metalman said:
Yes, true, what happens here is very similar to the evolutionary process that what works, is kept, what doesn't, is not. Especially when growing up there is a constant process of generating neural networks to perform a task or to remember an experience. As time goes by, those networks that help you do a task efficiently and succesfully are reinforced and kept 'on standby' so to speak, so they are immediately available. A good example is driving a car, which slowly moves from 'stepped' to 'mapped' in your terms. Those one-of-a-kind networks for something you do or experience just once disappear again so you would have to 'relearn' that activity from scratsh later when you want to do that activity again.
The theory is called 'neuronal group selection', a network that runs a specific task is considered a group of neurons in a particular network, and the 'group selection' works very much like evolution's selection for biological attributes that help survival like being able to detect movements from the corner of your eye, or for a cat to land on it's four feet when dropped from the second floor.
Nature seldom invents something completely new but is very good at recycling concepts that are proven.
Jan Didden
janneman said:I goes an even longer way to explain that ABX is the least bad way we have to evaluate sound quality.
I'll have to dissagree... the forced choice (and the context) changes the entire way the brain is working when conducting the test, so that what you are testing has nothing to do with listening to music.
dave
The reason ABX is BS is because it doesn't allow sufficient time (meaning weeks or even months, not minutes or hours [if you're lucky], and always under sub-optimal conditions) to evaluate something.
There's a fascinating mirror image editorial column in the current issue of Wine Spectator where the author compares wine to stereo. He addresses this matter head-on. It's the first time I can recall seeing a wine person use stereo for comparison, although I've seen the converse many times.
ABX isn't realistic. Some things are just too subtle to pick up on in an hour. In my case, it took about eight years before I picked up on certain character flaws in my ex-wife. If I'd been limited to an afternoon, I'd never have noticed them. People preach ABX as though it was Received Wisdom. Unfortunately, like most Received Wisdom, it's overrated.
Grey
There's a fascinating mirror image editorial column in the current issue of Wine Spectator where the author compares wine to stereo. He addresses this matter head-on. It's the first time I can recall seeing a wine person use stereo for comparison, although I've seen the converse many times.
ABX isn't realistic. Some things are just too subtle to pick up on in an hour. In my case, it took about eight years before I picked up on certain character flaws in my ex-wife. If I'd been limited to an afternoon, I'd never have noticed them. People preach ABX as though it was Received Wisdom. Unfortunately, like most Received Wisdom, it's overrated.
Grey
planet10 said:
Of course not, you aren't listening to music, that's the whole point. You are trying to decide whether two peices of equipment sound the same, and if not, what's the difference, etc.
Anyway, even if you do sighted tests, don't you want to make a decision as well? Otherwise, what's the point?
Jan Didden
metalman said:
This is what I was saying. If you're interested/passionate and pay attention, you learn that the subtleties are easily recognized. It does amaze me that the brain can parallel process so many complex musical threads simultaneously...
Classical music, or a lot of the 60's stoner music relied on the brains hunger for complex stimulation. It's like intelligent conversation versus talking about Nascar... (I live in the south now). Bottom line, if someone doesn't hear what I hear, that's OK. But I still hear what I hear.
Mike.
janneman,
I find this faith in ABX touching, but misplaced. If I were to use "sighted" tests, as you put it, I'd choose McIntosh (whose appearance I adore, but sonics I deplore [I confess to still having a "thing" for the looks of my old 2205s (I had two, for biamping), even though I wouldn't own one now if you gave it to me--well, okay, maybe I'd keep it...but do I have to listen to it? Ugh.]), or early Mark Levinson, which means I'd be haunting ebay for a used JC-2). Maybe a Counterpoint SA-3 (do I have that model right? the one that looks like a "blonde" JC-2). Just for the record, I prefer brunettes...gimme the JC-2.
The problem with the "it's bad ju-ju to let the testee see the equipment" mindset is that it doesn't take into account the listeners who have learned to disassociate the appearance from the sonics. And I long, long ago learned not to get excited about a "name." I can't think of a single manufacturer that has never had a dog in their lineup. "Been there, done that" applies to everything. I may like the appearance of something, but that doesn't mean I like the way it sounds. Conversely, I might hate the way something looks, but like the way it sounds...come to think if it, I don't much care for the way most tube gear looks, but some of them sound very, very good indeed.
For that matter, I kinda like the way Pamela Anderson looks, but I don't know that we'd get along in a relationship.
The whole ABX thing is off base. Like so many other things, it looks good on paper, but fails in the real world.
Grey
I find this faith in ABX touching, but misplaced. If I were to use "sighted" tests, as you put it, I'd choose McIntosh (whose appearance I adore, but sonics I deplore [I confess to still having a "thing" for the looks of my old 2205s (I had two, for biamping), even though I wouldn't own one now if you gave it to me--well, okay, maybe I'd keep it...but do I have to listen to it? Ugh.]), or early Mark Levinson, which means I'd be haunting ebay for a used JC-2). Maybe a Counterpoint SA-3 (do I have that model right? the one that looks like a "blonde" JC-2). Just for the record, I prefer brunettes...gimme the JC-2.
