put down people or a competing device.

It’s the other way around. ABX for example, is a highly researched and developed test used for many decades by science, international bodies/organisations, the world’s education systems and audio professionals to unequivocally demonstrate what can actually be heard, free of the physiological biases that can subtly or dramatically change/affect what we believe we’re hearing. The only exception is a relatively tiny number of audiophile bullies who have been trying (unsuccessfully) for several decades to discredit this international standard test, in order to effectively bully others into accepting claims/beliefs/opinions that are contrary to the actual reliable evidence/facts. As is often the case with bullies, if they’re challenged with the actual facts, they’ll commonly play the victim and make out they’re the ones being bullied.

I’m not sure we’re allowed to discuss this here are we? Typically, the discussion of ABX, science or proven tests/facts are banned anywhere other than the sound science subforum, because Head-Fi relies on audiophile marketing revenue.

G

 

[801evan]

Acclimation to a beat can make A/A sound different under certain circumstances but how does that cause a flaw in say ABX testing, which allows the tester to avoid those circumstances?

It’s the other way around. ABX for example, is a highly researched and developed test used for many decades by science, international bodies/organisations, the world’s education systems and audio professionals to unequivocally demonstrate what can actually be heard, free of the physiological biases that can subtly or dramatically change/affect what we believe we’re hearing. The only exception is a relatively tiny number of audiophile bullies who have been trying (unsuccessfully) for several decades to discredit this international standard test, in order to effectively bully others into accepting claims/beliefs/opinions that are contrary to the actual reliable evidence/facts. As is often the case with bullies, if they’re challenged with the actual facts, they’ll commonly play the victim and make out they’re the ones being bullied.

I’m not sure we’re allowed to discuss this here are we? Typically, the discussion of ABX, science or proven tests/facts are banned anywhere other than the sound science subforum, because Head-Fi relies on audiophile marketing revenue.

G

Still applies to ABX because if 5 samples are all A in an ABX, it will sound different in the next sample for the user as the ear drum gets acclimated, saturated by the beat.

 

[gregorio]

Still applies to ABX because if 5 samples are all A in an ABX, it will sound different in the next sample for the user as the ear drum gets acclimated, saturated by the beat.

Acclimatisation takes time and occurs gradually, it does not happen instantly. The conditions required for the “next sample” to sound different is if the ears/brain gets acclimated over the period of the first 5 samples and then there is a long enough gap between the 5th and 6th samples to allow the ear/brain to re-acclimatise. Of course, that condition is easily avoided by having roughly the same gap between all the samples.

G

 

[801evan]

Acclimatisation takes time, it does not happen instantly.

It's fairly quick. Especially in ABX that's the same song and comparing A and B that's fairly similar.

 

[gregorio]

It's fairly quick. Especially in ABX that's the same song and comparing A and B that's fairly similar.

Although it can be as long as you want, most ABX tests involve switching between the different samples virtually instantly, less than a tenth of a second. Acclimatisation does not happen that quickly!

So ironically, your explanation of the “flaw” with ABX testing is actually the opposite, it’s one of the many strengths/features of ABX that makes it more reliable than any other listening test procedure! Of course that’s hardly surprising, as it was invented in 1950 and has been used and further developed by countless scientists, engineers and others for 70 years.

G

 

[801evan]

Although it can be as long as you want, most ABX tests involve switching between the different samples virtually instantly, less than a tenth of a second. Acclimatisation does not happen that quickly. So ironically, your explanation of the “flaw” with ABX testing is actually the opposite, it’s one of the many strengths/features of ABX that makes it more reliable than any other listening test procedure! Of course that’s hardly surprising, as it was invented in 1950
and has been used and further developed by countless scientists, engineers and others for 70 years.

G

The longer you do it...the worse it gets. By acclimation, I mean the ear getting bombarded/saturated by a beat. Same as still hearing the techno bass beat when you are already in bed after coming from a rave 3 hours ago..

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

Fast ABX tests in a nutshell

 

[801evan]

Fast ABX tests in a nutshell

90% out there are poorly chained...more so ones used in 'labs', which means it's either undynamic, or IS dynamic due to poor transients, bass peaks and treble peaks where one gets insta-ear trauma.

 

[gregorio]

The longer you do it...the worse it gets. By acclimation, I mean the ear getting bombarded/saturated by a beat. Same as still hearing the techno bass beat when you are already in bed after coming from a rave 3 hours ago..

Exactly, another great argument FOR a commonly used ABX methodology. While there is no limit to the length of samples or gaps between them, ABX testing often uses segments of just a few seconds and quick switching (depending on what is being tested) that specifically avoids the issue of acclimatisation you’ve described! You don’t go to a rave for just 10 seconds do you?

Again, do you honestly think that no scientist, engineer, educator, international organisation, etc., in the last 70 years has ever considered the fairly common scenario you’ve described? On the contrary, it’s been considered and studied in great detail.

G

 

[801evan]

Exactly, another great argument FOR a commonly used ABX methodology. While there is no limit to the length of samples or gaps between them, ABX testing often uses segments of just a few seconds and quick switching (depending on what is being tested) that specifically avoids the issue of acclimatisation you’ve described! You don’t go to a rave for just 10 seconds do you?

Again, do you honestly think that no scientist, engineer, educator, international organisation, etc., in the last 70 years has ever considered the fairly common scenario you’ve described? On the contrary, it’s been considered and studied in great detail.

G

Well you mentioned another flaw again. Coz switching out too fast disrupts the chain/clock, which needs at least minute to settle down. Also using short segments is a flaw because again, the ear is in trauma with the same notes over and over again.

 

[gregorio]

Well you mentioned another flaw again. Coz switching out too fast disrupts the chain/clock, which needs at least minute to settle down.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious now.

Trying to fast switch between vinyl LPs might take “at least minute to settle down” but obviously not with software/RAM/computers.

Also using short segments is a flaw because again, the ear is in trauma with the same notes over and over again.

Again, are you being serious? Most music repeats the same notes over and over again, are you really claiming that almost all music listening causes ear trauma? I’d like to see the evidence you’re basing that claim on.

G

 

[801evan]

I can’t tell if you’re being serious now.

Trying to fast switch between vinyl LPs might take “at least minute to settle down” but obviously not with software/RAM/computers.

Again, are you being serious? Most music repeats the same notes over and over again, are you really claiming that almost all music listening causes ear trauma? I’d like to see the evidence you’re basing that claim on.

G

If you yourself don't recognize having a hint of ear trauma listening to a beat and how sensitive digital chains are to electrical disruption then I have nothing else to say.