A model of the brain, & quick-switch

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

I've been thinking about the question, is quick-switch blind testing
relevant?

I'm not a psychologist, but here's how I model the ear, brain, and
consciousness. I welcome any additional information or corrections:

(please note: you must view this in a fixed-width font to see it
properly)


sound pressure waves
|
|
V
ear

^
|
|
V
processed representation of <-----------------------------
sound ^ | | |
^ | | | |
| V V V V
| emotions body movement analytical personal
[A] processing stories
| ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | |
| [B] [C] [D] [E]
| | | | |
V V V V V
C O N S C I O U S N E S S


This diagram is saying:

- sound pressure waves strike the eardrum

- there is a level we will roughly call the "ear" which turns the
sound into impulses travelling the auditory nerve

- There are the lower levels of the brain which do initial
processing of sound, identifying pitches, rhythms, and basic
recognition of patterns. I call that "processed representation of
sound."

- At the bottom of this diagram is consciousness. Consciousness
itself is not really well understood, certainly not by me (and I
welcome additional information) but here, I have modelled it
as a level of neural activity which is influenced by lower level
activities.

- But before I continue about consciousness, note that I have
represented other brain systems: emotions, body movement,
analytical processing, and "personal stories." These are all
levels on which I, personally, experience music. Others may draw
this diagram differently.

What this diagram is saying, is that while the "sound" of music comes
to consciousness, at the same time the "sound" influences other brain
systems, which have their own way of processing the sound. The sound
triggers emotions; it compels body movement; it stimulates analytical
processing; and it resonates with personal stories. I represent, in
this diagram, these things as distinct from consciousness--because in
my own experience, they are subconscious (that is, they come to my
awareness as activity I didn't *will* to happen).

NOTE I have draw each arrow as BI-DIRECTIONAL. In my understanding of
neurology, although I'm not an expert, higher-level systems don't just
build their patterns on lower-level systems, but in turn influence the
lower-level activity. This is evident from observing myself: WHAT I
choose to focus on CHANGES my experience of that thing. That, of
course, accounts for the arrows from consciousness back. But I have
continued those back arrows further, all the way back to the ear
itself. This is based on my reading of Moore which explains that the
auditory cortext innervates the muscles of the cochlea and can change
its behavior. NOTE ALSO these back arrows are not at all critical to
my final point here, so use them or ignore them at your whim.

Let's consider quick-switch testing based on small fragments of sound
which repeat over and over. My own experience with this (e.g., Arny's
PCABX site), is that I'm no longer hearing the sound as music. So the
diagram now looks like:

sound pressure waves
|
|
V
ear

^
|
|
V
processed representation of
sound
^
|
|
[A]
|
|
V

C O N S C I O U S N E S S


In the original diagram, information came to consciousness through
channels A, B, C, D & E. In the second diagram, only through A.

The critical question: have I changed the information reaching
consciousness? Does it matter whether the information reaches
consciousness through all the channels, or channel A alone?
If it does matter, then is quick-switch testing an accurate test of
the brain's normal operation?

There is no reason to presume that all information is available in
channel A. There's no benefit to the human organism for that to be
true, so there's no evolutionary pressure to evolve that capability.

To me, this is a very good reason to be skeptical about quick-switch
blind testing. I'm even more skeptical when I consider a critical fact
I have heretofore glossed over:

Consciousness is not a complete representation of the available
information. Consciousness picks and chooses a very small subset of
the available information.

So the fact that channel A leads from a "representation of the sound"
directly to consciouness, does not imply that consciousness can in any
way fully access that representation. It is best to think of all the
channels above as transmitting ONLY A VERY SMALL PART of the available
information-- and not a fixed part either, but one that can morph
between a multitude of variable forms depending on the conscious
intentions and focus of the listener.

So in the orginal diagram, information reaches consciousness through
five channels-- each of them very limited, each of them representing
unique features of the sound, and each of them influenced (in their
own unique way) by the focus of consciousness. In the second diagram,
most of the subsystems are removed, the channel is restricted to
A--and any back-influences from systems B through E are also removed.

That seems like a radical change. So that's why I'm skeptical of
quick-switch blind testing.

I welcome thoughts and any additional information about modeling the
brain. Of course, I know what is going to happen: some of you will
post that the model is wrong or irrelevant to any scientific
understanding. I suspect that in that case, we aren't disagreeing
about facts, but about our *experiences*-- in other words, you may
feel the model has nothing to do with your personal experience of
music. That may well be true. In which case, quick-switch blind
testing is probably a good way for you to go.

Mike

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

On 1 Sep 2005 15:02:14 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

>I've been thinking about the question, is quick-switch blind testing
>relevant?

>I'm not a psychologist, but here's how I model the ear, brain, and
>consciousness. I welcome any additional information or corrections:

Scientists, unlike yourself, are required to provide actual *evidence*
that their models fit reality.

You have provided no such evidence, so why should anyone rational listen
to your ideas?


Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.

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

On 1 Sep 2005 15:13:08 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

>I recall from a few weeks ago Stewart saying that he was just as moved
>by a performance of the Elgar cello concerto on a car radio as on his
>big system (I'm explaining from memory of reading it).