The problem with the "it's bad ju-ju to let the testee see the equipment" mindset is that it doesn't take into account the listeners who have learned to disassociate the appearance from the sonics. And I long, long ago learned not to get excited about a "name." I can't think of a single manufacturer that has never had a dog in their lineup. "Been there, done that" applies to everything. I may like the appearance of something, but that doesn't mean I like the way it sounds. Conversely, I might hate the way something looks, but like the way it sounds...come to think if it, I don't much care for the way most tube gear looks, but some of them sound very, very good indeed.
For that matter, I kinda like the way Pamela Anderson looks, but I don't know that we'd get along in a relationship.
The whole ABX thing is off base. Like so many other things, it looks good on paper, but fails in the real world.
Grey
A/B/X Can work...
A/B/X can work, but only if there's a true quality difference.
I was in an A/B/X test some years ago when a broadcast equipment supplier came out with a new digital studio/transmitter link. He had A/B/X hooked up to high quality headphones. A was the program source directly. B was the output of the link (they were using a few thousand feet of wire for the link). The difference was subtle, but noticeable-every time! The link had the sin of subtraction-subtle details that could be easily heard on the source were missing on the link output.
It was VERY noticeable to me-though the engineer doing the comparison told me that I was the first person so far to hear the difference. The person after me could not hear any difference either.
A/B/X can work, but only if there's a true quality difference.
I was in an A/B/X test some years ago when a broadcast equipment supplier came out with a new digital studio/transmitter link. He had A/B/X hooked up to high quality headphones. A was the program source directly. B was the output of the link (they were using a few thousand feet of wire for the link). The difference was subtle, but noticeable-every time! The link had the sin of subtraction-subtle details that could be easily heard on the source were missing on the link output.
It was VERY noticeable to me-though the engineer doing the comparison told me that I was the first person so far to hear the difference. The person after me could not hear any difference either.
Hi dpuopolo. Moseley APT-X STL? Brrrrr. You're not the only of the bretheren in the forum and just between us, we're often not the brightest beacons on the tower when it comes to audio quality. Imagine contending with a VP who considers the '100 watt peak power' 3" Zoltrix computer speakers in his office a valid tool for judging codec quality.
janneman said:
I goes an even longer way to explain that ABX is the least bad way we have to evaluate sound quality.
Jan Didden
There are, of course, practical limitations to any comparative test. ABX testing is valuable in that it demonstrates that, under controlled conditions, sonic differences even between equipment with vastly differing performance specifications can be quite difficult to reliably distinguish.
This puts to rest an awful lot of BS in audiophool land, especially with respect to often made wild claims about an overriding and blatant superiority of one technology over an other (tubes Vs solid state and digital Vs analogue instantly spring to mind).
Cheers,
Glen
john curl said:
Hoist on your own petard.
When the first incarnation of Lincoln Center was opened the first to express discontent were musicians, and the second were the journalists who didn't want to tread on any toes -- and I can remember the babble in various publications in NYC at the time. Thankfully Avery Fisher sought to cure some of the problems.
Folks will pay $12k for a pair of speakers, but won't shell out a couple grand for a subscription to the NY Phil, won't even go to the freebies up at Columbia in Morningside Heights, wont' bother to hear a live concert at the Rose Hall...philistia is for the philistines.
Re: A/B/X Can work...
Once again...ask the wrong question...get the wrong answer.
The question is not: Were you able to discriminate in an ABX test?
The question is: Would you have reached the same conclusion in an AB test?
I'd venture that the answer is yes in this case.
The story does not validate the ABX test methodology.
The musicians did not complain because of poor music reproduction. Musicians play in a hall to produce music, not to reproduce it. There's a world of difference between the two.
John's comment stands.
I see prodigious quantities of attitude, but precious little clear thinking on the part of those who claim that anyone who listens is full of bull.
Grey
dpuopolo said:
Once again...ask the wrong question...get the wrong answer.
The question is not: Were you able to discriminate in an ABX test?
The question is: Would you have reached the same conclusion in an AB test?
I'd venture that the answer is yes in this case.
The story does not validate the ABX test methodology.
jackinnj said:
The musicians did not complain because of poor music reproduction. Musicians play in a hall to produce music, not to reproduce it. There's a world of difference between the two.
John's comment stands.
I see prodigious quantities of attitude, but precious little clear thinking on the part of those who claim that anyone who listens is full of bull.
Grey
Jackinnj, the FIRST most happy people with the concert hall were the DESIGNERS of the concert hall. Experts all! "From the first tutti..." You don't understand what I am talking about.
I worked with a number of classical musicians I have some idea what they hear, and why. I was a faculty member of IHEM, Institut de Haute Etude Musicales, a classical music finishing school, for 1 1/2 years. Then, I married one of the students, a violinist.
I worked with a number of classical musicians I have some idea what they hear, and why. I was a faculty member of IHEM, Institut de Haute Etude Musicales, a classical music finishing school, for 1 1/2 years. Then, I married one of the students, a violinist.
GRollins said:
Grey,
As long as you feel you can dissociate the sound of a component from the looks, reputation, past experience with it, etc, we really have no common ground. Time and again it has been shown that NOBODY can do that. As an example, read this . If you don't want to read the whole piece, scroll down to page 10, the para Blind vs Sighted tests.
Here also were experienced listeners, that had stated before the test that they knew the traps, but thought they would be able to circumvent them. Not.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.