# Arny Krueger and his two distortions

Tags:
Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:06:09 AM

I listen for a multitude of distortions in sound. Always been fascinated
at the twists and turns sound can take.

Apparently Arny listens for the same two.

All the better to "graph" them. <sigh>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:06:10 AM

Joe Sensor wrote:
> I listen for a multitude of distortions in sound. Always been fascinated
> at the twists and turns sound can take.
>
> Apparently Arny listens for the same two.
>
> All the better to "graph" them. <sigh>

Have a look at:

http://tinyurl.com/dqo54

It is a basic description of the Volterra series approach to
characterizing systems that have the two kinds of distortion
we are speaking of. The first two equations identify the
two kinds in isolation and Volterra's work was to combine
them such that any system containg any mixture of the two
types could be characterized. In practice, the calculations
and measurements needed to identify a system in terms of its
Volterra series are _very_ time consuming but nonetheless he
showed that _any_ system of the kind we discuss here can be
characterized as a combination of two kinds of distortion.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 12:34:52 PM

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news 6en2s0de7@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Joe Sensor wrote:
> > I listen for a multitude of distortions in sound. Always
been fascinated
> > at the twists and turns sound can take.
> >
> > Apparently Arny listens for the same two.
> >
> > All the better to "graph" them. <sigh>
>
> Have a look at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dqo54

Nice reference!

> It is a basic description of the Volterra series approach
to
> characterizing systems that have the two kinds of
distortion
> we are speaking of. The first two equations identify the
> two kinds in isolation and Volterra's work was to combine
> them such that any system containg any mixture of the two
> types could be characterized. In practice, the
calculations
> and measurements needed to identify a system in terms of
its
> Volterra series are _very_ time consuming but nonetheless
he
> showed that _any_ system of the kind we discuss here can
be
> characterized as a combination of two kinds of distortion.

A couple of years ago Gene Czerwinski had a two or
three-part article in the JAES that carefully set the
historical stage, and provided a detailed application of the
Volterra series to audio equipment performance estimation
and analysis.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:20:50 PM

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> Joe Sensor wrote:
>
>> I listen for a multitude of distortions in sound. Always been
>> fascinated at the twists and turns sound can take.
>>
>> Apparently Arny listens for the same two.
>>
>> All the better to "graph" them. <sigh>
>
>
> Have a look at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dqo54

That's nice, Bob, but in the very first sentence, it starts with "in
circuit design".

Here in lies the problem. There is audio distortion every step of the
way, well beyond "circuit design".

You need to start from the final phase of sound perception (at your ear
drum), oh wait, that would be (the electrical wires from your ears to
the brain) and work backwards. These are very different for each
individual. To prove this, look around at the different shapes and sizes
of ears. Now, keeping your head perfectly still, listen to some music,
put you fingers around the back of your ears, and move them around, just
slightly and very slowly. The change in the tone of the sound is immense
with the slightest of change. Imagine how differently every one would
hear the same exact sound.

All the way back to the source of the sound. There are distortions in
live (non amplified) sounds between the source and your ear as well, the
surfaces, distances, angles, interaction with other simultaneous sounds,
etc., etc. You don't need an amplifier for audio distortion.

Now, working forwards again, from the source of the sound, each
distortion interacts with the distortion that came before it.

These effects multiply tremendously. Microphone distortions add their
own signature, but react differently to different distortions that came
before them. Explaining why two microphones with the exact same specs
can sound completely different. Pre amp distortions multiply those
differences, cables can (though I'm skeptical that this is audible),
certainly all recording media, the amplifier bringing the levels up
enough to drive the speakers (only one part of the picture), and finally
the speakers themselves. Oops, not finally, now the sound wave takes a
completely new journey from the speaker to your ears, taking a much
different path than the original sound did to the microphone.

So you may try to put audio distortion into two categories, but the
different "flavors" of these distortions vary as vastly as the colors in
the rainbow. Without this, sound would be pretty boring. Kind of like
listening to test tones.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:44:51 PM

Joe Sensor wrote:
> I listen for a multitude of distortions in sound. Always been
fascinated
> at the twists and turns sound can take.
>
> Apparently Arny listens for the same two.
>
> All the better to "graph" them. <sigh>

Arny Krueger and the 2 Distortions. Sounds like a power trio.

(My first audio textbook pronounced that *all* sound recordings
are distortions BTW, by definition...)

Will Miho
NY Music and TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio/Fox News/M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:19:03 PM

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3f11a3F5fa14U1@individual.net...
> Bob Cain wrote:
> >
> >
> > Joe Sensor wrote:
> >
> >> I listen for a multitude of distortions in sound.
Always been
> >> fascinated at the twists and turns sound can take.
> >>
> >> Apparently Arny listens for the same two.
> >>
> >> All the better to "graph" them. <sigh>
> >
> >
> > Have a look at:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/dqo54
>
> That's nice, Bob, but in the very first sentence, it
starts with "in
> circuit design".

Which limits its scope to circuits that are designed. I
guess that would be as opposed to circuits that are not
designed.

> Here in lies the problem. There is audio distortion every
step of the
> way, well beyond "circuit design".

The problem is in the eye of the beholder. He apparently is
unfamiliar with reading the literature relating to the
design of complex systems.

> You need to start from the final phase of sound perception
> drum), oh wait, that would be (the electrical wires from
> the brain) and work backwards.

For example, the performance specification for a system that
reproduces music does not necessarily include the brain.
Most reasonable people are willing to agree that if I
recreate the same air pressure profile inside the hearing
canal with reproduced music as with live music, then the

However, including the brain is not necesarily
problematical. For example, most reasonable people are
willing to agree that if I do such a good job of recreating
the perception of music in the mind, that it is
indistinguishable by the mind from live music, then the job

>These are very different for each individual.

If we are going to do work that has value to more than one
individual, we must hope and presume that individuals are
somewhat similar and somewhat predictable. IOW, a few of us
might even be able to agree on what sounds good. If we
can't, then its completely useless to talk about it.

Joe what you seem to be trying to do is blather your way out
of the hole you backed yourself into when you belittled me
for saying that there are only two forms of distortion. I
sometimes call this the "Harry Lavo" debating trade
you spoke out of order and in ignorance, you figuratively
call on the knights of heaven and science to introduce so
much complexity to the statement of the problem, that
everybody is distracted from your ignorant false claims of
just a few hours ago.

Yawn, its almost like I'm back on RAHE or RAO. ;-)
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:57:58 PM

Joe Sensor wrote:

>> Have a look at:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/dqo54
>
>
> That's nice, Bob, but in the very first sentence, it starts with "in
> circuit design".
>
> Here in lies the problem. There is audio distortion every step of the
> way, well beyond "circuit design".

It's unfortunate that it started that way because the theory
and practice applies to any electronic or physical system
all the way to process control of physical "plants." Things
like mics and speakers have no properties (outside of noise
which isn't considered a distortion) that cannot be captured
in this kind of analysis. As always, their three
dimensional nature adds considerable complexity but that too
is at least theoretically tractable.

> So you may try to put audio distortion into two categories, but the
> different "flavors" of these distortions vary as vastly as the colors in
> the rainbow. Without this, sound would be pretty boring. Kind of like
> listening to test tones.