No, I said it moved me greatly - I did not say the emotional
experience was the same as when listening at home.

>Also, in a
>recent post Bob said he didn't think the sound qualities of a system
>(within normal ranges) influenced the experience of music. In the
>thread "analog vs. digital--not" Stewart and "bear" said something to
>the effect that a table radio can convey a musical performance as well
>as anything else ("bear" was writing about what a conductor is
>interested in).

It can convey the musical elements, but much subtlety is of course
lost.

>Since I don't have the exact posts to follow up,
>please take these comments of mine as provisional until Stewart, Bob,
>and "bear" confirm them. I just want to respond to the model implied
>by this perspective (I'm sure SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE holds this
>perspective).

Judging by the kit they mostly seem to own, many musicians would
probably qualify! :-)

>My experience is quite different, of course. In my experience, the
>details of sound matter to the experience of music, to the experience
>of a performance and what emotions it evokes, and so on. I thought I
>might capture this disagreement in a revised model:
>
>The model I believe Bob and Stewart and "bear" are using (and they may
>confirm this or explain otherwise, of course):

We are not in sufficient disagreement for any such modelling to be
valid, IMO.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> I recall from a few weeks ago Stewart saying that he was just as moved
> by a performance of the Elgar cello concerto on a car radio as on his
> big system (I'm explaining from memory of reading it). Also, in a
> recent post Bob said he didn't think the sound qualities of a system
> (within normal ranges) influenced the experience of music. In the
> thread "analog vs. digital--not" Stewart and "bear" said something to
> the effect that a table radio can convey a musical performance as well
> as anything else ("bear" was writing about what a conductor is
> interested in). Since I don't have the exact posts to follow up,
> please take these comments of mine as provisional until Stewart, Bob,
> and "bear" confirm them. I just want to respond to the model implied
> by this perspective (I'm sure SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE holds this
> perspective).

....


> What is curious to me is that each of us has arrived at a model
> representing our own experience.. and these models have very different
> implications about how comparisons (of any type, sighted or blind)
> should be done.

You can listen to audio on several levels. You can listen for
differences in the sound of components under test, you can listen for
overall evaluation of the realism of the system, or you can listen to
the performance itself, ignoring the system. Listening to one aspect of
the sound does not obviate, or negate, the possibility of listening on
other levels or for different things.

When we do difference testing, we are interested in only one thing: is
there a difference in the sound of the two devices under test. It is
certainly possible for any intelligent listener to focus on this aspect
of the sound, and it has indeed been done successfully a few times
(kidding). When we do blind testing, we are not interested in who is the
better composer or who is the better drummer. We are listening to the
system only, and listening for any aspect of the sound that is audibly
different between the two devices. If you think, as some have proposed,
that some components bring out the emotion of the performance better
than others, then feel free to use that criterion as the difference you
are listening for.

Also, listen to each component for as long as you like. That has nothing
to do with whether the test is valid or not. You can switch quickly
between components, or you can listen for long periods. It's just that
we have found over a period of time doing these tests that it is much
faster and easier to tell differences if you switch between them
quickly, and often, during those passages that tend to bring out the
differences.

Gary Eickmeier

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

"In turn, if I am right, this may explain why Arny, Tom Nousaine,
etc.who favor the use of predigested, short-snippets of musical sound
bites, are even more inclined to find "no difference" in equipment
that audiophiles generally think sound different when reproducing
music. And the substitutability of white noise,
well........"

They can speak for themselves but I recall they have only confirmed what
psychoacoustics has demonstrated best provides the context by which to do
listening alone testing. Many rely on cliks etc. because of the higher
potential for them to reveal things that "normal" and expected sounds only
obscure. When using music the things revealed by them are not percieved.
It is the unatural, not the natural as based on one's experience that gets
the brain to ignor the familiar and hear what is not otherwise obvious to
it. In any case, listening as long as one wants has always been the
standard offer for one wanting to test audio gear for proported
difference and tom reports people doing same without any difference in
results, nothing.

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

What he "allowed", a loaded choice of terms, or not can be best answered
by him. Ido recall that he always expressed that time was never a
constraint if someone thought it would improve results. As I recall in at
least one example the old yamaha and new pass labs amp test had no such
limits and repeat testing was done on different days, no difference in the
owner's system in his hifi store using his music choices. 1 100 even
100000 subjective anecdotal reports doesn't a valid test make, the entire
foundation upon which the subjective enterprise rests.

"Tom says, as best I can recall, that he had one listener that he
allowed to take a long time. But he's never (to the best of my
recall) ever outlined that or any other test in enough detail to give
a vivid picture of what actually transpired.

"One Swallow does not a Summer make". Remember? Nor does one
anecdote."

