Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Art of Cultural Analysis: An Analagy

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 11:36:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by David
Brooks. He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far back as
1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be quantified and
reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly intransigent and
impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded Kissinger's
trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at odds
with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
government at the time.

I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is analagous to
the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes on here.
Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that the brain
is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees with
intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current panel report
will have no affect or invoke little improvment).

We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the brain to
unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a better (and
indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The objectivists
feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only objective
way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in my view,
by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very facto of
"focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of evaluation
(Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this reluctance
despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International, uses
"training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for specific
effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know it
doesn't work. An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last year's
discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap betweeen
standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended evaluation of
components.

I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except for
somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists simply
continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the control
test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like Michael's, no
matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly in
other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or perhaps to
build a control test that will bridge the gap.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 4:55:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by
David
> Brooks.

A typical David Brooks effort--clever writing covering up shoddy
analysis.

> He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far back as
> 1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be quantified
and
> reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly
intransigent and
> impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded
Kissinger's
> trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
> US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at
odds
> with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
> government at the time.

Well, one other, at least. And--something Brooks noted but failed to
appreciate the significance of--someone who really, really knew his
stuff when it came to China.
>
> I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is
analagous to
> the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes
on here.

Except that the people you are going to hold up for promoting
"holistic" efforts demonstrably do not know their stuff when it comes
to the psychology of hearing.

> Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that
the brain
> is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees
with
> intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current panel
report
> will have no affect or invoke little improvment).

You are confusing perception and rational thought here. (Among other
things.)
>
> We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the
brain to
> unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a
better (and
> indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
objectivists
> feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
objective
> way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in
my view,
> by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very
facto of
> "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
evaluation
> (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this
reluctance
> despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International,
uses
> "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for
specific
> effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
> evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know
it
> doesn't work.

And your source for this remarkable assertion is...? I'd be amazed if
Harmon used sighted subjects for any kind of analysis.

> An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last year's
> discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap
betweeen
> standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended
evaluation of
> components.
>
> I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except
for
> somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
simply
> continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the
control
> test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
Michael's, no
> matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> Objectivists.

No, continued entreaties will not change our minds. What will change
our minds--and we've made this very clear, although you want to deny
it--is evidence that cannot be faked. Now Michael, at least, has
started to try to find this evidence. We've been raking him over the
coals a bit for failing to do his homework, but we have given him
credit for actually going out and trying to answer the question. Which
would set him apart from others.

> Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
> without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly
in
> other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or
perhaps to
> build a control test that will bridge the gap.

No one is stopping you.

bob
Related resources
April 3, 2005 4:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
>snip known content
>
> I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except
> for somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
> simply continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as
> the control test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties
> like Michael's, no matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,)
> going to convince Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could
> just agree to disagree without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in
> this group, often openly in other unmoderated forums) others who do
> not agree with us. Or perhaps to build a control test that will
> bridge the gap.

I do not know why you are propagating the "control test" idea, exept that is
was you who had proposed it. If already so few people have doubt, that
nobody tries to win those 5000$(or was it more?) cable comparison, why would
anyone even undergo the trouble of your proposition?... exept yourself!
So instead of rephrasing the same arguments in any possible or impossible
analogy, you should do as another poster and organize a few RAHE
participants to join your control test, but please always under supervision
of an "objectivist" with scientific background to avoid data manipulation.
Maybe this could finally solve your uneasyness against DBT, which seems just
a mental construction to me , not the real quest for high end listening.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:40:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D 2ms7p02ioc@news4.newsguy.com...
> I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by David
> Brooks. He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far back
as
> 1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be quantified and
> reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly intransigent and
> impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded Kissinger's
> trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
> US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at odds
> with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
> government at the time.
>
> I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is analagous
to
> the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes on
here.
> Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that the
brain
> is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees with
> intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current panel
report
> will have no affect or invoke little improvment).
>
> We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the brain to
> unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a better
(and
> indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The objectivists
> feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only objective
> way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in my
view,
> by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very facto
of
> "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
evaluation
> (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this reluctance
> despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International, uses
> "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for
specific
> effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
> evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know it
> doesn't work. An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last year's
> discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap betweeen
> standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended evaluation
of
> components.
>
> I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except for
> somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists simply
> continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the control
> test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like Michael's,
no
> matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
> without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly in
> other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or perhaps to
> build a control test that will bridge the gap.

As usual, the dispute between "subjectivists" and "objectivists" is
completely
misstated. Nobody objects to "holistic" listening to music, or basing
*personal* preferences on what sounds best to *you*, regardless of the
technology involved. What objectivists object to (no pun intended, well
maybe a little one) is passing off subjective preference as objective
fact.

There may even be some objectivists who prefer to holistically sit
back and enjoy the music rather than obsessing over possible
micro-dB differences in cables, amps, speakers etc. I really
wonder when I hear about someone investing a considerable
amount of time trying to prove to themselves whether
one component is better than another - if it takes that much
time to figure it out, the difference isn't worth worrying about.
Life is short, and there's so much good music to listen to
I'll never get around to half of it!

- Gary Rosen
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:55:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Apr 2005 19:36:25 GMT, "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the brain to
>unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a better (and
>indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The objectivists
>feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only objective
>way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in my view,
>by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very facto of
>"focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of evaluation
>(Michael's meaning by "descontructionis").

No problem, use any technique you like, take as long as you like, but
you must not *know* what you're listening to. That is my single
condition, but you seem to come up with new 'requirements' every time
you post. Which one of us is more confident of his position?


>Nor are continued entreaties like Michael's, no
>matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,)

Do not confuse verbosity with cogence..............

>Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
>without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly in
>other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us.

Oh, you mean like your continued disparagement that 'objectivists'
have closed minds, belying the fact that they are the ones prepared to
accept new evidence?

> Or perhaps to
>build a control test that will bridge the gap.

Suggest such a test, and I'll tell you if it meets basic validity
criteria.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 9:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote in message
news:D 2nbe502qbf@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> >snip known content
> >
> > I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except
> > for somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
> > simply continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as
> > the control test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties
> > like Michael's, no matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,)
> > going to convince Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could
> > just agree to disagree without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in
> > this group, often openly in other unmoderated forums) others who do
> > not agree with us. Or perhaps to build a control test that will
> > bridge the gap.
>
> I do not know why you are propagating the "control test" idea, exept that
is
> was you who had proposed it. If already so few people have doubt, that
> nobody tries to win those 5000$(or was it more?) cable comparison, why
would
> anyone even undergo the trouble of your proposition?... exept yourself!
> So instead of rephrasing the same arguments in any possible or impossible
> analogy, you should do as another poster and organize a few RAHE
> participants to join your control test, but please always under
supervision
> of an "objectivist" with scientific background to avoid data manipulation.
> Maybe this could finally solve your uneasyness against DBT, which seems
just
> a mental construction to me , not the real quest for high end listening.

If you followed the discussion thread of a year ago re: this, you may
remember that the only way to validate the dbt goes from sighted evaluative
listening to blind evaluative listening to to blind comparative listening to
blind quick-switch comparative listening. Since the sighted stages and
blind evaluative listening stages are either impossible or extremely
time-consuming (months, years) for one person to do repeatedly, the
validation test instead needs to substitute numbers of people for number of
trials. You may recall my observation that market researchers consider at
least one-hundred people essential to overcome noise in such testing, and
typically use three hundred. Thus, unless we have a large group of people
willing to help, such a test is not possible on a personal level (it might
very well be possible for a large organization with lots of volunteers). I
cannot figure an effective way of providing a control test using only one
person. Michael has found such testing too time-consuming even with far
fewer than the required number of trials.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 9:11:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:D 2nbcs02qab@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> > I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by
> David
> > Brooks.
>
> A typical David Brooks effort--clever writing covering up shoddy
> analysis.
>

And another typical dismissal by aspersion on your part of anybody you don't
agree with.