As I responded to David S. in an earlier post, you are
absolutely correct. However, the kinds of abstractions we
are talking about here offer an inclusive method for
establishing objective criterion that could be used for
design and quality control. They hold out the possibility,
at least, of establishing the elusive parameters that
correlate with human response.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:35:14 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Joe what you seem to be trying to do is blather your way out
> of the hole you backed yourself into when you belittled me
> for saying that there are only two forms of distortion.

Not true. I am giving valid real world conditions that effect the
distortions that we hear along with the music.

And I have heard several posters now give their definitions of these
"two" distortions. The definitions have all been different.

Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:57:18 AM

On 18 May 2005 09:44:51 -0700, "WillStG" <willstg@aol.com> wrote:

> (My first audio textbook pronounced that *all* sound recordings
>are distortions BTW, by definition...)

Huge group delay. Sometimes decades, maybe even longer!

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 10:57:20 AM

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3f1g73F5ihlvU1@individual.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> > Joe what you seem to be trying to do is blather your way
out
> > of the hole you backed yourself into when you belittled
me
> > for saying that there are only two forms of distortion.
>
> Not true. I am giving valid real world conditions that
effect the
> distortions that we hear along with the music.

Yeah, sure.

Joe, you're all about making it all seem complex so that
your typically fuzzy thinking can seem to apply.

> And I have heard several posters now give their
definitions of these
> "two" distortions. The definitions have all been
different.

It's really all the same under all the math. Here are my
versions of the story:

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/dist_noise/index.htm

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/nlinear/index.htm

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/linear/index.htm
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:37:10 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Yeah, sure.
>
> Joe, you're all about making it all seem complex so that
> your typically fuzzy thinking can seem to apply.

Nothing fuzzy about my thinking. You don't seem to grasp that these
things have to be related to actual listening of sound, which may or may
not relate to any tests so far devised.

>
>
> It's really all the same under all the math. Here are my
> versions of the story:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/dist_noise/index.htm
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/nlinear/index.htm
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/linear/index.htm

Ok, so you (and those that espouse to this limited thinking) classify
all distortions as linear and non linear. The only difference being that
the non-linear distortion adds frequencies to the output that didn't
exist at the input.

That is pretty general, and not all that useful i.m.o.

Not much different than stating there is only one type of distortion,
distorted or not.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:49:04 PM

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3f3mklF5rqspU1@individual.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > Yeah, sure.
> >
> > Joe, you're all about making it all seem complex so that
> > your typically fuzzy thinking can seem to apply.
>
> Nothing fuzzy about my thinking.

Sez you.

>You don't seem to grasp that these
> things have to be related to actual listening of sound,
which may or may
> not relate to any tests so far devised.

Just more fuzzy thinking.

Joe you're about as bogus as they come. You manage to sneak
the phrase "may or may not" into a sentence and then you
pretend that you've invalidated all of science. Come back
when you've got more than baseless speculation to support
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:49:05 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Just more fuzzy thinking.
>
> Joe you're about as bogus as they come.

And you are one of the biggest pricks I have encountered on the
internet. You not only attack every position that doesn't mirror your
own, but you always seem to throw in a personal attack as well. Why do
you feel the need to do this? Neglected as a child, perhaps?

> You manage to sneak
> the phrase "may or may not" into a sentence and then you
> pretend that you've invalidated all of science. Come back
> when you've got more than baseless speculation to support

Nothing sneaky about it. And I have not invalidated anything. The
science you speak of certainly can explain a lot of things, but I am
saying it can't explain everything. Science is constantly evolving, new
things are always being discovered, sometimes explaining real world
situations that previously went unexplained.

My contention is that there ARE distortions in sound, including those
caused be the electronic reproduction of sound, that have not yet been
analyzed, charted and graphed. This does not take anything away from
those that have. And this does not invalidate any science to date.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:25:39 PM

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3f3p6dF5qc3mU1@individual.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> > Just more fuzzy thinking.
> >
> > Joe you're about as bogus as they come.
>
> And you are one of the biggest pricks I have encountered
on the
> internet.

And your name-calling makes you exactly what, Joe?

> You not only attack every position that doesn't mirror
your
> own, but you always seem to throw in a personal attack as
well.

Joe, you've never made any personal attacks on me ever,
right?

> Why do you feel the need to do this? Neglected as a
child, perhaps?

Hey Joe if it makes you feel better, call me a fraud. See
how much sleep I lose over it.

> > You manage to sneak
> > the phrase "may or may not" into a sentence and then you
> > pretend that you've invalidated all of science. Come
back
> > when you've got more than baseless speculation to
support

> Nothing sneaky about it. And I have not invalidated
anything.

That's right, because everybody with a brain considers the
source.

>The science you speak of certainly can explain a lot of
things, but I am
> saying it can't explain everything.

To explain most issues in audio, science need not explain
everything.

> Science is constantly evolving, new
> things are always being discovered, sometimes explaining
real world
> situations that previously went unexplained.

Joe, just because you can't comprehend modern issues in
audio, doesn't mean that science doesn't.

> My contention is that there ARE distortions in sound,
including those
> caused be the electronic reproduction of sound, that have
not yet been
> analyzed, charted and graphed.

A trivial speculation if I ever saw one.

Joe, everybody with a brain around here will tell you that
the far more likely situation is that that there ARE a great
many distortions in audio signals, including those caused
be the electronic reproduction of sound, that have been
analyzed, charted and graphed to the point of complete
triviality, but have no audible effects.

There are no known cases of two audio signals that sounded
different in a reliable listening test, that don't also
measure significantly different.

> This does not take anything away from those that have.

Bseless speculation is always a waste of time. Thus, in some
sense it takes away from what we know.

>And this does not invalidate any science to date.

What science is there behind your baseless speculations,
Joe? What rationality?
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:13:00 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
> news:3f3mklF5rqspU1@individual.net...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>
>>> Joe, you're all about making it all seem complex so that
>>> your typically fuzzy thinking can seem to apply.
>>
>> Nothing fuzzy about my thinking.
>
> Sez you.
>
>> You don't seem to grasp that these
>> things have to be related to actual listening of sound, which may or
>> may not relate to any tests so far devised.
>
> Just more fuzzy thinking.
>
> Joe you're about as bogus as they come. You manage to sneak
> the phrase "may or may not" into a sentence and then you
> pretend that you've invalidated all of science. Come back
> when you've got more than baseless speculation to support

I'll pop in some support here.

It never ending with layman. They just don't have the background to
understand just what science says. The can't rid themselves of the idea
of souls, or more exactly, magic.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:13:01 PM

Kevin Aylward wrote:

> I'll pop in some support here.

>
> It never ending with layman. They just don't have the background to
> understand just what science says.

> The can't rid themselves of the idea
> of souls, or more exactly, magic.

Not sure what your point is. Souls? Magic?

It IS possible for humans to hear the difference between two sounds that

There are things that science has not yet advanced enough to explain. Do
you not agree?
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:13:02 PM

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3f3pl9F5scacU1@individual.net...

> It IS possible for humans to hear the difference between
two sounds that
> cannot (yet) be shown to be different by science. Nothing

More significantly, it IS impossible for humans to hear the
difference between two sounds that
can easily be shown to be different by science. To argue
otherwise is to say that that masking stuff is pure
nonsense.

> There are things that science has not yet advanced enough
to explain.

Like stuff just over the horizon in nuclear science.

> Do you not agree?