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> Buster Mudd wrote:
> > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Let's consider quick-switch testing based on small fragments of sound
> > > which repeat over and over. My own experience with this (e.g., Arny's
> > > PCABX site), is that I'm no longer hearing the sound as music.
> >
> > That sounds like a problem with your perception, or your
> > interpretation, or your neural processing... IOW, in the admittedly
> > somewhat confrontational vernacular, that's YOUR problem. But that is
> > NOT a short-coming of quick-switch testing per se, as other listener's
> > do not share your inability to continue perceiving the sound as music.
>
> This seems to be a matter of what we mean by "perceiving the sound as
> music." I mean that the sound "works" as music, by which I mean that it
> generates expressive shapes that are musically coherent according to my
> understanding of classical music, that this music maintains a fresh,
> alive sense, a sense of living "in the moment," and that the
> relationship of the details to the overall form is audible and
> coherent.
>
> I suspect that what you mean by "hearing the sound as music" is
> something like "you can tell that musical instruments are playing."

No, that's not what anybody means. This is not only a straw man, but a
rather pathetic one.

> Notice that in my definition of "hearing the sound as music," it would
> truly be an extraordinary claim to suggest that *anyone* could maintain
> this in repeated short clips. And yet, it is in these experiences that
> the difference between components are evident.
>
> So there are differences between the camps. To an objectivist, there's
> no need to reflect on the nature of aesthetics, or the nature of
> musical experience. Experiences are very simple. If you can still hear
> an instrument, then it is still music. It just IS. There is no
> reflection, no sensitivity to how context changes musical experience.
>
> More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply
> *can't* hear the differences between components.

And this is the usual "my ears are better than your ears" trope. It's
obnoxious every time it's brought up.

> While I'm sure they
> enjoy music very much, it would seem that their listening lacks layers
> and depth--lacks the sorts of experiences that stimulate one to reflect
> on the nature of the act of listening.

And this is truly insulting. Haven't you got anything constructive to
contribute?

> Or possibly they do hear the differences, but simply don't trust their
> own experience. "Science" as practiced by psycho-acousticians has
> replaced trusting one's own perception.

My perception tells me that the Sun revolves around the Earth. So much
for trusting one's own perception.

bob

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> Buster Mudd wrote:
> > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Let's consider quick-switch testing based on small fragments of sound
> > > which repeat over and over. My own experience with this (e.g., Arny's
> > > PCABX site), is that I'm no longer hearing the sound as music.
> >
> > That sounds like a problem with your perception, or your
> > interpretation, or your neural processing... IOW, in the admittedly
> > somewhat confrontational vernacular, that's YOUR problem. But that is
> > NOT a short-coming of quick-switch testing per se, as other listener's
> > do not share your inability to continue perceiving the sound as music.
>
> This seems to be a matter of what we mean by "perceiving the sound as
> music." I mean that the sound "works" as music, by which I mean that it
> generates expressive shapes that are musically coherent according to my
> understanding of classical music, that this music maintains a fresh,
> alive sense, a sense of living "in the moment," and that the
> relationship of the details to the overall form is audible and
> coherent.
>
> I suspect that what you mean by "hearing the sound as music" is
> something like "you can tell that musical instruments are playing."
>
> Notice that in my definition of "hearing the sound as music," it would
> truly be an extraordinary claim to suggest that *anyone* could maintain
> this in repeated short clips. And yet, it is in these experiences that
> the difference between components are evident.
>
> So there are differences between the camps. To an objectivist, there's
> no need to reflect on the nature of aesthetics, or the nature of
> musical experience. Experiences are very simple. If you can still hear
> an instrument, then it is still music. It just IS. There is no
> reflection, no sensitivity to how context changes musical experience.
>
> More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply
> *can't* hear the differences between components. While I'm sure they
> enjoy music very much, it would seem that their listening lacks layers
> and depth--lacks the sorts of experiences that stimulate one to reflect
> on the nature of the act of listening.
>
> Or possibly they do hear the differences, but simply don't trust their
> own experience. "Science" as practiced by psycho-acousticians has
> replaced trusting one's own perception.
>


You do realize of course that, in the same way that you so confidently
& cavalierly dismiss Stewart, Chueng, & my hearing abilities, your post
sets you up (and all too easily, I might add) to have your
"understanding of classical music" and your music interpretation skills
[sic] brought in to question.

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Buster Mudd wrote:
> > > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Let's consider quick-switch testing based on small fragments of sound
> > > > which repeat over and over. My own experience with this (e.g., Arny's
> > > > PCABX site), is that I'm no longer hearing the sound as music.
> > >
> > > That sounds like a problem with your perception, or your
> > > interpretation, or your neural processing... IOW, in the admittedly
> > > somewhat confrontational vernacular, that's YOUR problem. But that is
> > > NOT a short-coming of quick-switch testing per se, as other listener's
> > > do not share your inability to continue perceiving the sound as music.
> >
> > This seems to be a matter of what we mean by "perceiving the sound as
> > music." I mean that the sound "works" as music, by which I mean that it
> > generates expressive shapes that are musically coherent according to my
> > understanding of classical music, that this music maintains a fresh,
> > alive sense, a sense of living "in the moment," and that the
> > relationship of the details to the overall form is audible and
> > coherent.
> >
> > I suspect that what you mean by "hearing the sound as music" is
> > something like "you can tell that musical instruments are playing."
>
> No, that's not what anybody means. This is not only a straw man, but a
> rather pathetic one.
>
> > Notice that in my definition of "hearing the sound as music," it would
> > truly be an extraordinary claim to suggest that *anyone* could maintain
> > this in repeated short clips. And yet, it is in these experiences that
> > the difference between components are evident.
> >
> > So there are differences between the camps. To an objectivist, there's
> > no need to reflect on the nature of aesthetics, or the nature of
> > musical experience. Experiences are very simple. If you can still hear
> > an instrument, then it is still music. It just IS. There is no
> > reflection, no sensitivity to how context changes musical experience.
> >
> > More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply
> > *can't* hear the differences between components.
>
> And this is the usual "my ears are better than your ears" trope. It's
> obnoxious every time it's brought up.