> > He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far back as
> > 1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be quantified
> and
> > reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly
> intransigent and
> > impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded
> Kissinger's
> > trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
> > US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at
> odds
> > with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
> > government at the time.
>

> Well, one other, at least. And--something Brooks noted but failed to
> appreciate the significance of--someone who really, really knew his
> stuff when it came to China.

As I recall, several others at the time. And he did note that the outsiders
were steeped in the history and culture of the country...which allowed them
intuitively to sense patterns and see the possibility of change.

> >
> > I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is
> analagous to
> > the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes
> on here.
>
> Except that the people you are going to hold up for promoting
> "holistic" efforts demonstrably do not know their stuff when it comes
> to the psychology of hearing.
>

Many promoting "holistic" efforts are lifelong audiophiles with good
systems, attendance at live acoustic musical events, some doing there own
recording, and all having a passion for audio reproduction that captures the
emotional essence of live music. To me that demonstrably describe the
essentials of musical listening from which to intuitively sense patterns and
begin to understand that perhaps something was amiss with conventional dogma
based on audiology practices when it comes to music reproduction.

There are very few here who are as convinced as you that they know
everything about everything...but there have been some here well steeped in
the psychology of hearing...and they are not all objectivists. Their also
have been several well steeped in the psychology of hearing who seem to
recognize the difference between hearing "sound" and "artifacts" and
listening to/interpreting/reacting to music. You've dismissed them all.

> > Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that
> the brain
> > is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> > compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees
> with
> > intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current panel
> report
> > will have no affect or invoke little improvment).
>
> You are confusing perception and rational thought here. (Among other
> things.)
> >
> > We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the
> brain to
> > unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a
> better (and
> > indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
> objectivists
> > feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
> objective
> > way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in
> my view,
> > by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very
> facto of
> > "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
> evaluation
> > (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this
> reluctance
> > despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International,
> uses
> > "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for
> specific
> > effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
> > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know
> it
> > doesn't work.
>
> And your source for this remarkable assertion is...? I'd be amazed if
> Harmon used sighted subjects for any kind of analysis.
>

Harmon's own published articles cite how/why they chose people, what they
were testing for, and the scalar, evaluative measures they used. They also
mention that the tests are not a substitute for overall "gestalt" evaluative
listening in development somewhere in those articles (I can't remember
exactly where).

> > An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last year's
> > discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap
> betweeen
> > standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended
> evaluation of
> > components.
> >
> > I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except
> for
> > somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
> simply
> > continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the
> control
> > test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
> Michael's, no
> > matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> > Objectivists.
>
> No, continued entreaties will not change our minds. What will change
> our minds--and we've made this very clear, although you want to deny
> it--is evidence that cannot be faked. Now Michael, at least, has
> started to try to find this evidence. We've been raking him over the
> coals a bit for failing to do his homework, but we have given him
> credit for actually going out and trying to answer the question. Which
> would set him apart from others.
>

But you are unwilling to help in any practical way (hint: time, effort,
positive suggestions?)

> > Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
> > without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly
> in
> > other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or
> perhaps to
> > build a control test that will bridge the gap.
>
> No one is stopping you.

See my reply to Ban.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 4:05:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:

<snip the politics>

> There are very few here who are as convinced as you that they know
> everything about everything

This crack shouldn't have gotten past moderation, IMHO.

>...but there have been some here well steeped in
> the psychology of hearing...and they are not all objectivists. Their
also
> have been several well steeped in the psychology of hearing who seem
to
> recognize the difference between hearing "sound" and "artifacts" and
> listening to/interpreting/reacting to music. You've dismissed them
all.

Actually, Harry, I think you've got it backwards. You're the one who
keeps confusing the difference between hearing sound and listening to
music. I've argued consistently that you have to be able to hear the
sound before you can interpret it as music.

> > > Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion
that
> > the brain
> > > is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> > > compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees
> > with
> > > intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current
panel
> > report
> > > will have no affect or invoke little improvment).
> >
> > You are confusing perception and rational thought here. (Among
other
> > things.)
> > >
> > > We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the
> > brain to
> > > unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a
> > better (and
> > > indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
> > objectivists
> > > feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
> > objective
> > > way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated,
in
> > my view,
> > > by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the
very
> > facto of
> > > "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
> > evaluation
> > > (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this
> > reluctance
> > > despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon
International,
> > uses
> > > "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening
for
> > specific
> > > effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for
open-ended
> > > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they
know
> > it
> > > doesn't work.
> >
> > And your source for this remarkable assertion is...? I'd be amazed
if
> > Harmon used sighted subjects for any kind of analysis.
> >
>
> Harmon's own published articles cite how/why they chose people, what
they
> were testing for, and the scalar, evaluative measures they used.
They also
> mention that the tests are not a substitute for overall "gestalt"
evaluative
> listening in development somewhere in those articles (I can't
remember
> exactly where).

Yes, and they did all of that with double-blind tests.

> > > An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last year's
> > > discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap
> > betweeen
> > > standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended
> > evaluation of
> > > components.
> > >
> > > I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists
except
> > for
> > > somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
> > simply
> > > continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the
> > control
> > > test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
> > Michael's, no
> > > matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> > > Objectivists.
> >
> > No, continued entreaties will not change our minds. What will
change
> > our minds--and we've made this very clear, although you want to
deny
> > it--is evidence that cannot be faked. Now Michael, at least, has
> > started to try to find this evidence. We've been raking him over
the
> > coals a bit for failing to do his homework, but we have given him
> > credit for actually going out and trying to answer the question.
Which
> > would set him apart from others.
> >
>
> But you are unwilling to help in any practical way (hint: time,
effort,
> positive suggestions?)

It's not my job to prove your theory. I don't think your approach is
worthwhile, as I have explained at length before.
>
> > > Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
> > > without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often
openly
> > in
> > > other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or
> > perhaps to
> > > build a control test that will bridge the gap.
> >
> > No one is stopping you.
>
> See my reply to Ban.

There is nothing safer from refutation than a hypothesis that cannot be
tested.

bob
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 4:01:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D 2p2pi01nvr@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:D 2ms7p02ioc@news4.newsguy.com...
> > I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by
David
> > Brooks. He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far
back
> as
> > 1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be quantified
and
> > reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly intransigent
and
> > impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded
Kissinger's
> > trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
> > US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at
odds
> > with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
> > government at the time.
> >
> > I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is
analagous
> to
> > the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes on
> here.
> > Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that the
> brain
> > is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> > compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees with
> > intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current panel
> report
> > will have no affect or invoke little improvment).
> >
> > We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the brain
to
> > unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a better
> (and
> > indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
objectivists
> > feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
objective
> > way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in my
> view,
> > by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very facto
> of
> > "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
> evaluation
> > (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this reluctance
> > despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International, uses
> > "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for
> specific
> > effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
> > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know it
> > doesn't work. An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last
year's
> > discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap betweeen
> > standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended evaluation
> of
> > components.
> >
> > I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except for
> > somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists simply
> > continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the control
> > test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
Michael's,
> no
> > matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> > Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
> > without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly in
> > other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or perhaps
to
> > build a control test that will bridge the gap.
>
> As usual, the dispute between "subjectivists" and "objectivists" is
> completely
> misstated. Nobody objects to "holistic" listening to music, or basing
> *personal* preferences on what sounds best to *you*, regardless of the
> technology involved. What objectivists object to (no pun intended, well
> maybe a little one) is passing off subjective preference as objective
> fact.
>
> There may even be some objectivists who prefer to holistically sit
> back and enjoy the music rather than obsessing over possible
> micro-dB differences in cables, amps, speakers etc. I really
> wonder when I hear about someone investing a considerable
> amount of time trying to prove to themselves whether
> one component is better than another - if it takes that much
> time to figure it out, the difference isn't worth worrying about.
> Life is short, and there's so much good music to listen to
> I'll never get around to half of it!