Audio ain't nuclear science, except to laymen and people who
are at the layman level, no matter how they posture.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:13:02 PM

Joe Sensor wrote:

> It IS possible for humans to hear the difference between two sounds that

This is where you go wrong. Never has there been an
experiment where, using robust methods like ABX, a listener
has reliably made a distinction and technical analysis cannot.

> There are things that science has not yet advanced enough to explain. Do
> you not agree?

Of course, lots of them, but not the specific one you hold
to here.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:55:14 PM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:28:40 -0500, Joe Sensor <crabcakes@emagic.net>
wrote:

>Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
>> I'll pop in some support here.
>
>>
>> It never ending with layman. They just don't have the background to
>> understand just what science says.
>
>> The can't rid themselves of the idea
>> of souls, or more exactly, magic.
>
>
>Not sure what your point is. Souls? Magic?
>
>It IS possible for humans to hear the difference between two sounds that
>
>There are things that science has not yet advanced enough to explain. Do
>you not agree?

You have it backwards. It is possible for two sounds to be
demonstrably different (as in visibly different from across the room
on a scope) yet indistinguishable by the ear. The reverse has never
been demonstrated.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:26:07 PM

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>

>
> Nothing sneaky about it. And I have not invalidated anything. The
> science you speak of certainly can explain a lot of things, but I am
> saying it can't explain everything. Science is constantly evolving,
> new things are always being discovered, sometimes explaining real
> world situations that previously went unexplained.
>
> My contention is that there ARE distortions in sound, including those
> caused be the electronic reproduction of sound, that have not yet been
> analyzed, charted and graphed.

You are mistaken. Its that simple. With all due respect Joe, you are
talking from ignorance.

Science is way ahead of you on this. I would guess that you don't have
much formal education in physics or electronic engineering. This is
relevant, as it is usually those that make claims like this, hence why
you are expected to be in error on this point. For example, pretty much
the only people in the sci.relativity ng that dispute special
relativity, are those that are completely unqualified in the subject.
Once one gains a true understanding of the issues involved, ones views
usually change.

>This does not take anything away from
> those that have. And this does not invalidate any science to date.

It is a routine matter to measure a transfer function. That is, output
verses input.

Science can measure to an accuracy that I don't believe that you have
yet appreciated. The idea that today, we can't measure sound pressure
and electrical signals with an accuracy and resolution beyond that of
what the ear/brain can resolve, shows a lack of understanding current
technology.

What we can't do, is given that we have indeed made such accurate
measurements, determine how those errors will be perceived in the mind.
Maybe that is what you actually mean.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:26:35 PM

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
>> I'll pop in some support here.
>
>>
>> It never ending with layman. They just don't have the background to
>> understand just what science says.
>
>> The can't rid themselves of the idea
>> of souls, or more exactly, magic.
>
>
> Not sure what your point is. Souls? Magic?
>
> It IS possible for humans to hear the difference between two sounds
> that cannot (yet) be shown to be different by science.

No its not. Not in the slightest.

We can measure way below the the abilty of the ear/brain to detect.

> Nothing magic

Yes it would certainly would be magic.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/magic.html

>
> There are things that science has not yet advanced enough to explain.
> Do you not agree?

Yes, but sound and electronics isn't one of them.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 10:54:10 PM

Bob Cain wrote:

>
>
> Never has there been an experiment where,
> using robust methods like ABX, a listener has reliably made a
> distinction and technical analysis cannot.

This is a pretty difficult assertion to prove.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:37:56 AM

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3f4n91F61fb4U1@individual.net...
> Bob Cain wrote:

> > Never has there been an experiment where,
> > using robust methods like ABX, a listener has reliably
> > distinction and technical analysis cannot.

> This is a pretty difficult assertion to prove.

Not at all.

At this time its like proving that gravity makes things
drop.

Right now technical measurements are about 100 times more
sensitive than the ears.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:50:19 AM

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:z63je.98721\$Cq2.75280@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Joe Sensor wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Nothing sneaky about it. And I have not invalidated
anything. The
> > science you speak of certainly can explain a lot of
things, but I am
> > saying it can't explain everything. Science is
constantly evolving,
> > new things are always being discovered, sometimes
explaining real
> > world situations that previously went unexplained.
> >
> > My contention is that there ARE distortions in sound,
including those
> > caused be the electronic reproduction of sound, that
have not yet been
> > analyzed, charted and graphed.
>
> You are mistaken. Its that simple. With all due respect
Joe, you are
> talking from ignorance.

Indeed. There are ragazines that *educate* people to think
this way - written by journalists who are sometimes more

> Science is way ahead of you on this.

Agreed. Technical measurements are now about 100 or more
times more sensitive than the ears.

>I would guess that you don't have
> much formal education in physics or electronic
engineering.

Not a given. A lot of engineering schools are very weak when
it comes to psychoacoustics, and a lot of psychoacoustics
programs either don't deal with the audibility of common
technical performance problems, or they do so badly.

> This is relevant, as it is usually those that make claims
like this, hence why
> you are expected to be in error on this point. For
example, pretty much
> the only people in the sci.relativity ng that dispute
special
> relativity, are those that are completely unqualified in
the subject.

Many may be mislead by post-modernist thinking.

> Once one gains a true understanding of the issues
involved, ones views
> usually change.

Agreed.

> >This does not take anything away from
> > those that have. And this does not invalidate any
science to date.

> It is a routine matter to measure a transfer function.
That is, output
> versus input.

This can be done quite precisely and repeatably.

> Science can measure to an accuracy that I don't believe
that you have
> yet appreciated. The idea that today, we can't measure
sound pressure
> and electrical signals with an accuracy and resolution
beyond that of
> what the ear/brain can resolve, shows a lack of
understanding current
> technology.

This idea is widely promoted by self-proclaimed
subjectivists.

> What we can't do, is given that we have indeed made such
accurate
> measurements, determine how those errors will be perceived
in the mind.
> Maybe that is what you actually mean.

We can predict whether errors are large enough to be
reliably perceived with pretty good accuracy.

People can be trained to use a uniform lexicon to describe
many audible faults. I'm not talking about the fuzzy
soundstaging kind of blather in many consumer publications,
I'm talking about something more precise and functional.

quality faults is pretty interesting to me. My associate for
much of my SR & recording work is a 40-year-old who is
getting her PhD in Management Science this weekend and has
almost 20 years experience with IT. Yeah, bright, technical,
and articulate.

The console is about 80 feet from the platform, and the room
acoustics are so bad that we can only converse with mics.
We're working on ways to direct each other to make
appropriate adjustments to the console for things like
setting monitor levels and eq and describing common faults.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:26:35 AM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:26:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

>What we can't do, is given that we have indeed made such accurate
>measurements, determine how those errors will be perceived in the mind.

Proving that you really do make good sense pretty often, and great
sense occasionally. This is the latter, IMO.

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:05:06 AM

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Our perceptions are software programmable

which explains your and arnies inability to percieve through the use of
programing glitch

time to reboot and see the programer to rewrite this coding.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:10:01 AM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:37:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>Right now technical measurements are about 100 times more
>sensitive than the ears.

If so, and I'd lean towards agreeing with you, then our
residual errors must lie in our interpretation of the data.

And, the still prevalent error of looking for our missing
wallets under the streetlamp because the light is better.

Let me pose you an (in your working framework) hypothetical,
if I may. You might well be the right man for the job.

