|
|
Post by yves on Dec 26, 2016 4:39:14 GMT -5
Hi Chuck - I contend that the double-blind method ITSELF is flawed (even your method). Why? LMDB itself has insufficient comparisons for the listener to "learn" what to listen for. The Chuckienut test is flawed due to listener fatigue.The ONLY way to determine subtle differences is with extended listening. This allows the listener to compare again and again without the stress of having to decide in a short window, and without the fatigue of comparison after comparison. It also allows the listener time to identify subtle differences and to then compare back and forth to determine whether the differences are real or perceived. Over that time, the inherent "expectation bias" is abandoned (for me, within a week), and the listener can focus on what (if anything) differentiates the two devices. The problem with extended listening is that it is less quantifiable than the more documentable tests because it (of necessity) occurs both over time and at the listener's convenience. But these "flaws" that make extended listening less amenable to documentation ALSO make it far, far more accurate. Therefore ANY test that subjects the listener to short, stressful, and/or repetitive sessions has no credibility. Period. Cordially - Boomzilla Listener fatigue, that's cute Boom! I am in your own room, with your equipment except one or more DAC's., you sit on your sofa, you can even choose your own CD track if you like. You can have a third neutral observer of your choice to make sure I don't pull any tricks on you. However you know if you are smart at all that I might select the same DAC 5 times in a row which really is a mini test in itself of your true hearing. The details of the test which are amazingly simple will be explained in advance. You casually stroll in from the other room after I select one DAC unknown to you. You can even ask that the volume be turned up or down to your preference for each listening. Each track shouldn't take more than a minute max, again your preference. There is no level matching or quick back and forth switching. You should be very relaxed. I'm very low keyed, friendly and non-pressure in person. No booze allowed before or during test. This should be completely fatigue free! We can take a break between the two main sections if you like. No pressure, no fatigue here. The only reason you might feel fatigued (due to stress) is that you realize the test might end up indicating that you cannot consistently identify in this relaxed environment which DAC is playing more than compared to random chance. This is the reason those with the golden ears ("I know what I hear and no damn quadruple blind test it going to change my mind") won't submit to such a simple test is the inner prophetic fear that they will in fact flunk the test. I knew you and the Gar would not be agreeable to a test like this because you would avoid like the plague any test that might invalidate your amazing ability to identify such minuscule sound differences, such as: The Schiit had the most midrange detail, but maybe the least midrange dynamics. (huh?) Speaker listening tests are a whole different ballgame for obvious reasons. I don't need a third neutral observer to know that you ARE pulling tricks because letting the test subject casually stroll in from the other room causes bias towards hearing no difference. Similarly, you don't need me to verify that you don't qualify for designing these kinds of tests because anyone who has basic knowledge of psychoacoustics has already been on to you from the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 26, 2016 6:02:35 GMT -5
There is no level matching This is your 2nd mistake. You mean to tell me you are now admitting there is stress? A moment ago you were saying there wasn't so I am now very confused, and I think this confusion is at the heart of what's given me stress. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2016 6:09:19 GMT -5
I don't need a third neutral observer to know that you ARE pulling tricks because letting the test subject casually stroll in from the other room causes bias towards hearing no difference. Similarly, you don't need me to verify that you don't qualify for designing these kinds of tests because anyone who has basic knowledge of psychoacoustics has already been on to you from the beginning. Thanks Yves for the kind feedback. So if I have the test subject come into the room in a non-casual manner, like rush in or even run into the room would that help in your opinion and cause less or no bias? Boom said he would feel fatigue (maybe due to stress, I'm thinking) or listening too long. My test would be relatively short and I have tried to make it as easy and relaxing as possible. Can you please make any other comments or suggestions how I could make the experience valid in your opinion? Is playing thru same DAC for a number of track listenings a trick? I only have him leave the room and come back in so he can't see me when I change DAC's. Perhaps he could just stay in the room and I could cover the DAC's with a sheet so he can't tell which one is on. Would that be better? The idea if course is not to have him aware of which one is in use. Do you think that is wrong? More feedback on my test would be much appreciated. You've been on to me from the beginning? Can you expound on that more please, as long as you don't charge me for your services. Thanks  BTW: My ears and brain are in fact securely connected! I had that verified by a joint combined appointment with an otolaryngologist and a neurologist. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Hugo and I used to get together sometimes for a quick beer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2016 6:29:04 GMT -5
There is no level matching This is your 2nd mistake. You mean to tell me you are now admitting there is stress? A moment ago you were saying there wasn't so I am now very confused, and I think this confusion is at the heart of what's given me stress. Sorry, I'm trying to for the life of me to understand why he would feel fatigued? This would be very short and I presume he listens at home for extended periods like we all do sometimes. So I am thinking he really is feeling some stress (I should have put a ? after the word stress ... see above correction) at the thought of having to undergo a controlled test. Just a guess on my part but I really don't think it should cause anyone stress or fatigue. I honestly think he simply would avoid this even simple controlled test because he is secretly afraid it would indicate he cannot tell the sound difference. I have tried to make that easy to understand in my test. The reason no level matching is in this simple version is the very quick matching is quite difficult to set up with someone else's gear and not necessary in my test, although I have done level matching many time with my own system. I doubt if he wants to fly out to Seattle for a listening test. Deleting any level matching tells for me if the listener can really just walk in and realize that a different DAC was secretly put in chain. Isn't that what the real comparison test is all about? Almost all of us could immediately tell if our speakers had been replaced and for whatever reason we didn't notice it. I'm predicting even though they both claim to hear some differences in DAC's, in my test those perceived differences will very likely disappear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2016 6:36:39 GMT -5