Gary, inevitably in a discussion of preferences, someone will either say or
imply that "subjectivists prefer distortion"..."we know the truth"..."if it
doesn't prove out in a quick-switch DBT it isn't real, only imagination".
There is no allowance for even the possibility that all those audiophiles
making preferences that the writer doesn't care for or believe in himself
may represent some alternative truth in an emperical sense. Instead, there
will probably be some dismissive or slightly sarcastic comment about "of
course you are entitile to your preferences" with the clear implication that
"your preferences" are inferior to "my preferences" since obviously mine are
based on "the truth". Subjectivists don't claim to have "the truth". What
they claim is to seriously question "the truth as presented by Objectivists"
having raised some fairly fundamental questions, as Michael is doing now,
and simply having them shrugged off.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 4:02:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 2p3kl01p2b@news1.newsguy.com...
> On 2 Apr 2005 19:36:25 GMT, "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the brain to
> >unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a better
(and
> >indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The objectivists
> >feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only objective
> >way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in my
view,
> >by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very facto
of
> >"focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
evaluation
> >(Michael's meaning by "descontructionis").
>
> No problem, use any technique you like, take as long as you like, but
> you must not *know* what you're listening to. That is my single
> condition, but you seem to come up with new 'requirements' every time
> you post. Which one of us is more confident of his position?
>

Once again you blithly ignorre the point Michael has been making. And that
I have made. But I do concede you are indeed consistent in doing this.

>
> >Nor are continued entreaties like Michael's, no
> >matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,)
>
> Do not confuse verbosity with cogence..............
>

I'm not. Obviously you do not recognize cogency...

> >Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
> >without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly in
> >other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us.
>
> Oh, you mean like your continued disparagement that 'objectivists'
> have closed minds, belying the fact that they are the ones prepared to
> accept new evidence?
>

But not accept even the possibility that the existing "evidence" may be
based on a flawed approach to evaluation music as opposed to sound?


> > Or perhaps to
> >build a control test that will bridge the gap.
>
> Suggest such a test, and I'll tell you if it meets basic validity
> criteria.

I did that a year ago, and it did.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 4:03:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:D 2q0bi025e@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
>
> <snip the politics>
>
> > There are very few here who are as convinced as you that they know
> > everything about everything
>
> This crack shouldn't have gotten past moderation, IMHO.
>
> >...but there have been some here well steeped in
> > the psychology of hearing...and they are not all objectivists. Their
> also
> > have been several well steeped in the psychology of hearing who seem
> to
> > recognize the difference between hearing "sound" and "artifacts" and
> > listening to/interpreting/reacting to music. You've dismissed them
> all.
>
> Actually, Harry, I think you've got it backwards. You're the one who
> keeps confusing the difference between hearing sound and listening to
> music. I've argued consistently that you have to be able to hear the
> sound before you can interpret it as music.
>

And I and others have said that sound is just sound....and that music
requires interpretation and is a who 'nother matter when it comes to making
sense of what we are hearing...which is what is required in evaluative
listening. Please, pleae, please put aside your prejudices and try to
understand what Michael is saying.

You may recall my example of a year or so ago of hearing a half-second
snippet of sound from a car crash...could you undersand it, interrupt it, or
hear a vey subtle difference? Science and common sense say probably not.
However, if you heard the sounds leading up to that snippet and enought that
followed it so that you brain could register what you were listening to,
then you could probably here subtle differences. And if you didn't hear
them at first (because you weren't quite sure what you were listening for..)
then with repeated listening you'd certainly have such a chance.

That's the difference between sound and music.

> > > > Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion
> that
> > > the brain
> > > > is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> > > > compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees
> > > with
> > > > intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current
> panel
> > > report
> > > > will have no affect or invoke little improvment).
> > >
> > > You are confusing perception and rational thought here. (Among
> other
> > > things.)
> > > >
> > > > We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the
> > > brain to
> > > > unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a
> > > better (and
> > > > indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
> > > objectivists
> > > > feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
> > > objective
> > > > way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated,
> in
> > > my view,
> > > > by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the
> very
> > > facto of
> > > > "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
> > > evaluation
> > > > (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this
> > > reluctance
> > > > despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon
> International,
> > > uses
> > > > "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening
> for
> > > specific
> > > > effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for
> open-ended
> > > > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they
> know
> > > it
> > > > doesn't work.
> > >
> > > And your source for this remarkable assertion is...? I'd be amazed
> if
> > > Harmon used sighted subjects for any kind of analysis.
> > >
> >
> > Harmon's own published articles cite how/why they chose people, what
> they
> > were testing for, and the scalar, evaluative measures they used.
> They also
> > mention that the tests are not a substitute for overall "gestalt"
> evaluative
> > listening in development somewhere in those articles (I can't
> remember
> > exactly where).
>
> Yes, and they did all of that with double-blind tests.
>

"Guided" DBT's, where the subjects were focused on what to listen for.
Where they were "trained" to hear those differences. And where those who
could not (a substantial portion of their original populations) were not
included in the test. That is hardly open-end, holistic listening.

> > > > An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last year's
> > > > discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap
> > > betweeen
> > > > standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended
> > > evaluation of
> > > > components.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists
> except
> > > for
> > > > somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
> > > simply
> > > > continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the
> > > control
> > > > test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
> > > Michael's, no
> > > > matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> > > > Objectivists.
> > >
> > > No, continued entreaties will not change our minds. What will
> change
> > > our minds--and we've made this very clear, although you want to
> deny
> > > it--is evidence that cannot be faked. Now Michael, at least, has
> > > started to try to find this evidence. We've been raking him over
> the
> > > coals a bit for failing to do his homework, but we have given him
> > > credit for actually going out and trying to answer the question.
> Which
> > > would set him apart from others.
> > >
> >
> > But you are unwilling to help in any practical way (hint: time,
> effort,
> > positive suggestions?)
>
> It's not my job to prove your theory. I don't think your approach is
> worthwhile, as I have explained at length before.

Basically, by asserting that unless everything was done using the very test
technique under question, you would not accept it as valid.

> >
> > > > Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to disagree
> > > > without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often
> openly
> > > in
> > > > other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or
> > > perhaps to
> > > > build a control test that will bridge the gap.
> > >
> > > No one is stopping you.
> >
> > See my reply to Ban.
>
> There is nothing safer from refutation than a hypothesis that cannot be
> tested.

I'd be happy (well not happy, but satisfied) to be refuted if it came about
via a valid control test. That's my point.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 4:08:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by
David
> Brooks. He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far
back as
> 1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be quantified
and
> reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly
intransigent and
> impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded
Kissinger's
> trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
> US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at
odds
> with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
> government at the time.
>
> I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is
analagous to
> the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes
on here.
> Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that
the brain
> is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees
with
> intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current panel
report
> will have no affect or invoke little improvment).

Hi Harry,

I agree with you this is a good point. I think someone objected to it
because it is congnitive knowledge, whereas audio is sensory knowledge.
However, my experience in the Feldenkrais Method and mindfulness
meditation shows me that the same thing can happen with sensory
knowledge-- that it can become compartmentalized, and that cognitive
beliefs directly affect perception.

>
> We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the
brain to
> unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a
better (and
> indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
objectivists
> feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
objective
> way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in
my view,
> by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very
facto of
> "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
evaluation
> (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis").

Right. You have a good point that it is not blind testing I object to,
it is specific protocols. I think I tend to just write "the problem
with blind testing" without making this clear. I would agree with the
objectivists that rejecting knowledge from blind testing simply because
I disagree with it, would not be a way of moving toward the truth.

>We've seen this reluctance
> despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International,
uses
> "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for
specific
> effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
> evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know
it
> doesn't work.

Fascinating.

I just picked up five books on psychoacoustics and memory from the
Caltech library. I'm going to read them and see what science has
learned about these topics.

Objectivists take note! Get your laptops ready... I'm actually going
to read these books *looking for data that proves me right.* You can
all officially accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my
beliefs!