Suppose (given the above hypothetical) that one wanted to
attack the issue of the (incorrect, within your framework,
but, hypothetical!) inconsistencies between the common,
everyday, ordinary, consentual, snake-oil-free observations of
careful, responsible, professional observers, and the
equally carefully made observations of (sometimes the same folks)
under "testing" conditions.

I'm asking that you remove as many a priori assumptions as
possible (tough gig, I know) and approach the problem naked
as a babe in swaddling. IOW, taking an agnostic approach to
both method and premise.

What methodology could potentially resolve this conflict between
some careful, no-bullshit professional observers and some other
careful, no-bullshit professional observers?

Thanks for any thoughts, and of course a work in progress,

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:18:29 AM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:50:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

> fuzzy

The fuzzy part is the interesting part.
That's from God's lips to your ear.

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:48:06 AM

"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in
message news:4kjq8156ejhiaftboojd8s0t9cpa1gd9ji@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:37:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
<arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Right now technical measurements are about 100 times more
> >sensitive than the ears.
>
> If so, and I'd lean towards agreeing with you, then our
> residual errors must lie in our interpretation of the
data.
>
> And, the still prevalent error of looking for our missing
> wallets under the streetlamp because the light is better.
>
> Let me pose you an (in your working framework)
hypothetical,
> if I may. You might well be the right man for the job.
>
> Suppose (given the above hypothetical) that one wanted to
> attack the issue of the (incorrect, within your framework,
> but, hypothetical!) inconsistencies between the common,
> everyday, ordinary, consentual, snake-oil-free
observations of
> careful, responsible, professional observers, and the
> equally carefully made observations of (sometimes the same
folks)
> under "testing" conditions.
>
> I'm asking that you remove as many a priori assumptions as
> possible (tough gig, I know) and approach the problem
naked
> as a babe in swaddling. IOW, taking an agnostic approach
to
> both method and premise.
>
> What methodology could potentially resolve this conflict
between
> some careful, no-bullshit professional observers and some
other
> careful, no-bullshit professional observers?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts, and of course a work in progress,

It's amazing how conflicts between observers disappear when
you apply a little proven science.

If the controversy is - "It sounds just like either the
original or some other thing, no it doesn't" then ABX is the
best tool for getting consistent sensitive results from
skilled listeners.

If the controversy is - "This one sounds more like the
original or some other thing, no this one does" then ABC/hr
is the best tool for getting consistent sensitive results
from skilled listeners.

Note the difference between the two controversies. They may
sound similar, but they aren't.

One key to getting the best results out of a comparison is
to make some absolute reference, such as a straight wire
bypassing an amp, part of the comparison.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:50:06 AM

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:

>> Never has there been an experiment where, using robust methods like
>> ABX, a listener has reliably made a distinction and technical analysis
>> cannot.

> This is a pretty difficult assertion to prove.

Nah, just define "technical analysis" to include ABX testing. Then
since ABX testing can make an distinction that a listener can
*reliably* make, technical analysis can also. Q.E.D.

- Logan
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:50:48 AM

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:26:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What we can't do, is given that we have indeed made such accurate
>> measurements, determine how those errors will be perceived in the
>> mind.
>
> Proving that you really do make good sense pretty often, and great
> sense occasionally. This is the latter, IMO.

I also know *why* this is the case. Its a natural outcome of Darwinian
Evolution so that we can cope with changing environments. Our
perceptions are software programmable (memes) by the environment e.g.
select emotional response.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:10:45 PM

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>
> "Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in
> message news:4kjq8156ejhiaftboojd8s0t9cpa1gd9ji@4ax.com...

>snip<

> >
> > I'm asking that you remove as many a priori assumptions as
> > possible (tough gig, I know) and approach the problem
> naked
> > as a babe in swaddling. IOW, taking an agnostic approach
> to
> > both method and premise.
> >
> > What methodology could potentially resolve this conflict
> between
> > some careful, no-bullshit professional observers and some
> other
> > careful, no-bullshit professional observers?
> >
> > Thanks for any thoughts, and of course a work in progress,
>
> It's amazing how conflicts between observers disappear when
> you apply a little proven science.
>
> If the controversy is - "It sounds just like either the
> original or some other thing, no it doesn't" then ABX is the
> best tool for getting consistent sensitive results from
> skilled listeners.
>
> If the controversy is - "This one sounds more like the
> original or some other thing, no this one does" then ABC/hr
> is the best tool for getting consistent sensitive results
> from skilled listeners.
>
> Note the difference between the two controversies. They may
> sound similar, but they aren't.
>
> One key to getting the best results out of a comparison is
> to make some absolute reference, such as a straight wire
> bypassing an amp, part of the comparison.
>

Gee, Arny, its good to see that you really *can* drop your aprior
assumptions and take a naive approach.

Once again, you show an inability to consider the underlying premises of
your testing, and instead jumped right to an "end point". Do you recall the
mathematician's question at the HE2005 debate? You failed to answer that
threshold-sensitive.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:21:33 PM

dale wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Our perceptions are software programmable
>
>
> which explains your and arnies inability to percieve through the use
> programing glitch
>

So, you missed the bit about Atkinson of Stereophile who claims golden
ears, but freely admits in controlled tests, that they turned into lead?

Its a "I can make myself invisible, so long as your back is turned to
me".
Or "The Emperors New Clothes"

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:21:34 PM

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1Ljje.22650\$2k2.19784@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> dale wrote:
> > Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > Our perceptions are software programmable
> >
> >
> > which explains your and arnies inability to percieve
through the use
> > of your auditory senses,
> > programing glitch
> >
>
> So, you missed the bit about Atkinson of Stereophile who
claims golden
> ears, but freely admits in controlled tests, that they
>
> Its a "I can make myself invisible, so long as your back
is turned to
> me".

> Or "The Emperors New Clothes"

This relates to a significant exchange in The Debate

The Golden Ears like Atkinson claim that DBTs are
insensitive because DBTs don't detect differences that the
Gold Ears *know* are there ranging from The Sonic Effect Of
A Wooden Knob On A Gain Control, to Mpingo disks and Shatki
Stones, to weird wires and cables to The Magic {amp, preamp,
CD Player} of the week.

This begs the question - how do these people *know* that
these differences are audible. The answer invariably
involves a sighted evaluation.

My answer was something like this. We know that even good
power amps can impose potentially audible coloration on the
signals they amplify because if we amplify the same critical
signal say 5 times, we can hear a slight difference.
However, if we amplify the same signal only once, which is
how amps are typically used, we hear no difference.

Several corollaries to this:

(1) Audio power amps have gone through about 80 years of
development, so its likely just on the face of it, that
power amps used to, as a rule, sound different. Other
experiments show that older amps (1920s-1950s) often sounded
quite different. Amps stopped sounding significantly
different from each other as a rule starting in the late
60s, 70s and maybe even into the early 80s. IOW, for half of
the development cycle of power amps, as rule power amps
sounded different. Older baby boomers such as I grew up with
amps that as a rule sounded different. I think that some of
us are still trying to shake this outdated thinking off.
Indeed, SETs seem to be popular with some baby-boomers, and
they definitely sound different, not to mention that they
also sound bad with complex music. They are 1925-1935
technology.

(2) Since we have to use trained listeners, pick critical
musical sounds, use tough (95th percentile) speaker loads,
and listen under nearly-ideal conditions in order to hear
differences; people listening casually to general music with
typical speakers are far less likely to actually hear any
audible degradation due to power amp-related problems.