Unless you would like to live in a fantasy world where all people are
equally sensitive, there is nothing offensive whatsoever about
suggesting that some people are more sensitive than others. It's a
simple fact of nature.

If you are so offended at the suggestion your ears aren't as sensitive
as mine, then it would seem you are not able to consider the truthhood
or falsehood of this suggestion objectively.

Mike

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

> Unless you would like to live in a fantasy world where all people are
> equally sensitive, there is nothing offensive whatsoever about
> suggesting that some people are more sensitive than others. It's a
> simple fact of nature.

But there is something offensive about you telling us that your hearing
is better than ours. Especially when you aren't willing to put it on
the line.

bob

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Buster Mudd wrote:
> >> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > Let's consider quick-switch testing based on small fragments of sound
> >> > which repeat over and over. My own experience with this (e.g., Arny's
> >> > PCABX site), is that I'm no longer hearing the sound as music.
> >>
> >> That sounds like a problem with your perception, or your
> >> interpretation, or your neural processing... IOW, in the admittedly
> >> somewhat confrontational vernacular, that's YOUR problem. But that is
> >> NOT a short-coming of quick-switch testing per se, as other listener's
> >> do not share your inability to continue perceiving the sound as music.
> >
> >This seems to be a matter of what we mean by "perceiving the sound as
> >music." I mean that the sound "works" as music, by which I mean that it
> >generates expressive shapes that are musically coherent according to my
> >understanding of classical music, that this music maintains a fresh,
> >alive sense, a sense of living "in the moment," and that the
> >relationship of the details to the overall form is audible and
> >coherent.
>
> Yeah yewah - but you still can't hear differences any better under
> those conditions - in fact, experience tells us that you are *less*
> sensitive when listening in a 'relaxed and extended manner'.
>
> >I suspect that what you mean by "hearing the sound as music" is
> >something like "you can tell that musical instruments are playing."
> >
> >Notice that in my definition of "hearing the sound as music," it would
> >truly be an extraordinary claim to suggest that *anyone* could maintain
> >this in repeated short clips. And yet, it is in these experiences that
> >the difference between components are evident.
> >
> >So there are differences between the camps. To an objectivist, there's
> >no need to reflect on the nature of aesthetics, or the nature of
> >musical experience.
>
> Sure there is - but not when deciding if one component sounds
> different from another. The real bottom line is that castanets and
> pink noise are significantly more senitive signals than music, if you
> *really* want to nail the finest nuances of audible difference.
>
> > Experiences are very simple. If you can still hear
> >an instrument, then it is still music. It just IS. There is no
> >reflection, no sensitivity to how context changes musical experience.
> >
> >More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply
> >*can't* hear the differences between components. While I'm sure they
> >enjoy music very much, it would seem that their listening lacks layers
> >and depth--lacks the sorts of experiences that stimulate one to reflect
> >on the nature of the act of listening.
>
> Pathetic. Isn't it funny how, when backed into a corner, the frantic
> hand-waving and sophistry of the subjectivist suddenly collapses to
> 'you must be deaf'.

Your defensiveness, and obvious lack of objectivity, in response to the
simple assertion that some people are more sensitive than others, is
noted.

Mike

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> >

> > >Or possibly they do hear the differences, but simply don't trust their
> > >own experience. "Science" as practiced by psycho-acousticians has
> > >replaced trusting one's own perception.
> >
> > Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It
> > seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected
> > before they can express their admiration of the musicality........
> >

> Your statement about subjectivists does not represent my position at
> all.

> I feel no need whatsoever to know what's connected. I would be
> perfectly happy to audition black boxes. I would be perfectly happy to
> live with box A for a week, and then at some point in time unknown to
> me, have box A switched with box B which is identical in appearance. I
> would not know the identity of either box nor the time of the switch.
> At the end of 1-2 weeks of auditioning each one, with switch time not
> known, I would use my experiences to decide which one to buy.

> What I think is useless to me, is rapidly switching between sources, or
> being asked to identify the source in a context where my "mental
> procedure" for doing so must be followed like a recipe.

There is no 'requirement' that listening interval be short. It is
*recommended* because the extant psychoacoustic data indicate
that short-interval listening is *better* for discerning difference,
due to the limitations of audio memory.

Here's a thing: suppose you participated in the comaprison you described,
where A and B are switched. There are two possibilities: A and
B sound different, or they don't. And they can 'sound' different for
two reasons: because they really do sound different, or due to
psychological bias effects -- the humans tendancy to 'hear' difference
when presented with two things they *think* are different EVEN IF
THE THINGS ARE IN FACT THE SAME.

