jsrtheta
Addicted to Fun and Learning
It's true by definition.
That's not "authority". It's an assertion.
It's true by definition.
For me listening to a stereo micced recording (or similar) is more relaxing and natural. I actually record using this way and I'm surprised at how easy it is to get an impressive soundstage and full bodied sound using stereo microphones.Me too, and I agree. Sadly, these kinds of recordings are the exception. There is something special about the 3-D image with pinpoint spatial positioning, and sense of the room space they are playing in, that a simple 2-mic recording captures. Most modern recordings are individually close-miced and mixed. If they do this well it makes a higher resolution recording, capturing finer more subtle details. But that extra detail can be artificial: it's the kind of thing I hear in the group during rehearsal right next to the other musicians, but you can't hear even from the front row of the audience. Also these close-miced recordings don't capture the spatial aspects of the experience.
I actually prefer a dead listening room for audio. At first that sounds ironic, but the reason is I want my room to be acoustically invisible so I hear the space captured in the recording, not the false sense of ambience and reflection created by my room superimposed on the recording.
Sighted and blind listening tends to be done in different ways. Sighted lsitening can be done over a long period of time in the same circumstance one uses the gear. Blind listening tends to not lend itself to those cirucmstances.if someone hears a difference "sighted" and that difference disappears under blind conditions, it's very likely not to be a false negative
My assertion is the simple definition of the word. Test sensitivity is defined as "recall": what % of true positives does the test detect? In a blind audio test this is impossible to measure: recall is unknown because we can't identify false negatives. It would be a leap of faith to assume any test is perfectly sensitive: that is, it has 100% recall. There is no evidence to support this belief. And there is some evidence (which I've explained in prior posts) to suggest that audio tests have less than perfect sensitivity - that is, recall is less than 100%.That's not "authority". It's an assertion.
Under what natural or other conditions would this lower threshold be perceived?My assertion is the simple definition of the word. Test sensitivity is defined as "recall": what % of true positives does the test detect? In a blind audio test this is impossible to measure: recall is unknown because we can't identify false negatives. It would be a leap of faith to assume any test is perfectly sensitive: that is, it has 100% recall. There is no evidence to support this belief. And there is some evidence (which I've explained in prior posts) to suggest that audio tests have less than perfect sensitivity - that is, recall is less than 100%.
Thus it's reasonable to assume that the thresholds of perception are lower than the thresholds measured in tests. How much lower, nobody knows because we can't detect false negatives.
I agree. To highlight the distinction I'll give 2 examples. They both start with a person failing to pass the test the first time, then passing it the second time after training.... A false negative would be if someone heard a difference and lied about it. We have not way of independently testing an ear without testing the brain attached to it and all the programming therein. So the first test was valid. Then you updated the software and got a different result. In my opinion there is nothing false about either result.
By "echoic memory" do you mean perfect memory, like photographic memory applied to audio? I get your point in principle, but the concept of echoic memory seems implausible given the evidence that switching delays less than 1 second reduce test sensitivity. So if echoic memory exists at all (maybe it does, who knows?), it must be shorter than this....
Let us assume your echoic memory in total is 10 seconds. And perfect best it can be at the very best threshold that is possible.
...
People who express a preference between A and B, but can't differentiate them in a DBT might be victims of expectation bias or other psychological factors, or they might also be hearing a real difference that is lower than the test threshold but higher than the acuity threshold.
Yeah, this is where things get a bit slippery or grey. Perception and awareness is multi-layered. We perceive things that affect us at different levels of awareness; we cannot always articulate them. Part of training improves perception (the mental part, not the physical part), and part of it improves the ability to articulate perception. Example: you could briefly show somebody a photo of a bunch of kids playing in a field, then take it away so he must rely on memory to describe it. He feels there was something ominous about that photo, but he can't recall what it was. As far as he remembers, it was just a bunch of kids playing. What's ominous about that? It turns out the photo had a lion hiding in the grass watching the children, but he saw it so briefly he observed that at a lower level of awareness that he can't articulate. If you showed him the same photo with the lion photoshopped out, that ominous feeling is gone but the photo looks the same; he can't identify anything different. He perceived something real that he could not articulate, so the test returned a false negative....
If one’s preference is based on a “real difference”, then this difference must derive from experiences stored in memory: one must be able to compare two things in order to have a preference between them, and one must hold two things in memory in order to compare them.
...
And blind tests require both perception and articulation.