(3) From doing ABX tests I know that there is a lot of
defective equipment out there, and that its not always
trivial to hook equipment up so that its performance is
optimized. Consumer audio equipment is for example,
relatively speaking a nightmare to hook up in trouble-free
configurations because of all the unbalanced I/O. Actually
adjusting equipment for the required level-matching and
keeping it running that way can be very non-trivial. Most
people don't even try to do their comparisons level-matched
and time-synched. Bottom line - a lot of the differences
that people hear are in some sense real, but are trivial due
to the uncontrolled circumstances they do their comparisons
in.

checks and comparisons between mics, amps and speakers 0.1
dB level-matched when I'm doing real-world audio work? NO
!@~##!! WAY! But, I try *not* to make far-reaching
conclusions about every little thing I encounter on the job.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:21:35 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> The Golden Ears like Atkinson claim that DBTs are
> insensitive because DBTs don't detect differences that the
> Gold Ears *know* are there ranging from The Sonic Effect Of
> A Wooden Knob On A Gain Control, to Mpingo disks and Shatki
> Stones, to weird wires and cables to The Magic {amp, preamp,
> CD Player} of the week.
>
> This begs the question - how do these people *know* that
> these differences are audible. The answer invariably
> involves a sighted evaluation.

Extreme examples chosen by you to disqualify less extreme and possibly
valid examples that could challenge your contentions.

Yes there are those that claim "golden ears", and there are others that
can't tell a live performance from an MP3. But the vast majority lie
somewhere in between.

What your DBT's and other analysis that you tout fail to address is any
of these differences between your test subjects. Those individuals that
*can* actually tell the difference between A & B are thrown out in the
"averages".
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:58:05 PM

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T_GdnakqB9gichDfRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote
in
> > message
news:4kjq8156ejhiaftboojd8s0t9cpa1gd9ji@4ax.com...
>
>
> >snip<
>
> > >
> > > I'm asking that you remove as many a priori
assumptions as
> > > possible (tough gig, I know) and approach the problem
> > naked
> > > as a babe in swaddling. IOW, taking an agnostic
approach
> > to
> > > both method and premise.
> > >
> > > What methodology could potentially resolve this
conflict
> > between
> > > some careful, no-bullshit professional observers and
some
> > other
> > > careful, no-bullshit professional observers?
> > >
> > > Thanks for any thoughts, and of course a work in
progress,
> >
> > It's amazing how conflicts between observers disappear
when
> > you apply a little proven science.
> >
> > If the controversy is - "It sounds just like either the
> > original or some other thing, no it doesn't" then ABX is
the
> > best tool for getting consistent sensitive results from
> > skilled listeners.
> >
> > If the controversy is - "This one sounds more like the
> > original or some other thing, no this one does" then
ABC/hr
> > is the best tool for getting consistent sensitive
results
> > from skilled listeners.
> >
> > Note the difference between the two controversies. They
may
> > sound similar, but they aren't.
> >
> > One key to getting the best results out of a comparison
is
> > to make some absolute reference, such as a straight wire
> > bypassing an amp, part of the comparison.
> >
>
> Gee, Arny, its good to see that you really *can* drop your
aprior
> assumptions and take a naive approach.

Condescension so becomes you, Harry.

> Once again, you show an inability to consider the
underlying premises of

OK Harry, so you can't tell the difference that this was my
starting point.

>Do you recall the
> mathematician's question at the HE2005 debate? You failed
> one too, instead jumping to a "proof" that your tests were
> threshold-sensitive.

His inability to communicate his thoughts isn't my problem.

>
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 5:02:11 PM

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3f6bb4F66hg8U1@individual.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > The Golden Ears like Atkinson claim that DBTs are
> > insensitive because DBTs don't detect differences that
the
> > Gold Ears *know* are there ranging from The Sonic Effect
Of
> > A Wooden Knob On A Gain Control, to Mpingo disks and
Shatki
> > Stones, to weird wires and cables to The Magic {amp,
preamp,
> > CD Player} of the week.

> > This begs the question - how do these people *know* that
> > these differences are audible. The answer invariably
> > involves a sighted evaluation.

> Extreme examples chosen by you to disqualify less extreme
and possibly
> valid examples that could challenge your contentions.

What's extreme about amps, preamps and CD players?

> Yes there are those that claim "golden ears", and there
are others that
> can't tell a live performance from an MP3. But the vast
majority lie
> somewhere in between.

Doooh!

> What your DBT's and other analysis that you tout fail to
> of these differences between your test subjects.

You do realize that this isn't a proper sentence, right?

> Those individuals that *can* actually tell the difference
between A & B are thrown out in the
> "averages".

Wrong. I'm content to give the point if *anybody* can
reliably hear under relevant conditions. You see, I've
tested enough different people so that I know that for all
practical purposes, there are no solitary data points out in
the middle of nowhere. Even the most sensitive listeners hit
the wall at a point near where very many people do.

There's more advantage to training listeners than looking
for exceptional ones. My testing procedures demand that
listeners be trained and provides a ready means for doing
so.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:51:29 PM

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:6P-dnabY_b-BihPfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:T_GdnakqB9gichDfRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > "Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote
> in
> > > message
> news:4kjq8156ejhiaftboojd8s0t9cpa1gd9ji@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> > >snip<
> >
> > > >
> > > > I'm asking that you remove as many a priori
> assumptions as
> > > > possible (tough gig, I know) and approach the problem
> > > naked
> > > > as a babe in swaddling. IOW, taking an agnostic
> approach
> > > to
> > > > both method and premise.
> > > >
> > > > What methodology could potentially resolve this
> conflict
> > > between
> > > > some careful, no-bullshit professional observers and
> some
> > > other
> > > > careful, no-bullshit professional observers?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for any thoughts, and of course a work in
> progress,
> > >
> > > It's amazing how conflicts between observers disappear
> when
> > > you apply a little proven science.
> > >
> > > If the controversy is - "It sounds just like either the
> > > original or some other thing, no it doesn't" then ABX is
> the
> > > best tool for getting consistent sensitive results from
> > > skilled listeners.
> > >
> > > If the controversy is - "This one sounds more like the
> > > original or some other thing, no this one does" then
> ABC/hr
> > > is the best tool for getting consistent sensitive
> results
> > > from skilled listeners.
> > >
> > > Note the difference between the two controversies. They
> may
> > > sound similar, but they aren't.
> > >
> > > One key to getting the best results out of a comparison
> is
> > > to make some absolute reference, such as a straight wire
> > > bypassing an amp, part of the comparison.
> > >
> >
> > Gee, Arny, its good to see that you really *can* drop your
> aprior
> > assumptions and take a naive approach.
>
> Condescension so becomes you, Harry.
>

I could have been less nice. Chris asked you a straightforward question,
and either you wouldn't or couldn't deign to answer him.

> > Once again, you show an inability to consider the
> underlying premises of
> > your testing, and instead jumped right to an "end point".
>
> OK Harry, so you can't tell the difference that this was my
> starting point.
>

But it was not an underlying premise as to why you believed your test worked
in evaluating components, which is what you were asked.

> >Do you recall the
> > mathematician's question at the HE2005 debate? You failed
> > one too, instead jumping to a "proof" that your tests were
> > threshold-sensitive.
>
> His inability to communicate his thoughts isn't my problem.