BUT... I'm not really going to do only that. I'm going to try to learn
what I can, recognize that any conclusions I make are the conclusions
of an amateur, and I'm going to throw my ideas out here where you all
can slice 'em and dice 'em.

>An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last year's
> discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap
betweeen
> standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended
evaluation of
> components.
>
> I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except
for
> somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
simply
> continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the
control
> test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
Michael's, no
> matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to
disagree
> without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly
in
> other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or
perhaps to
> build a control test that will bridge the gap.

I'm going to try to take the debate less seriously from now on. Harry,
wouldn't it be great if we could buy cheap equipment and know that it
sounded the same? I could save a lot of money and time. That would be
fantastic!

In fact, I really have recently focused more on enjoying the music.
Objectivists take note: I'm actually using my cheapest interconnect in
my main listening system, just because it is longer and fits better.
Because even though I think interconnects might make a difference, I'm
actually willing to give up that difference and focus on the music.

-Mike
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 3:54:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 2q0bi025e@news1.newsguy.com...

> > Actually, Harry, I think you've got it backwards. You're the one
who
> > keeps confusing the difference between hearing sound and listening
to
> > music. I've argued consistently that you have to be able to hear
the
> > sound before you can interpret it as music.
> >
>
> And I and others have said that sound is just sound....and that music
> requires interpretation and is a who 'nother matter when it comes to
making
> sense of what we are hearing

Which is exactly where you're confusing the two--by insisting that we
need to "make sense of what we are hearing" in order to hear small
sonic differences. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the
case. In fact, it appears that the opposite is the case--that we can
hear smaller differences when we're listening to meaningless tones and
simple noise, rather than complex sounds like music.

> ...which is what is required in evaluative
> listening. Please, pleae, please put aside your prejudices and try
to
> understand what Michael is saying.
>
> You may recall my example of a year or so ago of hearing a
half-second
> snippet of sound from a car crash...could you undersand it, interrupt
it, or
> hear a vey subtle difference? Science and common sense say probably
not.
> However, if you heard the sounds leading up to that snippet and
enought that
> followed it so that you brain could register what you were listening
to,
> then you could probably here subtle differences. And if you didn't
hear
> them at first (because you weren't quite sure what you were listening
for..)
> then with repeated listening you'd certainly have such a chance.

Once again, you are confusing perception of a sound with identification
of a sound.

<snip>

> > > > > . They do not use DBT's for
> > open-ended
> > > > > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because
they
> > know
> > > > it
> > > > > doesn't work.
> > > >
> > > > And your source for this remarkable assertion is...? I'd be
amazed
> > if
> > > > Harmon used sighted subjects for any kind of analysis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Harmon's own published articles cite how/why they chose people,
what
> > they
> > > were testing for, and the scalar, evaluative measures they used.
> > They also
> > > mention that the tests are not a substitute for overall "gestalt"
> > evaluative
> > > listening in development somewhere in those articles (I can't
> > remember
> > > exactly where).
> >
> > Yes, and they did all of that with double-blind tests.
> >
>
> "Guided" DBT's, where the subjects were focused on what to listen
for.
> Where they were "trained" to hear those differences. And where those
who
> could not (a substantial portion of their original populations) were
not
> included in the test. That is hardly open-end, holistic listening.

In other words, you now admit that this statement:

"They do not use DBT's for open-ended evaluation for "musicality
differences", probably because they know it doesn't work"

is false. They do use DBTs. So clearly they do not think that DBTs
don't "work." Glad we got that straight.

<snip>

> > > But you are unwilling to help in any practical way (hint: time,
> > effort,
> > > positive suggestions?)
> >
> > It's not my job to prove your theory. I don't think your approach
is
> > worthwhile, as I have explained at length before.
>
> Basically, by asserting that unless everything was done using the
very test
> technique under question, you would not accept it as valid.

I never said any such thing, nor do I think it. Any test that was
double-blind and level-matched would be valid. But your approach was so
unlikely to produce positive results that it wouldn't be worth
attempting, even if I thought you had a hypothesis worth testing.

bob
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:05:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D 2skh1069n@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:D 2p2pi01nvr@news1.newsguy.com...
> > "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:D 2ms7p02ioc@news4.newsguy.com...
> > > I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by
> David
> > > Brooks. He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far
> back
> > as
> > > 1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be quantified
> and
> > > reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly intransigent
> and
> > > impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded
> Kissinger's
> > > trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
> > > US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at
> odds
> > > with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
> > > government at the time.
> > >
> > > I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is
> analagous
> > to
> > > the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes on
> > here.
> > > Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that the
> > brain
> > > is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> > > compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees with
> > > intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current panel
> > report
> > > will have no affect or invoke little improvment).
> > >
> > > We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the brain
> to
> > > unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a
better
> > (and
> > > indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
> objectivists
> > > feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
> objective
> > > way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in my
> > view,
> > > by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very
facto
> > of
> > > "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
> > evaluation
> > > (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this reluctance
> > > despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International,
uses
> > > "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for
> > specific
> > > effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
> > > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know it
> > > doesn't work. An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last
> year's
> > > discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap betweeen
> > > standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended
evaluation
> > of
> > > components.
> > >
> > > I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except
for
> > > somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
simply
> > > continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the
control
> > > test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
> Michael's,
> > no
> > > matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> > > Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to
disagree
> > > without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly
in
> > > other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or perhaps
> to
> > > build a control test that will bridge the gap.
> >
> > As usual, the dispute between "subjectivists" and "objectivists" is
> > completely
> > misstated. Nobody objects to "holistic" listening to music, or basing
> > *personal* preferences on what sounds best to *you*, regardless of the
> > technology involved. What objectivists object to (no pun intended, well
> > maybe a little one) is passing off subjective preference as objective
> > fact.
> >
> > There may even be some objectivists who prefer to holistically sit
> > back and enjoy the music rather than obsessing over possible
> > micro-dB differences in cables, amps, speakers etc. I really
> > wonder when I hear about someone investing a considerable
> > amount of time trying to prove to themselves whether
> > one component is better than another - if it takes that much
> > time to figure it out, the difference isn't worth worrying about.
> > Life is short, and there's so much good music to listen to
> > I'll never get around to half of it!
>
> Gary, inevitably in a discussion of preferences, someone will either say
or
> imply that "subjectivists prefer distortion"..."we know the truth"..."if
it
> doesn't prove out in a quick-switch DBT it isn't real, only imagination".

That may be the case. But I said NONE of these things.

> There is no allowance for even the possibility that all those audiophiles
> making preferences that the writer doesn't care for or believe in himself
> may represent some alternative truth in an emperical sense. Instead,
there
> will probably be some dismissive or slightly sarcastic comment about "of
> course you are entitile to your preferences" with the clear implication
that
> "your preferences" are inferior to "my preferences" since obviously mine
are
> based on "the truth".

I didn't say any of these things either. I really *don't* like it when
people
put words in my mouth. The whole point of bringing up *preferences*
is that they are, in fact *preferences*, and there IS no "inferior" or
"superior" - they are purely subjective.


>Subjectivists don't claim to have "the truth". What
> they claim is to seriously question "the truth as presented by
Objectivists"
> having raised some fairly fundamental questions, as Michael is doing now,
> and simply having them shrugged off.

Sorry. It is the "subjectivists" who have by far the greater tendency to
conflate preference with fact. Objectivists are always willing to consider
new *evidence*. But preferences are not evidence.