The Chuckienut test is flawed due to listener fatigue. Yes, lots of people get tired when listening to Chuckienut but that's another story and no blind testing is needed.  I never get tired of seeing your teddy and wabbit interacting on your rear window shelf! Reminds me of my younger days! |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 26, 2016 7:35:01 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out why this thread has lasted as long as it has. Well said! Enjoy the music. It's a classic Boomzilla thread. That's why! /ducks |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,098
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 26, 2016 7:55:22 GMT -5
Hahaha. I'm just thinking..... percentage of men buying diapers has to be small. And most of them are probably going "what brand did she say, again?" I'll bet the % of men who have been changing diapers routinely for 44 years very low. I am the only one I know. (I still do thanks to my work...I have to get a good hands-on feel for my latest ideas.) Mark |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,098
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 26, 2016 7:59:00 GMT -5
I was a father of very young ones many years ago and changed many diapers (the real cloth ones, not Pampers). It's easy dummy. Haven't you ever heard of the blind smell test?  I have news for you... That smell? It is not the diaper...but it is Schitt! (To get back on topic...)    Mark |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2016 9:22:38 GMT -5
This thread is starting to become ever so slightly fatiguing for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 26, 2016 9:29:32 GMT -5
This thread is starting to become ever so slightly fatiguing for me. I tried doing a double blind test between this thread and another one. I'm not sure the results are valid. Help? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2016 9:41:10 GMT -5
This thread is starting to become ever so slightly fatiguing for me. as soon as it was posted and i read the first sentence I was pre-fatigued |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 26, 2016 10:52:17 GMT -5
... The only reason you might feel fatigued (due to stress) is that you realize the test might end up indicating that you cannot consistently identify in this relaxed environment which DAC is playing more than compared to random chance.... But Chuckie - I've ALREADY admitted that I could NOT differentiate between these DACs via LMDB testing! |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 26, 2016 10:58:42 GMT -5
... The only reason you might feel fatigued (due to stress) is that you realize the test might end up indicating that you cannot consistently identify in this relaxed environment which DAC is playing more than compared to random chance.... But Chuckie - I've ALREADY admitted that I could NOT differentiate between these DACs via LMDB testing! No no B'zilla. We are super nervous! We are trying to keep our ears golden and our foolishness phoolish. Get it straight here! |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 26, 2016 12:11:45 GMT -5
This thread is starting to become ever so slightly fatiguing for me. Are you sure about that or are you just becoming burned out from burn in? Do you think you could reliably distinguish your current level of fatigue versus how you felt after being totally exasperated in a different situation? |
|
|
|
Post by RichGuy on Dec 26, 2016 13:26:21 GMT -5
This thread is starting to become ever so slightly fatiguing for me. Are you sure about that or are you just becoming burned out from burn in? Do you think you could reliably distinguish your current level of fatigue versus how you felt after being totally exasperated in a different situation? This of course could only be known by by thorough testing in a double blind test situation.... |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Dec 26, 2016 13:39:43 GMT -5
ÈlTwo : also you have to go undergo the "Am I Drunk?" test. Here it's been proven that subjective "I am not really drunk" statements can be not entirely accurate. Therefore a strict prescription of alcohol consumption must be adhered. Also for good measure, there is a mandatory swig needed every time somebody mentions cable lifters or Bose. Well, in order to get through the first step of setting up this test, I have established that I exist by virtue of my compliance with these lines from the singing philosophers (Bruce), René Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am." |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 26, 2016 14:11:57 GMT -5
... The only reason you might feel fatigued (due to stress) is that you realize the test might end up indicating that you cannot consistently identify in this relaxed environment which DAC is playing more than compared to random chance.... But Chuckie - I've ALREADY admitted that I could NOT differentiate between these DACs via LMDB testing! This is the song that never ends....yes it goes on and on my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 26, 2016 14:24:16 GMT -5