Actually, his question was quite clear: he asked you and John to please
believe it was the best approach for evaluating audio equipment. John
stated that his premise was, whatever the test it had not to interfere with
was accurate in measuring threshold levels of sound as reported by the
audiologists. That's support for a claim, in this case it supports your test
as adequate for detecting differences in sound and distortion levels. It
doesn't even deal with the question of whether that is all there is to
evaluating musical reproduction. It was not a premise, or at least, not a
valid one if you thought it *was* one.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 11:48:22 PM

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87ydne5Q6IBU9BPfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:6P-dnabY_b-BihPfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:T_GdnakqB9gichDfRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message

> > > > One key to getting the best results out of a
comparison is
> > > > to make some absolute reference, such as a straight
wire
> > > > bypassing an amp, part of the comparison.

> > > Gee, Arny, its good to see that you really *can* drop
> > > assumptions and take a naive approach.

> > Condescension so becomes you, Harry.

> I could have been less nice.

skills and communication problems, Harry.

> Chris asked you a straightforward question,
> and either you wouldn't or couldn't deign to answer him.

That would be a false claim. I gave him an answer. If Chris
needs a clarification, then its up to him, not Harry Lavo
master of the universe and knower of all things, to do his
posting for him.

> > > Once again, you show an inability to consider the
underlying premises of
> > > your testing, and instead jumped right to an "end
point".

> > OK Harry, so you can't tell the difference that this was
my
> > starting point.

> But it was not an underlying premise as to why you
believed your test worked in evaluating components,

Ironically, the words "underlying premise" or anything like
them does not appear in Chris's post.

>which is what you were asked.

That would be just another one of your false claims, Harry.
This is just an attempt on your part to hijack Chris's
question, which unlike your questions was offered in good
faith.

> > >Do you recall the
> > > mathematician's question at the HE2005 debate? You
failed
> > > one too, instead jumping to a "proof" that your tests
were
> > > threshold-sensitive.
> >
> > His inability to communicate his thoughts isn't my
problem.

> Actually, his question was quite clear: he asked you and
> state the underlying premise that supported your
> believe it was the best approach for evaluating audio
equipment.

This is a question that obviously has many possible relevant

>John
> stated that his premise was, whatever the test it had not
to interfere with
> the thing being measured. That's a premise.

If you were as smart as you claim Harry, you'd be able to
recognize my answer for being a similar thing.

> was accurate in measuring threshold levels of sound as
reported by the
> audiologists.

That would be a false claim, Harry. Listen to the tape
again, and please play again when you learn to comprehend
English.

If you showed a modicum of intellectual honesty when you
asked questions of me Harry, you'd probably get more
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 2:05:30 AM

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:6tmdnV9bH5jb6hPfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:87ydne5Q6IBU9BPfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:6P-dnabY_b-BihPfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:T_GdnakqB9gichDfRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>

>snip<

> > > > Once again, you show an inability to consider the
> underlying premises of
> > > > your testing, and instead jumped right to an "end
> point".
>
> > > OK Harry, so you can't tell the difference that this was
> my
> > > starting point.
>
> > But it was not an underlying premise as to why you
> believed your test worked in evaluating components,
>
> Ironically, the words "underlying premise" or anything like
> them does not appear in Chris's post.
>

Here is the relevant part of his post:

"I'm asking that you remove as many a priori assumptions as
possible (tough gig, I know) and approach the problem naked
as a babe in swaddling. IOW, taking an agnostic approach to
both method and premise"

"What methodology could potentially resolve this conflict between
some careful, no-bullshit professional observers and some other
careful, no-bullshit professional observers?"

What is it you do not understand about Chris's use of the word "premise"?
Oh I'm sorry, he left out the word "underlying"....

Instead you jumped right in, citing your usually litany of "abx for the
difference" and "abc/hr for the preference".
You didn't leave your aprior assumptions behind. You did not approach the
problem naked. To approach it as a babe in swaddling is to say "what is it
that I am trying to measure?" "How will I tell I am measuring that?" "What
would a test look like that provided the least chance of getting in the way
of measuring that?". "How well do the tests I favor stack up against these
criteria?" "What other types of tests do I know about / could be used?"
"How would these tests stack up against these criteria?" Etc. Etc. Until
you finally got to a reasoned answer based on the initial premise of
starting as "a babe in swaddling" using an "agnostic approach".

That is what Chris asked you to do, I believe, right?. Or are you going to
deny he said that, as well?

> >which is what you were asked.
>
> That would be just another one of your false claims, Harry.
> This is just an attempt on your part to hijack Chris's
> question, which unlike your questions was offered in good
> faith.
>

I'm not trying to hijack his question. I'm pointing out that you did a
piss-poor answer to the question, just as you did to a similar question at
HE2005. Both of which suggest that you have become overly attached to the
technique, without carefully examining whether and when it might not be the
best/most productive kind of testing, or even when no testing at all might

>
> > > >Do you recall the
> > > > mathematician's question at the HE2005 debate? You
> failed
> > > to answer that
> > > > one too, instead jumping to a "proof" that your tests
> were
> > > > threshold-sensitive.
> > >
> > > His inability to communicate his thoughts isn't my
> problem.
>
> > Actually, his question was quite clear: he asked you and
> > state the underlying premise that supported your
> > believe it was the best approach for evaluating audio
> equipment.
>
> This is a question that obviously has many possible relevant

True, but yours barely qualified as an answer.

>nice to see you snipped John's answer without attribute here<
>
> If you were as smart as you claim Harry, you'd be able to
> recognize my answer for being a similar thing.
>

to identify the premises underlying that assertion. Perhaps you could have
turned it into a revelation of your premises if you had said:

"My premise is that if my tests can be demonstrated to equal in sensitivity
the threshold levels found by auditory scientists, then that is all that is
required. This in turn is based on several underlying premises: Firstly,
that the brain and ear do not react differently to music than to pure sound,
including the threshold levels. Secondly, that everything we think we hear
as audiophiles can basically be reduced to sound level, frequency response,
and distortion and I believe my tests can differentiate those. Thirdly,
context does not count, and short carefully chosen snippets of music are
just as / more effective than extended listening. Finally, cognitive
comparison enhances the ability to discriminate for music just as it does
for sound levels and sound artifacts. "Whole brain" and "Type I emotional
response" normally experienced in extended listening don't need to be
involved."

It is those premises that are often attacked by many audiophiles and which
modern brain research seems to be undercutting. But you stubbornly refuse
to even acknowledge the premises. Without doing so, your promotion of abx
and abc/hr testing actually loses a lot of its power, because it is
undeniably good at some things. But examination of the premises raise
substantial doubts about their suitability for evaluation of equipments'
accuracy in musical reproduction.

Perhaps your performance at HE2005 and in response to Chris's question means
you simply are not able to see your own premises. I've always assumed you
could, but believed in them wholeheartedly. Now I wonder if you even know
what a premise is.

> > was accurate in measuring threshold levels of sound as
> reported by the
> > audiologists.
>
> That would be a false claim, Harry. Listen to the tape
> again, and please play again when you learn to comprehend
> English.

"Verified against threshold's found by others using other means." That does
not mean testing in the auditory sciences?

> If you showed a modicum of intellectual honesty when you
> asked questions of me Harry, you'd probably get more

Pot. Kettle. And despite that, you get straightforward answers.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 5:13:15 AM

On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:48:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>If the controversy is - "It sounds just like either the
>original or some other thing, no it doesn't" then ABX is the
>best tool for getting consistent sensitive results from
>skilled listeners.