- Gary Rosen
April 6, 2005 4:08:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
snip>
> I just picked up five books on psychoacoustics and memory from the
> Caltech library. I'm going to read them and see what science has
> learned about these topics.
>
> Objectivists take note! Get your laptops ready... I'm actually going
> to read these books *looking for data that proves me right.* You can
> all officially accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my
> beliefs!
>
> BUT... I'm not really going to do only that. I'm going to try to
> learn what I can, recognize that any conclusions I make are the
> conclusions of an amateur, and I'm going to throw my ideas out here
> where you all can slice 'em and dice 'em.
>

Hey Mike, that is exactly where and how most of us have started. Before I
also was a "believer". But with my inquiery I chose "technical acoustics" as
a main subject in my EE studies and also "measurement technics". I was lucky
to have some professors(Blauert, Reinhard) of international reputation, and
in fact the findings in the 70s during my studies were leading to a complete
new view of psychoacoutics. Since then others have continued this work which
ultimately has led to using diffusors and controled absorption in Control
Room acoustics. One book especially opened my eyes(or better ears):
"Sound System Engineering 2nd edition", Davis & Davis, 1997, Focal press
These studies changed my viewpoint from a similar mystified idea to a very
clear, measurable and applicable scientific attitude.

snip>
> In fact, I really have recently focused more on enjoying the music.
> Objectivists take note: I'm actually using my cheapest interconnect in
> my main listening system, just because it is longer and fits better.
> Because even though I think interconnects might make a difference, I'm
> actually willing to give up that difference and focus on the music.
>
> -Mike

It seems the first step is done. Throw away everything you were believing
and instead try out, but at the same time understand the physics behind it.
This ultimately leads to an relaxed attitude, which lets your enjoyment even
grow stronger. And that is what we all want, don't we?

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:49:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5 Apr 2005 00:08:51 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Objectivists take note! Get your laptops ready... I'm actually going
>to read these books *looking for data that proves me right.* You can
>all officially accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my
>beliefs!

We already have................

>BUT... I'm not really going to do only that. I'm going to try to learn
>what I can, recognize that any conclusions I make are the conclusions
>of an amateur, and I'm going to throw my ideas out here where you all
>can slice 'em and dice 'em.

Why would we bother? You persist in accusing everything which you
disagree of being 'reductionist'. Here's a clue: some things really
*are* simple.

>I'm going to try to take the debate less seriously from now on. Harry,
>wouldn't it be great if we could buy cheap equipment and know that it
>sounded the same? I could save a lot of money and time. That would be
>fantastic!

You can, you just have to get some wrong-headed notions about 'high
end' audio out of the way first.

>In fact, I really have recently focused more on enjoying the music.
>Objectivists take note: I'm actually using my cheapest interconnect in
>my main listening system, just because it is longer and fits better.
>Because even though I think interconnects might make a difference, I'm
>actually willing to give up that difference and focus on the music.

Thinking will not make it so. Once you stop making statements like
"I'm willing to give up that difference", you may progress.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:57:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:D 2v8eu05qb@news4.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> > <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 2q0bi025e@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> > > Actually, Harry, I think you've got it backwards. You're the one
> who
> > > keeps confusing the difference between hearing sound and listening
> to
> > > music. I've argued consistently that you have to be able to hear
> the
> > > sound before you can interpret it as music.
> > >
> >
> > And I and others have said that sound is just sound....and that music
> > requires interpretation and is a who 'nother matter when it comes to
> making
> > sense of what we are hearing
>
> Which is exactly where you're confusing the two--by insisting that we
> need to "make sense of what we are hearing" in order to hear small
> sonic differences. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the
> case. In fact, it appears that the opposite is the case--that we can
> hear smaller differences when we're listening to meaningless tones and
> simple noise, rather than complex sounds like music.
>

No, you may very well hear "no difference" in a quick switch blind test, and
yet on a long term listening test develop a real preference for one or the
other as most nearly simulating (or more accurately, failing to impede)
reproduction of music in a manner that is more closely akin to that heard in
live performance. They are two different things.


> > ...which is what is required in evaluative
> > listening. Please, pleae, please put aside your prejudices and try
> to
> > understand what Michael is saying.
> >
> > You may recall my example of a year or so ago of hearing a
> half-second
> > snippet of sound from a car crash...could you undersand it, interrupt
> it, or
> > hear a vey subtle difference? Science and common sense say probably
> not.
> > However, if you heard the sounds leading up to that snippet and
> enought that
> > followed it so that you brain could register what you were listening
> to,
> > then you could probably here subtle differences. And if you didn't
> hear
> > them at first (because you weren't quite sure what you were listening
> for..)
> > then with repeated listening you'd certainly have such a chance.
>
> Once again, you are confusing perception of a sound with identification
> of a sound.

No, it is *you* who are insisting that comparing short snippets of sound is
fully a substitute for evaluative listening to music, in the context of a
reproduced performance and will yield identical results. Without ever
developing a control for that great leap of faith.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > > . They do not use DBT's for
> > > open-ended
> > > > > > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because
> they
> > > know
> > > > > it
> > > > > > doesn't work.
> > > > >
> > > > > And your source for this remarkable assertion is...? I'd be
> amazed
> > > if
> > > > > Harmon used sighted subjects for any kind of analysis.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Harmon's own published articles cite how/why they chose people,
> what
> > > they
> > > > were testing for, and the scalar, evaluative measures they used.
> > > They also
> > > > mention that the tests are not a substitute for overall "gestalt"
> > > evaluative
> > > > listening in development somewhere in those articles (I can't
> > > remember
> > > > exactly where).
> > >
> > > Yes, and they did all of that with double-blind tests.
> > >
> >
> > "Guided" DBT's, where the subjects were focused on what to listen
> for.
> > Where they were "trained" to hear those differences. And where those
> who
> > could not (a substantial portion of their original populations) were
> not
> > included in the test. That is hardly open-end, holistic listening.
>
> In other words, you now admit that this statement:
>
> "They do not use DBT's for open-ended evaluation for "musicality
> differences", probably because they know it doesn't work"
>
> is false. They do use DBTs. So clearly they do not think that DBTs
> don't "work." Glad we got that straight.
>

The use DBT's for limited purposes, with specific sonic objectives put under
the magnifying glass. They do not use them for overall evaluation of the
final sound quality, or musicality, of the design. What part of that do you
fail to understand.


> <snip>
>
> > > > But you are unwilling to help in any practical way (hint: time,
> > > effort,
> > > > positive suggestions?)
> > >
> > > It's not my job to prove your theory. I don't think your approach
> is
> > > worthwhile, as I have explained at length before.
> >
> > Basically, by asserting that unless everything was done using the
> very test
> > technique under question, you would not accept it as valid.
>
> I never said any such thing, nor do I think it. Any test that was
> double-blind and level-matched would be valid. But your approach was so
> unlikely to produce positive results that it wouldn't be worth
> attempting, even if I thought you had a hypothesis worth testing.