In your comparison above. suppose when A and B were 'switched',
what in fact was done, was that A was replaced with A again.
There is a high likelihood that you would perceive the two
presentations as sounding 'different'. You might confidently
decide that you preferred 'B' to 'A' at the end of
your 4-week trial. When, in fact, there had been NO DIFFERENCE.

What would you conclude if that happened?


--

-S

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

On 7 Sep 2005 01:28:17 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

>> > More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply
>> > *can't* hear the differences between components.
>>
>> And this is the usual "my ears are better than your ears" trope. It's
>> obnoxious every time it's brought up.
>
>Unless you would like to live in a fantasy world where all people are
>equally sensitive, there is nothing offensive whatsoever about
>suggesting that some people are more sensitive than others. It's a
>simple fact of nature.

Had that been what you did, that would be true. However, what you did
was claim that your *opponents* have inferior hearing. That's an
entirely different matter, and more risible than offensive AFAIAC.

>If you are so offended at the suggestion your ears aren't as sensitive
>as mine, then it would seem you are not able to consider the truthhood
>or falsehood of this suggestion objectively.

On the available evidence, it seems more likely that you are the one
with defective hearing, but since you refuse to put it the test, I
guess we'll never know....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > > On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
>
> > > >Or possibly they do hear the differences, but simply don't trust their
> > > >own experience. "Science" as practiced by psycho-acousticians has
> > > >replaced trusting one's own perception.
> > >
> > > Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It
> > > seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected
> > > before they can express their admiration of the musicality........
> > >
>
> > Your statement about subjectivists does not represent my position at
> > all.
>
> > I feel no need whatsoever to know what's connected. I would be
> > perfectly happy to audition black boxes. I would be perfectly happy to
> > live with box A for a week, and then at some point in time unknown to
> > me, have box A switched with box B which is identical in appearance. I
> > would not know the identity of either box nor the time of the switch.
> > At the end of 1-2 weeks of auditioning each one, with switch time not
> > known, I would use my experiences to decide which one to buy.
>
> > What I think is useless to me, is rapidly switching between sources, or
> > being asked to identify the source in a context where my "mental
> > procedure" for doing so must be followed like a recipe.
>
> There is no 'requirement' that listening interval be short. It is
> *recommended* because the extant psychoacoustic data indicate
> that short-interval listening is *better* for discerning difference,
> due to the limitations of audio memory.
>
> Here's a thing: suppose you participated in the comaprison you described,
> where A and B are switched. There are two possibilities: A and
> B sound different, or they don't. And they can 'sound' different for
> two reasons: because they really do sound different, or due to
> psychological bias effects -- the humans tendancy to 'hear' difference
> when presented with two things they *think* are different EVEN IF
> THE THINGS ARE IN FACT THE SAME.
>
> In your comparison above. suppose when A and B were 'switched',
> what in fact was done, was that A was replaced with A again.
> There is a high likelihood that you would perceive the two
> presentations as sounding 'different'. You might confidently
> decide that you preferred 'B' to 'A' at the end of
> your 4-week trial. When, in fact, there had been NO DIFFERENCE.
>
> What would you conclude if that happened?
>

I would conclude what I already know: that under some conditions people
can perceive a difference when there is, to the best of our knowledge,
no difference (although it is important to note that we cannot
establish with certainty there was no difference).

What I DON'T do is conclude that all feelings about audio components
are untrustworthy. I'm willing to look at at *how* these feelings arise
and under what conditions. I'm willing to accept that subtle subjective
phenomena get interfered with when one tries to look directly at
them--unlike the objectivist, who is unwilling to consider, or actually
afraid, of this possibility: since it makes the world less easy to
understand.

Mike

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > Unless you would like to live in a fantasy world where all people are
> > > equally sensitive, there is nothing offensive whatsoever about
> > > suggesting that some people are more sensitive than others. It's a
> > > simple fact of nature.
> >
> > But there is something offensive about you telling us that your hearing
> > is better than ours. Especially when you aren't willing to put it on
> > the line.
> >
> > bob
>
> Where did you read that I wasn't willing to put it on the line? Of
> course I'm willing to listen blind.

But apparently not willing to trust what you (don't) hear when you do.
>
> As an aside, would you please direct me to a report on a blind test
> that was done under the following conditions:
>
> - listeners experienced in listening blind
>
> - listeners lived with components for a couple days at least, each
> listening
> session

Perhaps one of the oldtimers can fill you in on the details of the
Sunshine Trials, which I believe involved a high-end dealer's own
system, so he had plenty of time to become familiar with what he was
listening to. As for "experience in listening blind," how is listening
any different when you don't know what equipment is producing what
you're listening to? You are grasping at straws.