I don't need a third neutral observer to know that you ARE pulling tricks because letting the test subject casually stroll in from the other room causes bias towards hearing no difference. Similarly, you don't need me to verify that you don't qualify for designing these kinds of tests because anyone who has basic knowledge of psychoacoustics has already been on to you from the beginning. Thanks Yves for the kind feedback. So if I have the test subject come into the room in a non-casual manner, like rush in or even run into the room would that help in your opinion and cause less or no bias? Boom said he would feel fatigue (maybe due to stress, I'm thinking) or listening too long. My test would be relatively short and I have tried to make it as easy and relaxing as possible. Can you please make any other comments or suggestions how I could make the experience valid in your opinion? Is playing thru same DAC for a number of track listenings a trick? I only have him leave the room and come back in so he can't see me when I change DAC's. Perhaps he could just stay in the room and I could cover the DAC's with a sheet so he can't tell which one is on. Would that be better? The idea if course is not to have him aware of which one is in use. Do you think that is wrong? More feedback on my test would be much appreciated. You've been on to me from the beginning? Can you expound on that more please, as long as you don't charge me for your services. Thanks BTW: My ears and brain are in fact securely connected! I had that verified by a joint combined appointment with an otolaryngologist and a neurologist. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Hugo and I used to get together sometimes for a quick beer. The test subject should be able to remain seated during the switch between test samples to compare. Also, the switch itself should be specifically designed to add only a short pause between test samples, with no distracting clicks and no noticeable fade-in after the pause or anything, and no cutoffs that differ in such way that they might give away the identity of test samples. Ideally the duration of the pause between test samples should be kept constant until moving on to the next test in the series. It gets far more difficult than that, though. If someone hears a certain subtle detail due to the DAC being more resolving than another DAC, for example, the simple recollection of this subtle detail can cause the person to hear it whilst listening to the lesser DAC next. (Even, if this lesser DAC truly lacks the capability to audibly reveal this detail, like, after you have in secret fact made completely sure of that by purposefully removing this detail from the test sample through editing software for only that particular DAC). This is because our brain tends to fill in the blanks, and can do so pretty successfully (to the point where it can be exploited by codecs like mp3 which loses tons of information). Especially where the brain has access to a memory of the sound, the effect is often stronger than you might assume. So this filling in missing information can be responsible for "both DACs sound the same" because the listener perceives it that way despite that audible information is genuinely obfuscated by the least resolving DAC, but not the more resolving one. Granted, this sort of thing doesn't happen all of the time. But nevertheless it happens systematically and frequently enough for it to add significant bias towards "hearing no difference", as unfortunately it doesn't take very many wrong answers for a listener to fail the test, and, assuming you don't know which is the most resolving DAC of the two (because... well, probably part of the entire reason why you are running a test was to find out if there is such thing as a more resolving DAC of the two, anyway in the first place) you get a 50 percent risk each time of the above explained bias getting added on top of the human stress factor. Although this is only one specific example of how bias easily creeps in though the back door, it helps demonstrate why knowledge of statistical analysis and psychoacoustics is compulsory. Correct interpretation of test results is not easy. Designing a proper test is not easy, and neither is conducting such a test. It is all extremely time consuming and resource heavy, and getting a large enough group of candidates to show up for statistics analysis to yield conclusive output is a rough job according to those who have tried. Detection rates go up if test samples are kept short. That's why usually they are kept much shorter than 10 seconds, but listening happens on a lot of different time scales. Some sounds you will notice immediately within seconds, maybe less, whereas others only arrive after several minutes, or more. When we hear sounds our brain externalizes them as objects that are creating these sounds. As we continue to listen the human cortex builds a map of these objects over time, and the period of time over which such integration would happen is called the conscious present. This natural mechanism gets broken if you do rapid switching, albeit you can do blind listening tests over long periods of time, which hardly anyone does because of other priorities. Like, important questions that you can't always answer without somehow being in control of the parameters (as opposed to listening to one thing and then another thing without knowing what it is you are listening to). For the most part, DBT are useful only to determine when we stop hearing a distortion. You run the risk of missing those qualities that are the very reason we listen to music in the first place. Not wholly dissimilar to using a fierce spotlight searching for your set of lost keys when you already know you've lost them in another continent, or maybe, if you want to study a river, do you take out a bucket of water and stare at it on the shore? |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,098
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 26, 2016 16:25:04 GMT -5
I'd love to see our latest techniques applied in audio. It has shown things typical verbal-based testing has not. I would love to elaborate but I cannot. Sorry! The data has left us saying, "yep...That is what we thought but words could not capture a difference!"
Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2016 19:19:44 GMT -5
... The only reason you might feel fatigued (due to stress) is that you realize the test might end up indicating that you cannot consistently identify in this relaxed environment which DAC is playing more than compared to random chance.... But Chuckie - I've ALREADY admitted that I could NOT differentiate between these DACs via LMDB testing! Sorry Boom, but I'm old and not up with all these new acronyms. What the hell is LMDB? Did you mean LGBT which I is hear now is short for LGBTQ? I guess the Q is for Quaker or something like that. I do try to keep up with the latest in audio and entertainment. I must honestly admit I didn't even know who George Michael was on his passing the other day. I guess my pop musical knowledge ended with Sir Paul and his three mates and that weirdo "artist" that John brought to all the sessions. But if you " could NOT differentiate between these DAC's" then why did you make such a long thread in your " shootout" in which you listed many differences? Maybe you should go back and re-read your own first post in the your own thread. |
|