My test was double blind and level matched, and you still rejected it. The
evaluative leg of the test I suggested was an approach well within the
conventions of applied social/market research, and is closer to the approach
used by HK than most blind tests. And the quick-switch phase was right out
of the objectivist playbook.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:57:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D 2v94u0cfh@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:D 2skh1069n@news4.newsguy.com...
> > "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:D 2p2pi01nvr@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:D 2ms7p02ioc@news4.newsguy.com...
> > > > I want to bring to your attention a quotation from his NYT column by
> > David
> > > > Brooks. He is discussing the intelligence failures of the US as far
> > back
> > > as
> > > > 1960, when the CIA who believed cultural analysis could be
quantified
> > and
> > > > reduced to a formula, predicted that China was hopelessly
intransigent
> > and
> > > > impervious to overtures towards rapproachment. This preceded
> > Kissinger's
> > > > trip to China by a few months, which established the beginnings of a
> > > > US/China relationship that has continued to this day. And it was at
> > odds
> > > > with more humanistic cultural analysis offered by others outside the
> > > > government at the time.
> > > >
> > > > I bring this here because it strikes me that in some ways it is
> > analagous
> > > to
> > > > the ongoing debate between objectivists and subjectivists that goes
on
> > > here.
> > > > Particullarly in its reference to Irving Krystal's conclusion that
the
> > > brain
> > > > is wonderfully nuanced and insightful in detecting patterns that
> > > > compartmentizing and "objectifying" destroys (the problem he sees
with
> > > > intelligence analysis to this day, and why he feels the current
panel
> > > report
> > > > will have no affect or invoke little improvment).
> > > >
> > > > We subjectivists believe that holistic "listening", allowing the
brain
> > to
> > > > unconsciously link what we here to live musical experience, is a
> better
> > > (and
> > > > indeed the only complete way) of evaluating audio gear. The
> > objectivists
> > > > feel that a "one-size-fits-all" DBT'ng protocol offers the only
> > objective
> > > > way of making decisions. This dichotomy is further excaberated, in
my
> > > view,
> > > > by the objectivists reluctance or inability to allow that the very
> facto
> > > of
> > > > "focusing in" may destroy the more important musical framework of
> > > evaluation
> > > > (Michael's meaning by "descontructionis"). We've seen this
reluctance
> > > > despite the fact that their favorite example, Harmon International,
> uses
> > > > "training" and guided, focused evaluation of a panel listening for
> > > specific
> > > > effects to do their testing. They do not use DBT's for open-ended
> > > > evaluation for "musicality differences", probably because they know
it
> > > > doesn't work. An we've also seen this reluctance exhibited in last
> > year's
> > > > discussion of the need for a "control test" to bridge the gap
betweeen
> > > > standard DBT'ng and more relaxed, less comparative open-ended
> evaluation
> > > of
> > > > components.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have an answer to bridge the gap for we Subjectivists except
> for
> > > > somebody to devise and execute such a control test. Objectivists
> simply
> > > > continuing to insist on using the technique under dispute as the
> control
> > > > test is not going to do it. Nor are continued entreaties like
> > Michael's,
> > > no
> > > > matter how cogent (as his certainly have been,) going to convince
> > > > Objectivists. Perhaps it would help if we could just agree to
> disagree
> > > > without disparaging (sneering by inuendo in this group, often openly
> in
> > > > other unmoderated forums) others who do not agree with us. Or
perhaps
> > to
> > > > build a control test that will bridge the gap.
> > >
> > > As usual, the dispute between "subjectivists" and "objectivists" is
> > > completely
> > > misstated. Nobody objects to "holistic" listening to music, or basing
> > > *personal* preferences on what sounds best to *you*, regardless of the
> > > technology involved. What objectivists object to (no pun intended,
well
> > > maybe a little one) is passing off subjective preference as objective
> > > fact.
> > >
> > > There may even be some objectivists who prefer to holistically sit
> > > back and enjoy the music rather than obsessing over possible
> > > micro-dB differences in cables, amps, speakers etc. I really
> > > wonder when I hear about someone investing a considerable
> > > amount of time trying to prove to themselves whether
> > > one component is better than another - if it takes that much
> > > time to figure it out, the difference isn't worth worrying about.
> > > Life is short, and there's so much good music to listen to
> > > I'll never get around to half of it!
> >
> > Gary, inevitably in a discussion of preferences, someone will either say
> or
> > imply that "subjectivists prefer distortion"..."we know the truth"..."if
> it
> > doesn't prove out in a quick-switch DBT it isn't real, only
imagination".
>
> That may be the case. But I said NONE of these things.
>

I'm sorry..I guess I should have perhaps forseen that you would take it
personally. I was actually addressing it to you but speaking of
Objectivists as a group as here exhibited on RAHE. You certainly didn't say
it here. But I was trying to explain that it has been used in such a
fashion as to automatically kick in a "condescending" interpretation even
when none may be intended.

> > There is no allowance for even the possibility that all those
audiophiles
> > making preferences that the writer doesn't care for or believe in
himself
> > may represent some alternative truth in an emperical sense. Instead,
> there
> > will probably be some dismissive or slightly sarcastic comment about "of
> > course you are entitile to your preferences" with the clear implication
> that
> > "your preferences" are inferior to "my preferences" since obviously mine
> are
> > based on "the truth".
>
> I didn't say any of these things either. I really *don't* like it when
> people
> put words in my mouth. The whole point of bringing up *preferences*
> is that they are, in fact *preferences*, and there IS no "inferior" or
> "superior" - they are purely subjective.

Good. I have no problem with that. Unless the post saying that implies a
hierarchy despite the words.

>
>
> >Subjectivists don't claim to have "the truth". What
> > they claim is to seriously question "the truth as presented by
> Objectivists"
> > having raised some fairly fundamental questions, as Michael is doing
now,
> > and simply having them shrugged off.
>
> Sorry. It is the "subjectivists" who have by far the greater tendency to
> conflate preference with fact. Objectivists are always willing to
consider
> new *evidence*. But preferences are not evidence.

I don't see much of that here, and I don't spend time on many other
audiophile newsgroups. I do see objectivists here continually trying to
present an integrated view of why we have trouble accepting DBT's with
validation, since they seem so at odds with our own subjective judgements
and to some extent independently arrived at consensuses by audiophiles
reference certain pieces of gear.

>
> - Gary Rosen
>
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:58:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2005 00:08:51 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Objectivists take note! Get your laptops ready... I'm actually
going
> >to read these books *looking for data that proves me right.* You
can
> >all officially accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my
> >beliefs!
>
> We already have................
>
> >BUT... I'm not really going to do only that. I'm going to try to
learn
> >what I can, recognize that any conclusions I make are the
conclusions
> >of an amateur, and I'm going to throw my ideas out here where you
all
> >can slice 'em and dice 'em.
>
> Why would we bother?

Uh, if you don't want to bother, then don't bother responding to my
posts. You've reponded to most of them so far, so it's obvious you
care.

Now, Stewart, I just said that I was going to put my hypothesis (as
well as results from my listening tests) out in the open where they can
be sliced and diced. That's part of the scientific method. How on
earth does that statement deserve a snide remark?

>You persist in accusing everything which you
> disagree of being 'reductionist'.

This is both strawman (as it misrepresents my argument) and ad hominen
(as it misrepresents my intentions).

For your information, I don't "accuse" anything of being reductionist.
I do point out the models and theories that seem to be highly reduced
versions of reality. And as I've said already, that doesn't make them
wrong automatically.

Instead of making a strawman and ad hominen remark, why don't you
address the specific issue and tell me either why (1) it's not
reductionist, or (2) why it's okay if it is reductionist.

>Here's a clue: some things really
> *are* simple.

Not the brain and certainly not consciousness.

-Mike
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:59:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
>
> My test was double blind and level matched, and you still rejected
it. The
> evaluative leg of the test I suggested

"Suggested" being the operative term. You didn't come close to a full
test specification. And what little you offered actually depended on
the hypothesis it was attempting to prove.

> was an approach well within the
> conventions of applied social/market research, and is closer to the
approach
> used by HK than most blind tests.

If you think so, then you really don't understand what the Harman boys
are up to.

bob
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 5:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> > <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 2q0bi025e@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> > > Actually, Harry, I think you've got it backwards. You're the one
> who
> > > keeps confusing the difference between hearing sound and
listening
> to
> > > music. I've argued consistently that you have to be able to hear
> the
> > > sound before you can interpret it as music.
> > >
> >
> > And I and others have said that sound is just sound....and that
music
> > requires interpretation and is a who 'nother matter when it comes
to
> making
> > sense of what we are hearing
>
> Which is exactly where you're confusing the two--by insisting that we
> need to "make sense of what we are hearing" in order to hear small
> sonic differences. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the
> case. In fact, it appears that the opposite is the case--that we can
> hear smaller differences when we're listening to meaningless tones
and
> simple noise, rather than complex sounds like music.

Bob, can you give specific examples of experiments that show this?
Specific distortion mechanisms that were used? Levels of sensitivty
revealed in each method?

>
> > ...which is what is required in evaluative
> > listening. Please, pleae, please put aside your prejudices and try
> to
> > understand what Michael is saying.
> >
> > You may recall my example of a year or so ago of hearing a
> half-second
> > snippet of sound from a car crash...could you undersand it,
interrupt
> it, or
> > hear a vey subtle difference? Science and common sense say
probably
> not.
> > However, if you heard the sounds leading up to that snippet and
> enought that
> > followed it so that you brain could register what you were
listening
> to,
> > then you could probably here subtle differences. And if you didn't
> hear
> > them at first (because you weren't quite sure what you were
listening
> for..)
> > then with repeated listening you'd certainly have such a chance.
>
> Once again, you are confusing perception of a sound with
identification
> of a sound.