bob

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > > > > On 5 Sep 2005 21:08:10 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > >Or possibly they do hear the differences, but simply don't trust their
> > > > > >own experience. "Science" as practiced by psycho-acousticians has
> > > > > >replaced trusting one's own perception.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aaah, but that's the difference - we *do* trust our experience. It
> > > > > seems to be the 'subjectivists' who have to *know* what's connected
> > > > > before they can express their admiration of the musicality........
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > Your statement about subjectivists does not represent my position at
> > > > all.
> > >
> > > > I feel no need whatsoever to know what's connected. I would be
> > > > perfectly happy to audition black boxes. I would be perfectly happy to
> > > > live with box A for a week, and then at some point in time unknown to
> > > > me, have box A switched with box B which is identical in appearance. I
> > > > would not know the identity of either box nor the time of the switch.
> > > > At the end of 1-2 weeks of auditioning each one, with switch time not
> > > > known, I would use my experiences to decide which one to buy.
> > >
> > > > What I think is useless to me, is rapidly switching between sources, or
> > > > being asked to identify the source in a context where my "mental
> > > > procedure" for doing so must be followed like a recipe.
> > >
> > > There is no 'requirement' that listening interval be short. It is
> > > *recommended* because the extant psychoacoustic data indicate
> > > that short-interval listening is *better* for discerning difference,
> > > due to the limitations of audio memory.
> > >
> > > Here's a thing: suppose you participated in the comaprison you described,
> > > where A and B are switched. There are two possibilities: A and
> > > B sound different, or they don't. And they can 'sound' different for
> > > two reasons: because they really do sound different, or due to
> > > psychological bias effects -- the humans tendancy to 'hear' difference
> > > when presented with two things they *think* are different EVEN IF
> > > THE THINGS ARE IN FACT THE SAME.
> > >
> > > In your comparison above. suppose when A and B were 'switched',
> > > what in fact was done, was that A was replaced with A again.
> > > There is a high likelihood that you would perceive the two
> > > presentations as sounding 'different'. You might confidently
> > > decide that you preferred 'B' to 'A' at the end of
> > > your 4-week trial. When, in fact, there had been NO DIFFERENCE.
> > >
> > > What would you conclude if that happened?
> > >
> >
> > I would conclude what I already know: that under some conditions people
> > can perceive a difference when there is, to the best of our knowledge,
> > no difference (although it is important to note that we cannot
> > establish with certainty there was no difference).
> >
> > What I DON'T do is conclude that all feelings about audio components
> > are untrustworthy.
>
> And how do you know which are trustworthy and which are not?
>
> > I'm willing to look at at *how* these feelings arise
> > and under what conditions. I'm willing to accept that subtle subjective
> > phenomena get interfered with when one tries to look directly at
> > them--unlike the objectivist, who is unwilling to consider, or actually
> > afraid, of this possibility: since it makes the world less easy to
> > understand.
>
> LOL! We understand this little aspect of the world pretty well.

I know that you have a body of data which is consistent, but it would
appear that most or all of the blind tests supporting your position
were not designed in acknowledgement of basic subjective phemonena,
such as the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
no, if A is present in the sound. A paradigm which proceeds on the
assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
that it exists.


> You're
> the one who thinks there's some big mystery here.

Precisely. My statement was that the objectivist prefers to choose a
paradigm in which the more mysterious observations are declared a
priori to be not worthy of investigation, probably because he doesn't
like having untidy dark corners in the universe.

>We're also the ones
> who are willing to be proven wrong.

What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

>You're the one who admits he can't
> prove ANYTHING.

I didn't say I can't prove anything. I said that I don't feel a need to
prove that audible differences exist among components. It may be
possible, however.

Mike

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

"What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm."

Of course we don't need to do so because one doesn't have to reinvent the
wheel, it has long ago been established in research using humans that
avoiding knowledge of what difference is being tested is to avoid
distorted results. In the issue at hand, to avoid knowing which bit of
audio gear is active in listening alone tests to establish if a
difference, any difference, for any plausible reason, using whatever
audible criteria one chooses, can be shown to rise above the level of
chance. The only "limited" being knowledge, all other factors being open
ended, this is the benchmark of the state of the art at present, results
to the contrary invited.

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ...the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
> A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
> no, if A is present in the sound. A paradigm which proceeds on the
> assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
> that it exists.
>


You contend that it is a "fact" that such a distinction exists. I on
the other hand contend that discriminations of sonic properties are, by
virtue of their being discriminations of sonic properties, involve the
same perceptual mechanism. The "asking oneself" either before or after
the discrimination may appear to frame the perception differently, but
it is the discrimination itself, not the framing, which determines the
perceptual mechanism.

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

Chung wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I know that you have a body of data which is consistent, but it would
> >> appear that most or all of the blind tests supporting your position
> >> were not designed in acknowledgement of basic subjective phemonena,
> >
> > What is a subjective phenomenon? I'm only familiar with the objective
> > kind.
> >
> >> such as the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
> >> A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
> >> no, if A is present in the sound.
>
> IOW, Mike is saying that if you try to look for flying elephants, you
> will not find them. If you don't look for them, you're more likely to
> (spontaneously) see them.

Well, you've paraphrased my statement but not accurately. In your
paraphrased concept, we definitely run into a problem, that we can't
seem to consciously choose to look for flying elephants in any manner.
But I didn't state such a thing as a "law", an incontrovertible law of
nature.

Also, a flying elephant is not a good analogy for subjective
experience. A flying elephant exists outside the observer.