But, supposing the hypothetical case where reliable observers
were to report contrary results (the religious arguments
underlying all these threads), and, to make the case more
explicit, even *the same* observers, then what potential
avenues of attack remain?

I see this as an interesting because difficult issue, but
not insolvable. Your ABX framework contains all of the
important elements except "the innocent eye test".

Surely this impediment to general acceptance and universal
usefulness isn't beyond us all.

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 5:47:13 AM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:54:10 -0500, Joe Sensor <crabcakes@emagic.net>
wrote:

>Bob Cain wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Never has there been an experiment where,
>> using robust methods like ABX, a listener has reliably made a
>> distinction and technical analysis cannot.
>
>This is a pretty difficult assertion to prove.

Easy to disprove. Find one example.

Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:39:43 AM

On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:47:13 GMT, wkyee@bestweb.netttttttttttttttt
(Willie K.Yee, M.D.) wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:54:10 -0500, Joe Sensor <crabcakes@emagic.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Bob Cain wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Never has there been an experiment where,
>>> using robust methods like ABX, a listener has reliably made a
>>> distinction and technical analysis cannot.
>>
>>This is a pretty difficult assertion to prove.
>
>Easy to disprove. Find one example.

Y'all have raised the first, maybe third, really serious issue
in this thread. Personally, I'd contend that the robustness of
ABX testing is still a religious issue. We still need to work on
defining our premises.

Who here knows the difference between Sunni and Shiah?
In America, could you tell a Rebublican from a Democrat,
without their bumper stickers?

Differences between ordinary rational people nowadays are also
often buried in as-yet-unquestioned assumptions. Progress
requires attacking the unquestioned-ness. We're *all* smart
modern, Western-educated people, with useful input to the
discussion.

Our impediment is religious.
It happens everywhere,

Chris Hornbeck
"The judge is on vinyl,
decisions are final,
Nobody gets a reprieve"
-Elliott Smith, "King's Crossing"
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 11:21:10 AM

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:t5mdnUs0--LUChPfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:6tmdnV9bH5jb6hPfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:87ydne5Q6IBU9BPfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6P-dnabY_b-BihPfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:T_GdnakqB9gichDfRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3YCdnaDebv37XRDfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> >
>
>
>
> >snip<
>
> > > > > Once again, you show an inability to consider the
> > underlying premises of
> > > > > your testing, and instead jumped right to an "end
> > point".
> >
> > > > OK Harry, so you can't tell the difference that this
was
> > my
> > > > starting point.
> >
> > > But it was not an underlying premise as to why you
> > believed your test worked in evaluating components,
> >
> > Ironically, the words "underlying premise" or anything
like
> > them does not appear in Chris's post.
> >
>
> Here is the relevant part of his post:
>
> "I'm asking that you remove as many a priori assumptions
as
> possible (tough gig, I know) and approach the problem
naked
> as a babe in swaddling. IOW, taking an agnostic approach
to
> both method and premise"
>
> "What methodology could potentially resolve this conflict
between
> some careful, no-bullshit professional observers and some
other
> careful, no-bullshit professional observers?"

> What is it you do not understand about Chris's use of the
word "premise"?

What is it that you don't understand about the word
"method"?

> Oh I'm sorry, he left out the word "underlying"....

Oh, I get it. This is one of Harry Lavo's adventures in hair
splitting.

"abx for the
> difference" and "abc/hr for the preference".

Which is a relevant answer to the issue of method, no matter
how Harry Lavo tries to focus attention away from things

> You didn't leave your aprior assumptions behind.

I don't need to.

> You did not approach the problem naked.

Given that you've obviously bought the emperor's clothing
Harry, I'll leave the nakedness to you.

> To approach it as a babe in swaddling is to say "what is
it
> that I am trying to measure?" "How will I tell I am
measuring that?" "What
> would a test look like that provided the least chance of
getting in the way
> of measuring that?". "How well do the tests I favor stack
up against these
> criteria?" "What other types of tests do I know about /
could be used?"
> "How would these tests stack up against these criteria?"
Etc. Etc. Until
> you finally got to a reasoned answer based on the initial
premise of
> starting as "a babe in swaddling" using an "agnostic
approach".

Unlike you Harry, I have taken an agnostic approach. Your
fervor in attacking blind testing is well known. My
acceptance of both blind and sighted testing where they
apply best is well known.

> That is what Chris asked you to do, I believe, right?. Or
are you going to
> deny he said that, as well?

I answered the question as I saw fit, which was to notice
the word method, which you seem to want to ignore Harry.

> > >which is what you were asked.

> > That would be just another one of your false claims,
Harry.
> > This is just an attempt on your part to hijack Chris's
> > question, which unlike your questions was offered in
good
> > faith.

> I'm not trying to hijack his question. I'm pointing out
that you did a
> piss-poor answer to the question, just as you did to a
similar question at
> HE2005.

And Harry this compares how with your well-documented
inability to even ask a question at HE2005, even after you
siezed the floor for over three minutes?

>Both of which suggest that you have become overly attached
to the
> technique, without carefully examining whether and when it
might not be the
> best/most productive kind of testing, or even when no
testing at all might

Harry,your fervor in attacking blind testing is well known.
My acceptance of both blind and sighted testing where they
apply best is even better known.

> > > > >Do you recall the
> > > > > mathematician's question at the HE2005 debate?
You
> > failed
> > > > to answer that
> > > > > one too, instead jumping to a "proof" that your
tests
> > were
> > > > > threshold-sensitive.
> > > >
> > > > His inability to communicate his thoughts isn't my
> > problem.
> >
> > > Actually, his question was quite clear: he asked you
and
> > > state the underlying premise that supported your
> > approach/test that made you
> > > believe it was the best approach for evaluating audio
> > equipment.
> >
> > This is a question that obviously has many possible
relevant
>
> True, but yours barely qualified as an answer.
>
> >nice to see you snipped John's answer without attribute
here<
> >
> > If you were as smart as you claim Harry, you'd be able
to
> > recognize my answer for being a similar thing.

That's an assertion with no support.

> You made an assertion, but failed to identify the
premises underlying that assertion.

I was hoping to answer the question in the next minute or
two.

> Perhaps you could have
> turned it into a revelation of your premises if you had
said:

> "My premise is that if my tests can be demonstrated to
equal in sensitivity
> the threshold levels found by auditory scientists, then
that is all that is
> required.

Sue me for communicating a similar idea.

>This in turn is based on several underlying premises:
Firstly,
> that the brain and ear do not react differently to music
than to pure sound,
> including the threshold levels.

Not necessarily true. We know that the brain and ear do
react differently to pure sounds than music, and that the
brain and ear are more sensitive to distortion in the
context of pure tones. This is readily predictable from

> Secondly, that everything we think we hear
> as audiophiles can basically be reduced to sound level,
frequency response,
> and distortion and I believe my tests can differentiate
those.

Not true at all. Listeners don't hear just SPL, FR, and NLD.
They also hear noise and music.

> Thirdly, context does not count, and short carefully
chosen snippets of music are
> just as / more effective than extended listening.

Here we have Harry splitting hairs about what constitutes
snippets, and what constitutes adequate context. There is a
natural flow to music, the equivalent of letters, words,
phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters and whole works. A
sonic abberation due to a technical failing is like a
misspelling, a grammar error, or an illogical idea. You
don't need to read the whole book to find spelling errors,
but you do need to read a whole word. You don't need to read
the whole book to find an illogical idea, but you may need
to read a paragraph or a chapter.