It seems to me that you are implying a model in which the ear receives
sound and projects it onto some kind of internal "screen," which is
completely open to inspection by consciousness at will. I think it is
more accurate to say that perception filters and selects from the raw
senses in ways we are not conscious of, and that the filtering process
is intertwined with high-order processes like identification. For
example, chapter 2 of "Memory and Attention" by Norman discusses the
experiments in the 60's by Deutsch and Deutsch showing that the brain
is always trying to identify things unconsciously at a fairly high
level, but only the things identified as relevant come to attention.
In other words, we may have to identify a sound in order to perceive
it.

-Mike
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 4:42:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D 31t160d8i@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:D 2v94u0cfh@news1.newsguy.com...

>snip<

> > Sorry. It is the "subjectivists" who have by far the greater tendency
to
> > conflate preference with fact. Objectivists are always willing to
> consider
> > new *evidence*. But preferences are not evidence.
>
> I don't see much of that here, and I don't spend time on many other
> audiophile newsgroups. I do see objectivists here continually trying to
> present an integrated view of why we have trouble accepting DBT's with
> validation, since they seem so at odds with our own subjective judgements
> and to some extent independently arrived at consensuses by audiophiles
> reference certain pieces of gear.


Oops! Clearly I meant to say "without validation", not "with validation".
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:46:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6 Apr 2005 23:58:25 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>>Here's a clue: some things really
>> *are* simple.
>
>Not the brain and certainly not consciousness.

Unimportant. Sighted comparisons are *known* to be bad science, so you
can immediately disregard any impressions you may have gleaned in
situations where you *know* what's playing. That is a simple concept.

The proctor of a single-blind listening test may provide conscious or
unconscious cues as to which item is playing at any time, so that risk
is best avoided by using a uble-blind protocol. That is a simple
concept.

If we take two pieces of music (or any other audio signal), and
introduce a small amount of distortion (or a change of loudness) to
one of them, the will come a point at which we cannot distinguish
between them. Decades of experimentation have shown that
time-proximate, i.e. quick-switched, comparisons are able to
distinguish smaller differences than are comparisons made with lengthy
time intervals between playings. That is a simple concept.

You propose that long, relaxed listening seesions are capable of
revealing smaller differences than are 'stressful' quick-switched
comparisons. The body of available evidence suggests that this is
untrue. Instead of coming up with ever more fanciful psychoacoustic
theories, why don't you provide some *evidence* to back your position?

That is a simple concept - you are making extraordinary claims, these
require extraordinary proof. Some things really *are* simple.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:31:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2005 23:58:25 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >>Here's a clue: some things really
> >> *are* simple.
> >
> >Not the brain and certainly not consciousness.
>
> Unimportant. Sighted comparisons are *known* to be bad science, so
you
> can immediately disregard any impressions you may have gleaned in
> situations where you *know* what's playing. That is a simple concept.

You seem to think that consciousness is relevant only to sighted
comparisons. Conciousness *is involved in double-blind tests under
controlled conditions.* The subject must be conscious of the response
in order to give it.

If you want to eliminate consciousness, then refer me to tests that
were done on anesthetized people.

>


> The proctor of a single-blind listening test may provide conscious or
> unconscious cues as to which item is playing at any time, so that
risk
> is best avoided by using a uble-blind protocol. That is a simple
> concept.
>
> If we take two pieces of music (or any other audio signal), and
> introduce a small amount of distortion (or a change of loudness) to
> one of them, the will come a point at which we cannot distinguish
> between them. Decades of experimentation have shown that
> time-proximate, i.e. quick-switched, comparisons are able to
> distinguish smaller differences than are comparisons made with
lengthy
> time intervals between playings. That is a simple concept.

What's not simple is variety of ways that people can pay attention and
form memories. I'm not claiming that people can hear ridiculously tiny
signals, but I am suggesting whatever we think the limits of hearing
are, there are probably possibilities that go beyond that---because I
don't think we really know enough about attention, memory, and
consciousness to draw hard conclusions.

>
> You propose that long, relaxed listening seesions are capable of
> revealing smaller differences than are 'stressful' quick-switched
> comparisons. The body of available evidence suggests that this is
> untrue. Instead of coming up with ever more fanciful psychoacoustic
> theories, why don't you provide some *evidence* to back your
position?

Why don't you stop replying, if my hypotheses are so "fanciful"? Why
don't you acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence from psychology
to support a criticism of certain types of listening tests? Why don't
you acknowlege that I have always said evidence is necessary and that
I'm looking for more, although as one person with no budget I'm a bit
limited?

-Mike
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 4:06:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> Why
> don't you acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence from
psychology
> to support a criticism of certain types of listening tests?

Because there isn't. Not a shred of it. Psychologists INVENTED these
tests. Psychologists use them every day. Do you think they are idiots
who use a test that their own field knows isn't any good? Or do you
think they are fraudulently foisting onto the public research that they
know is bogus? Or could it be that you are simply misreading psychology
for your own pruposes?

bob
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:06:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8 Apr 2005 22:31:16 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2005 23:58:25 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> >>Here's a clue: some things really
>> >> *are* simple.
>> >
>> >Not the brain and certainly not consciousness.
>>
>> Unimportant. Sighted comparisons are *known* to be bad science, so you
>> can immediately disregard any impressions you may have gleaned in
>> situations where you *know* what's playing. That is a simple concept.
>
>You seem to think that consciousness is relevant only to sighted
>comparisons. Conciousness *is involved in double-blind tests under
>controlled conditions.* The subject must be conscious of the response
>in order to give it.

Not argued, I am simply asking if you're happy to discard sighted
listening, which your other posts seem to indicate that you are.

>> The proctor of a single-blind listening test may provide conscious or
>> unconscious cues as to which item is playing at any time, so that risk
>> is best avoided by using a double-blind protocol. That is a simple
>> concept.
>>
>> If we take two pieces of music (or any other audio signal), and
>> introduce a small amount of distortion (or a change of loudness) to
>> one of them, the will come a point at which we cannot distinguish
>> between them. Decades of experimentation have shown that
>> time-proximate, i.e. quick-switched, comparisons are able to
>> distinguish smaller differences than are comparisons made with lengthy
>> time intervals between playings. That is a simple concept.
>
>What's not simple is variety of ways that people can pay attention and
>form memories. I'm not claiming that people can hear ridiculously tiny
>signals, but I am suggesting whatever we think the limits of hearing
>are, there are probably possibilities that go beyond that---because I
>don't think we really know enough about attention, memory, and
>consciousness to draw hard conclusions.

Sure we do. There is for instance a hard limit below which the
auditory nerve will not fire. If you 'hear' something below that
level, then we *know* that you are imagining it.

BTW, don't use 'probably' for an assertion for which you have
presented *zero* evidence.

>> You propose that long, relaxed listening sessions are capable of
>> revealing smaller differences than are 'stressful' quick-switched
>> comparisons. The body of available evidence suggests that this is
>> untrue. Instead of coming up with ever more fanciful psychoacoustic
>> theories, why don't you provide some *evidence* to back your
>> position?
>
>Why don't you stop replying, if my hypotheses are so "fanciful"?

Why do you want me to stop? *You* are the one posting these fanciful
'hypotheses' in this newsgroup, so *you* are the one who must support
them. Can you not do so? If not, then why are you persisting, against
the weight of many decades of research?

> Why
>don't you acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence from psychology
>to support a criticism of certain types of listening tests?

Because there isn't, not one single shred. Are you not aware that it
was psychologists and psychoacousticians who *designed* these tests,
including the quick-switched ABChr which is currently the basis of
most of the research behind MP3, AAC and the other audio compression
alogorithms?

> Why don't
>you acknowlege that I have always said evidence is necessary and that
>I'm looking for more, although as one person with no budget I'm a bit
>limited?