What I stated is that a person can spontaneously notice something about
the sound, such as "brightness." A person can also ask themselves, "Is
this sound bright or not?" I stated that these are two different ways
of using one's attention, and I see no reason they should observe the
same property of the sound. In my experience, when we are talking about
subtle aspects of sound, they certainly do not represent the same way
of perceiving.

A good definition of my term "conceptualized" might be to say that
there is no distinction between noticing something and looking for it.
For example, we might notice a fire hydrant, and we might look for a
fire hydrant. In either case, it is quite clear what we mean. Our
"concept" of a fire hydrant is stable and well-defined; hence, it is
"conceptualized." It is my assertion that subtle subjective
experiences, while real, do not work on the same level.

Also, I did not state that one was a more sensitive form of perception.
I stated simply that they are different.

>
> >
> > This is not a fact.
>
> Of course, Mike can also argue that a fact is a fact as long as he
> believes it is a fact . That's about the right level of rigor Mike has
> displayed so far...
>
> >
> >> A paradigm which proceeds on the
> >> assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
> >> that it exists.
>
> IOW, Mike is saying that if you don't think that elephants can fly, then
> you will not be able to see flying elephants, no matter how scientific
> is your approach to find them.

You don't seem to have grasped which distinction I'm referring to.

>
> Utterly astonishing coming from someone who claimed to be a Caltech
> student .
>
> >
> > But a paradigm that assumed the distinction was irrelevant could. And
> > so far, the only "distinctions" I've seen made by subjectivists have
> > been either fanciful or semantic.
>
> Of course, Mike did not realize that a quick switching, short snippet
> comparison (which he appears to strongly oppose) *never* assumes that
> there is no difference. In fact, that's what we use to compare mp3
> codecs, speaker crossovers, etc. when we need the highest sensitivity to
> look for differences.

The "distinction" I'm referring to is not a "difference" between the
two sounds, it's a distinction in the manner of using one's attention.

>
> >
> >> > You're
> >> > the one who thinks there's some big mystery here.
> >>
> >> Precisely. My statement was that the objectivist prefers to choose a
> >> paradigm in which the more mysterious observations are declared a
> >> priori to be not worthy of investigation, probably because he doesn't
> >> like having untidy dark corners in the universe.
>
> Of course, Mike did not realize that the DBT/ABX paradigm is not used
> with the a priori declaration that there is no difference to be found.
> Shall we say starwman? Or simply a lack of understanding, despite Mike
> having been here for months now?
>
> >
> > One doesn't "choose" a paradigm. This is a scientific paradigm, and
> > there are no dark corners in the little bit of the universe involving
> > differentiation of audio components. Everything you claim, the paradigm
> > can explain. That's why it's the paradigm.
> >
> >> >We're also the ones
> >> > who are willing to be proven wrong.
> >>
> >> What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
> >> standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.
>
> IOW, Mike is saying that if you are looking for flying elephants, you
> need to look at whether using camera, recorders, any optical instruments
> known to man, etc., is defining a limited paradigm.

Pretty much. Makes sense to me. If you are looking for something, make
sure your methods don't interfere with that thing.

>
> >
> > Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
> > Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
> > haven't seen any.
> >
> >> >You're the one who admits he can't
> >> > prove ANYTHING.
> >>
> >> I didn't say I can't prove anything. I said that I don't feel a need to
> >> prove that audible differences exist among components. It may be
> >> possible, however.
>
> I wonder if Mike is saying that (a) audible differences may exist among
> components but he is expressing some doubt, or (b) it may be possible
> for Mike to prove that audible differences exist among components but he
> is expressing some doubt?
>
> In any event, he seems to be uncertain about either the existence of
> audible differences, or one's ability to prove that such differences
> exist. Utterly astonishing coming from someone who was a student at Caltech!

Curious statement. I would think that being open to multiple
explanations would always be a good thing. I'm not sure what you think
I'm "supposed" to believe, but I certainly don't think anything should
be uncritically accepted---not even research coming out of Caltech.

Mike

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Unless you would like to live in a fantasy world where all people are
> > > > equally sensitive, there is nothing offensive whatsoever about
> > > > suggesting that some people are more sensitive than others. It's a
> > > > simple fact of nature.
> > >
> > > But there is something offensive about you telling us that your hearing
> > > is better than ours. Especially when you aren't willing to put it on
> > > the line.
> > >
> > > bob
> >
> > Where did you read that I wasn't willing to put it on the line? Of
> > course I'm willing to listen blind.
>
> But apparently not willing to trust what you (don't) hear when you do.

What gives you that idea?

> >
> > As an aside, would you please direct me to a report on a blind test
> > that was done under the following conditions:
> >
> > - listeners experienced in listening blind
> >
> > - listeners lived with components for a couple days at least, each
> > listening
> > session
>
> Perhaps one of the oldtimers can fill you in on the details of the
> Sunshine Trials, which I believe involved a high-end dealer's own
> system, so he had plenty of time to become familiar with what he was
> listening to.

Well, okay, but I really think there ought to be dozens of such
experiments if we can claim to have investigated this possibility. Note
that such a test would likely take 160 days or more.

>As for "experience in listening blind," how is listening
> any different when you don't know what equipment is producing what
> you're listening to?