> Finally, cognitive comparison enhances the ability to
discriminate for music just as it does
> for sound levels and sound artifacts.

Motherhood and apple pie.

>"Whole brain" and "Type I emotional response" normally
experienced in extended listening don't need to be
> involved."

Well Harry, you're obviously fully wound up. You are making
it up as you go along. The phrase "Type I emotional
response" appears no place in the entire web according to
google. Perhaps you mean "Type 1 emotional response"? If
you're going to throw around terminology that is foreign to
you Harry, at least quote it right!

> It is those premises that are often attacked by many
audiophiles and which
> modern brain research seems to be undercutting.

Since they are all straw men, it figures.

> But you stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge the
premises.

Well, those premeses.

> Without doing so, your promotion of abx
> and abc/hr testing actually loses a lot of its power,
because it is
> undeniably good at some things.

Harry, I thought all it was good for is giving you

> But examination of the premises raise
> substantial doubts about their suitability for evaluation
of equipments'
> accuracy in musical reproduction.

Since they are all straw men that you made up Harry, it
figures.

> Perhaps your performance at HE2005 and in response to
Chris's question means
> you simply are not able to see your own premises.

It takes a blithering idiot to try to discern a person's
knowlege base based on a short Q&A at a hi fi show. Harry,
you have now assumed the role of that blithering idiot.

>I've always assumed you
> could, but believed in them wholeheartedly. Now I wonder
if you even know
> what a premise is.

Harry, I know for sure that you don't even know what a
question is. You proved that at HE2005!

> > > was accurate in measuring threshold levels of sound as
> > reported by the
> > > audiologists.
> >
> > That would be a false claim, Harry. Listen to the tape
> > again, and please play again when you learn to
comprehend
> > English.

> "Verified against threshold's found by others using other
means." That does
> not mean testing in the auditory sciences?

Thanks Harry for changing your story so completely, and
disrespecting the readers of this forum so thoroughly that
you think they won't notice.

> > If you showed a modicum of intellectual honesty when you
> > asked questions of me Harry, you'd probably get more

> Pot. Kettle. And despite that, you get straightforward

What, all your straw men, Harry?

LOL!
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 2:13:05 PM

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Q6udnTiZ0OI7hBLfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:t5mdnUs0--LUChPfRVn-tg@comcast.com...

>snip<

> Unlike you Harry, I have taken an agnostic approach. Your
> fervor in attacking blind testing is well known. My
> acceptance of both blind and sighted testing where they
> apply best is well known.
>

For the record, Arny can't seem to understand that being in favor of blind,
monadic testing for determining audio "truth" and distrusting abx and
abc/hr for same given they've never been subject to a control test against
such testing doesn't make me in favor of "sighted testing". What I have
said is that until abx and abc/hr have been validated against a more
traditional monadic test across a wide group of people (with its better
chance of allowing a valid reaction to music including unconscious and
subconscious elements), I will choose to continue to use sighted testing
even given its possible corruption by biases in making my equipment
decisions. I have further challenged Arny and his "disciples" at RAHE (a
bit presumptious, don't you think Arny?) to understand that he is being
intellectually dishonest when he presents abx and abc/hr testing as the one
and only "truth", while actively trying to shield neophytes from the
underlying assumptions and lack of verification (when it comes to open-ended
evaluation of the sonic properties of audio equipment).
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 4:59:41 PM

"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in
message news:t22t81t884uoftdbeueoip4to1u8epmk0j@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:48:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
<arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If the controversy is - "It sounds just like either the
> >original or some other thing, no it doesn't" then ABX is
the
> >best tool for getting consistent sensitive results from
> >skilled listeners.
>
> But, supposing the hypothetical case where reliable
observers
> were to report contrary results (the religious arguments
> underlying all these threads), and, to make the case more
> explicit, even *the same* observers, then what potential
> avenues of attack remain?

If ABX and ABC/hr are somehow not acceptable, other
approaches remain possible.

(1) Other fully-blind testing methodologies, such as the
"Triangle Test".
(2) Other partially-blind testing methodologies, such as the
one where the listenr repeatedly indirectly reduces the
timulus until he can't hear, and then increases it until he
can hear.
(3) In some cases sighted testing can reliably produce
results comparable to blind testing.

> I see this as an interesting because difficult issue, but
> not insolvable. Your ABX framework contains all of the
> important elements except "the innocent eye test".

The "innocent eye test" is widely discounted on the grounds
that there are no innocent eyes. ;-)

> Surely this impediment to general acceptance and universal
> usefulness isn't beyond us all.

I don't think that universal acceptance and usefulness of a
test that could resolve all audio controversies is possible.
Look at poor Harry Lavo - he works himself up into a froth
imagining reasons why DBTs are invalid, and as soon as he
imagines something negative about DBTs no matter how
improbable or illogical, he's all over the place trumpeting
it as revealed truth.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:21:39 PM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> For the record, Arny can't seem to understand that being in favor of blind,
> monadic testing for determining audio "truth"...

Me either. What on earth is blind, monadic testing?

> ..., I will choose to continue to use sighted testing
> even given its possible corruption by biases in making my equipment
> decisions.

Why?

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:32:34 PM

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:H9GdnaEvILJh9RLfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>

>snip<

> I don't think that universal acceptance and usefulness of a
> test that could resolve all audio controversies is possible.
> Look at poor Harry Lavo - he works himself up into a froth
> imagining reasons why DBTs are invalid, and as soon as he
> imagines something negative about DBTs no matter how
> improbable or illogical, he's all over the place trumpeting
> it as revealed truth.

Which of course, Arny, ignores the fact that I spent 23 years in the
consumer goods industry using sophisticated test techniques from the get-go.
How many years have you spent designing tests on which hundreds of product
decisions and millions of dollars were based, Arny?

It also ignores the fact that monadic testing (notice it wasn't in Arny's
list) is generally used as the ultimate confirmatory testing in most other
industries, while comparative testing is relegated to specific developmental
purposes. I don't argue with Arny that AB testing or ABX or ABC/hr testing
are invalid for measuring static thresholds. But that is very different
from evaluating music reproduction, which involves much more of the brain
(including Type I emotional response) and in such a context-directive way
that even the physical thresholds of the ear are changed.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 12:55:31 AM

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:59:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>> I see this as an interesting because difficult issue, but
>> not insolvable. Your ABX framework contains all of the
>> important elements except "the innocent eye test".
>
>The "innocent eye test" is widely discounted on the grounds
>that there are no innocent eyes. ;-)

Should have explained myself better. My objection to
your current framework is that the testing procedure
lacks naivete. The reference is funnier:

http://www.101bananas.com/art/innocent.html

Test taking is a fundamentally different critter than
music listening. The premise that results in one area
automatically apply in the other is weak; some (like me)
might say faulty.

Chris Hornbeck
"The judge is on vinyl,
decisions are final,
Nobody gets a reprieve"
-Elliott Smith, "King's Crossing"
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 12:55:32 AM

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> Test taking is a fundamentally different critter than
> music listening. The premise that results in one area
> automatically apply in the other is weak; some (like me)
> might say faulty.

Chris, why would you think that the simple ability to
discriminate reliably between two things could be greater
with "music listening" than with testing?

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
!