That would be because you have so far presented *zero* evidence to
back your fanciful assertions. Much worse however, is that you
instantly discard all available evidence which shows that you are just
plain *wrong* on various points. That's not science, that's denial.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:44:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > Why
> > don't you acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence from
> psychology
> > to support a criticism of certain types of listening tests?
>
> Because there isn't. Not a shred of it. Psychologists INVENTED these
> tests. Psychologists use them every day. Do you think they are idiots
> who use a test that their own field knows isn't any good? Or do you
> think they are fraudulently foisting onto the public research that
they
> know is bogus? Or could it be that you are simply misreading
psychology
> for your own pruposes?
>
> bob

I don't think they are idiots. I think that from *within* a field,
certain hard questions about the nature of evidence are not going to
get asked. I think that I'm perfectly entitled to ask probing
philosophical questions about the nature of evidence and offer
suggestions of links from other fields. And if you don't like it, then
move to a country without free speech.

-Mike
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 7:11:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2005 22:31:16 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 6 Apr 2005 23:58:25 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> ><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Here's a clue: some things really
> >> >> *are* simple.
> >> >
> >> >Not the brain and certainly not consciousness.
> >>
> >> Unimportant. Sighted comparisons are *known* to be bad science, so
you
> >> can immediately disregard any impressions you may have gleaned in
> >> situations where you *know* what's playing. That is a simple
concept.
> >
> >You seem to think that consciousness is relevant only to sighted
> >comparisons. Conciousness *is involved in double-blind tests under
> >controlled conditions.* The subject must be conscious of the
response
> >in order to give it.
>
> Not argued, I am simply asking if you're happy to discard sighted
> listening, which your other posts seem to indicate that you are.
>
> >> The proctor of a single-blind listening test may provide conscious
or
> >> unconscious cues as to which item is playing at any time, so that
risk
> >> is best avoided by using a double-blind protocol. That is a simple
> >> concept.
> >>
> >> If we take two pieces of music (or any other audio signal), and
> >> introduce a small amount of distortion (or a change of loudness)
to
> >> one of them, the will come a point at which we cannot distinguish
> >> between them. Decades of experimentation have shown that
> >> time-proximate, i.e. quick-switched, comparisons are able to
> >> distinguish smaller differences than are comparisons made with
lengthy
> >> time intervals between playings. That is a simple concept.
> >
> >What's not simple is variety of ways that people can pay attention
and
> >form memories. I'm not claiming that people can hear ridiculously
tiny
> >signals, but I am suggesting whatever we think the limits of hearing
> >are, there are probably possibilities that go beyond that---because
I
> >don't think we really know enough about attention, memory, and
> >consciousness to draw hard conclusions.
>
> Sure we do. There is for instance a hard limit below which the
> auditory nerve will not fire. If you 'hear' something below that
> level, then we *know* that you are imagining it.
>
> BTW, don't use 'probably' for an assertion for which you have
> presented *zero* evidence.

Wasn't it you yourself who suggested that we not tell people what to do
on USENET?

>
> > Why don't
> >you acknowlege that I have always said evidence is necessary and
that
> >I'm looking for more, although as one person with no budget I'm a
bit
> >limited?
>
> That would be because you have so far presented *zero* evidence to
> back your fanciful assertions. Much worse however, is that you
> instantly discard all available evidence which shows that you are
just
> plain *wrong* on various points. That's not science, that's denial.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I guess you are used to "one-size fits all responses" to people you
disagree with. You are completely wrong that I instantly "discard all
available evidence which shows I am wrong." I'm actually very
impressed by some evidence. The success of audio compression, for
example.

I haven't actually "discarded" anything at all. I have *questioned* it
on primarily philosophical grounds. I have questioned whether a field
is going to generate the hard questions from within itself. I question
my own arguments just the same.

For example, I thought of an objection to my own argument that audible
differences might only be heard in the meaning of the music. It is
this: the brain is a very flexible, well-interconnected system. If you
change the input somewhere, and you train people to hear that change as
I know the psychoacousticians do, then it is likely the brain will
learn one way or another to detect the change.

However, I would prefer that you respond to my argument on the same
level it was presented, namely philosophical. As far as calling for
evidence, you are not going to get any more than I've already given.
(Unless I do some more listening tests.) If you feel that philosophy
is irrelevant and a waste of time, then you are free not to engage in
it.

-Mike
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 7:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Psychologists INVENTED these
> > tests. Psychologists use them every day. Do you think they are
idiots
> > who use a test that their own field knows isn't any good? Or do you
> > think they are fraudulently foisting onto the public research that
> they
> > know is bogus? Or could it be that you are simply misreading
> psychology
> > for your own pruposes?
> >
> > bob
>
> I don't think they are idiots. I think that from *within* a field,
> certain hard questions about the nature of evidence are not going to
> get asked.

You need to know an awful lot more about a field than you can learn in
five days before you make such an outrageous charge. The people writing
the books you are reading know a lot more about the nature of the
evidence than you do. People responding to you on this site know a good
deal more about the evidence than you do, as well.

> I think that I'm perfectly entitled to ask probing
> philosophical questions about the nature of evidence and offer
> suggestions of links from other fields.

Your questions don't seem particularly probing to me. (They also sound
a lot more like pronouncements than questions.) You need to understand
a field much better before you can be "probing."

> And if you don't like it, then
> move to a country without free speech.

No one is telling you not to post. But you have told several of us not
to post. Shame on you.

bob
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 7:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10 Apr 2005 00:44:04 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think that from *within* a field,
>certain hard questions about the nature of evidence are not going to
>get asked.

That is an outrageous slur on the integrity of psychoacousticians.
Especially given the glee with which one scientist in a field will
debunk the work of a rival!

> I think that I'm perfectly entitled to ask probing
>philosophical questions about the nature of evidence and offer
>suggestions of links from other fields. And if you don't like it, then
>move to a country without free speech.

Perhaps he *is* posting from such a country. That's the beauty of
Usenet, it's a *global* community. If you don't like your fanciful
'hypotheses' to be challenged, why do you post them in an open
discussion forum? Better yet, why do you not find out what has already
been researched in this field, then you could quietly drop your
'hypotheses' without further embarrassment.......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:02:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10 Apr 2005 15:11:00 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>> BTW, don't use 'probably' for an assertion for which you have
>> presented *zero* evidence.
>
>Wasn't it you yourself who suggested that we not tell people what to do
>on USENET?

Indeed I did, and thanks for demonstrating that it doesn't work, but
it's interesting that you completetely ignored all the on-topic
questions, and homed in on the cheap shot.

>I guess you are used to "one-size fits all responses" to people you
>disagree with.

Nope, I just expect them to provide some evidential basis for their
ill-considered assertions.

> You are completely wrong that I instantly "discard all
>available evidence which shows I am wrong." I'm actually very
>impressed by some evidence. The success of audio compression, for
>example.

However, you don't actually seem to have taken it on board and
followed it to its logical conclusion, which would be to discard your
previous assertions.

>I haven't actually "discarded" anything at all. I have *questioned* it
>on primarily philosophical grounds. I have questioned whether a field
>is going to generate the hard questions from within itself. I question
>my own arguments just the same.

If you 'question your own arguments', why do you discard decades of
experimental evidence which show that quick-switched DBTs are the most
sensitive method for discovering small sonic differences?

>For example, I thought of an objection to my own argument that audible
>differences might only be heard in the meaning of the music. It is
>this: the brain is a very flexible, well-interconnected system. If you
>change the input somewhere, and you train people to hear that change as
>I know the psychoacousticians do, then it is likely the brain will
>learn one way or another to detect the change.

>However, I would prefer that you respond to my argument on the same
>level it was presented, namely philosophical.

You present no 'philosophical' argument, merely handwaving that there
may be some mysterious mechanism that makes quick-switched DBTs a bad
idea. That's not philosophy, that's religion.

> As far as calling for
>evidence, you are not going to get any more than I've already given.
>(Unless I do some more listening tests.) If you feel that philosophy
>is irrelevant and a waste of time, then you are free not to engage in
>it.

I am also free to describe your 'philosophy' as mere sophistry.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
!