Well, badly phrased on my part. The distinction I make is not between
listening blind and listening sighted, but between all of the
following:

- listening to determine what you think of something A (could, and
should,
be done without knowing the identity of A)

- listening to compare A and B

- listening to categorize X and either A or B

I happen to think that these are different ways of using one's
attention, and that in particular "listening to categorize" changes
perception. If I am to be convinced of the relevance of blind tests, I
would like to see a large number of tests that controlled for these
variations in the use of the attention.

> You are grasping at straws.

Well, no, actually I'm stating what I believe is true.

Mike

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I know that you have a body of data which is consistent, but it would
> > > appear that most or all of the blind tests supporting your position
> > > were not designed in acknowledgement of basic subjective phemonena,
> >
> > What is a subjective phenomenon? I'm only familiar with the objective
> > kind.
>
> Something that happens in the realm of personal experience.

You mean like stubbing your toe?

"Subjective phenomenon" is an oxymoron. What you are talking about (and
doing) is misinterpretation of an objective phenomenon (which is, of
course, redundant). The objective phenomenon we are talking about is
this: You listened to something twice, and it sounded different to you
the second time. That is objectively true. The problem comes when you
try to explain that difference.

> >
> > > such as the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
> > > A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
> > > no, if A is present in the sound.
> >
> > This is not a fact.
> >
> > > A paradigm which proceeds on the
> > > assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
> > > that it exists.
> >
> > But a paradigm that assumed the distinction was irrelevant could.
>
> Hmm, I don't follow you here. For example, suppose we design an
> experiment to measure the speed of light. The nature of light, whether
> particle or wave, is not relevant to the experiment. How then, would
> the experiment show that light is either particle or wave? I.e., it
> would turn out the same either way.

The speed of light is not a paradigm.

> >And
> > so far, the only "distinctions" I've seen made by subjectivists have
> > been either fanciful or semantic.
> >
> > > > You're
> > > > the one who thinks there's some big mystery here.
> > >
> > > Precisely. My statement was that the objectivist prefers to choose a
> > > paradigm in which the more mysterious observations are declared a
> > > priori to be not worthy of investigation, probably because he doesn't
> > > like having untidy dark corners in the universe.
> >
> > One doesn't "choose" a paradigm. This is a scientific paradigm, and
> > there are no dark corners in the little bit of the universe involving
> > differentiation of audio components. Everything you claim, the paradigm
> > can explain. That's why it's the paradigm.
>
> Well, in my experience, one can choose what's important and what's not;
> what is worthy of investigation and what not. It appears to me that
> psycho-acoustics, as you describe it, has implicitly chosen to
> deemphasize variation in one's use of attention, and has implicitly
> deemphasized distinctions in experience when they can only be verbally
> reported and not measured.

Nonsense. Psychoacoustics doesn't "de-emphasize" anything. It rules
things out empirically. One thing it has ruled out empirically is the
notion that detection of small changes in sound can improve when we
extend the time between the changes. That's the important difference
between psychoacoustics researchers and you. They test things
empirically. They do not simply make up "facts" in their own head.

> As far as "everything you claim, the paradigm can explain." Well,
> exactly. My paradigm can also explain everything you claim.

First of all, you don't have a paradigm. Or, to be more specific, you
don't have a theory. All you have is blind belief. And there's a whole
host of things you can't explain, like why our perceptions differ
sighted vs. blind and why measurements correlate with audibility tests.


> The fact
> that a theory explains everything does not make it right.

Explaining things is the ONLY thing that makes a theory right.

> > > >We're also the ones
> > > > who are willing to be proven wrong.
> > >
> > > What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
> > > standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.
> >
> > Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
> > Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
> > haven't seen any.
>
> Right. And I haven't seen anything I can't explain, either.

Why do blind and sighted perceptions differ? Why do audibility tests
correlate with measurements? Why does our ability to notice small
differences decline (sharply) with time?

Actually, you can't *explain* anything. You haven't got a theory.

bob

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> The distinction I make is not between
> listening blind and listening sighted, but between all of the
> following:
>
> - listening to determine what you think of something A (could, and
> should,
> be done without knowing the identity of A)
>
> - listening to compare A and B
>
> - listening to categorize X and either A or B
>
> I happen to think that these are different ways of using one's
> attention, and that in particular "listening to categorize" changes
> perception. If I am to be convinced of the relevance of blind tests, I
> would like to see a large number of tests that controlled for these
> variations in the use of the attention.

Michael's question seems to me to be very much to the point, but no one
as far as I can see has answered it. So long as one thinks that *all*
questions about perception are directly translatable into questions
about comparison or discrimination (or categorization), one is apt to
miss his point entirely.

Mark

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

"So long as one thinks that *all* questions about perception are directly
translatable into questions about comparison or discrimination (or
categorization), one is apt to miss his point entirely."

You have it backwards, perception artifacts not in the signal is offered
as an explanation. One need not have any such model when making the
simple observation that placing a cloth over connections causes previously
easy to discriminate differences to fall into the level of random guess.
It too is interesting that clear differences are stated when switching is
said to have occured when in fact only one bit of gear was used. These
two small facts are such stubborn things and do drive anyone wanting to
have a fuller understanding to consider perception artifacts as an
explanation..