BTW, after all this discussion it's worth repeating: I am a proponent of blind testing. It's a great tool. Audio engineering is better for it. I've even written ABX software. I'm only pointing out that it doesn't have perfect sensitivity. It's a "controlled precision, unknown recall" test.
Example: you could briefly show somebody a photo of a bunch of kids playing in a field, then take it away so he must rely on memory to describe it. He feels there was something ominous about that photo, but he can't recall what it was. As far as he remembers, it was just a bunch of kids playing.
Of course it does. Just have a loved one switch one for the other, use towels and such to cover what is connected and you can test as long as you want. Science says you are doing yourself a disservice doing that but if you want to do it, the option is all yours.Sighted and blind listening tends to be done in different ways. Sighted lsitening can be done over a long period of time in the same circumstance one uses the gear. Blind listening tends to not lend itself to those cirucmstances.
I added to the confusion by using the word "articulation" improperly. By "articulation" I mean the steps required to perform a blind test that go beyond direct perception: primarily the mental analysis/comparison of a perception to the recent memory of a perception. Of course, in a blind test one need only discriminate, he need not describe or articulate the differences he perceives. But that discrimination takes a step beyond direct perception because it relies on memory and comparison.I don’t see where the articulation part comes in necessarily. Take your own example from personal experience: you couldn’t articulate what the difference was, yet you were still able to guess correctly at a rate higher than random chance would suggest. ...
Yeah, I don't know of any better tools. Like Churchill said of democracy, blind testing is the worst, except for all the others. This doesn't disparage it, just a pithy way to point out that it's imperfect. It's useful tool but to wield it effectively we must understand its limitations as well as its strengths.... blind testing (when optimally executed) has better sensitivity than any other test, and better sensitivity than the type of long-term memory required to form an uncontrolled preference. ...
No, just my attempt to give an analogy to the distinction between perception and the reliable comparison of perceptions through memory, outside the context of audio in case that different context helps see it in a fresh light. The downside of all such analogies is they risk confusing the point....
Is this a real test? It contradicts my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the psychology around “subliminal” imagery. ...
Sighted and blind listening tends to be done in different ways. Sighted lsitening can be done over a long period of time in the same circumstance one uses the gear. Blind listening tends to not lend itself to those cirucmstances.
I think one thing people gloss over is that when you level match and do a test blind without even knowing what component one is listening to, it makes it harder. Of course it's harder, it's blind. That way you don't get swayed by "biases." But it's also harder. Ever listened to level matched anything? It's not easy to hear differences even in ones where there are differences. I wonder what studies have been done to see if and what the masking effects are simply due to level matched or blind circumstances. AFAIK it's just assumed to not exist or be a problem.
But the fact when people listen to gear in real life they don't listen level matched. They don't listen to the same sample for five seconds at a time and repeat it. They also know what gear is being played and aren't being tested. Those are all significant differences in the context in which we perceive audio that are being ignored in level match DBT tests.
Sight also helps place audio in context. Listen to a recording. Then listen to it with the video of the music performance. You'll notice your brain will perceive it differently. With the video context, the sound feels less flat and the room ambience is perceived better. Sight matters in audio listening.
On a related note, these tonal differences can also be used to detect dynamic compression. When you dynamically compress it, due to Fletcher Munson it's like turning up bass & treble tone controls on the quiet parts. Live acoustic music at PP sounds more tonally muted than at FF. When that doesn't happen in a recording it is unnatural. At first glance it can sound more "detailed" but the detail is artificial and it impairs the emotional impact of the music.... The fletcher munson curves demonstrates your hearing changes with volume. By listening at different volumes you immediately invalidate any comparison. It is literally the oldest trick in the book for hifi sales. Play one louder. It will win.
...
Except we know what we are listening to and it's not level matched and we normally don't do back to back comparisons in the way we normally use our gear. So it's not the same thing. Also, good luck convincing my wife to put towels or whatever!Of course it does. Just have a loved one switch one for the other, use towels and such to cover what is connected and you can test as long as you want. Science says you are doing yourself a disservice doing that but if you want to do it, the option is all yours.
You don't have to level match. Or follow any protocol other than doing the testing blind. Have someone switch out one product for the other a dozen times once a day and you both keep score of which unit is what. Then at the 12th day compare notes and see how it matches your sighted evaluation.Except we know what we are listening to and it's not level matched and we normally don't do back to back comparisons in the way we normally use our gear. So it's not the same thing.