Audio Blind Testing - You Are Doing It Wrong! (Video)

[ahofer]

Has anyone bothered to show the idiots on Audiogon that they're being idiots?

You can’t even engage on this kind of subject matter. Epistemically sealed and cased in concrete. I mean, look at this thread alone..you can’t tell wines apart from chemical analysis (laughably wrong), you can’t distinguish different instruments playing the same note with measurements (do I have to say it?). It’s almost worth preserving in amber as a perfect echo chamber of ignorant lunacy.

 

[MattHooper]

Has anyone bothered to show the idiots on Audiogon that they're being idiots?

Though I wouldn't put it that way, I'm a long time audiogon forum member and I have often engaged the tweakier side on various subjects (where I argue for the relevance of measurements, blind testing, the liabilities of purely subjective impressions, etc).

 

[Andysu]

You can’t even engage on this kind of subject matter. Epistemically sealed and cased in concrete. I mean, look at this thread alone..you can’t tell wines apart from chemical analysis (laughably wrong), you can’t distinguish different instruments playing the same note with measurements (do I have to say it?). It’s almost worth preserving in amber as a perfect echo chamber of ignorant lunacy.

i agree and i like your cat .

 

[Lexxie]

It's a lot of arguing about basics but no discussion of higher methodology. Well, one thing is for sure, you have to get the basics right first. BUT now assuming if we do, where is the high-level talk on finer more transcendental methodologies of testing, a mélange of the factual scientific with the subjective nuanced of golden-ear hyperaesthetes? I see none of it. I don't even hear people talk about 95% of mental processing is not on the conscious layer such that A/B testing results are only scraping and discriminating along this 5% layer, a layer at which musical enjoyment (mostly) does not take place (a few times yes you can get some analytical conscious satisfaction, but the real muse's joy is coming under that 95% threshold.)

 

[voodooless]

It's a lot of arguing about basics but no discussion of higher methodology.

Like what?

Well, one thing is for sure, you have to get the basics right first. BUT now assuming if we do, where is the high-level talk on finer more transcendental methodologies of testing, a mélange of the factual scientific with the subjective nuanced of golden-ear hyperaesthetes?

Why would that be relevant?

I see none of it. I don't even hear people talk about 95% of mental processing is not on the conscious layer such that A/B testing results are only scraping and discriminating along this 5% layer, a layer at which musical enjoyment (mostly) does not take place (a few times yes you can get some analytical conscious satisfaction, but the real muse's joy is coming under that 95% threshold.)

That’s because those so called 95% are actually not contingent on the actual musical signals coming from devices, but from many other stimuli. The whole point of blind testing is to eliminate as many as possible of those.

 

[Lexxie]

Voodooless said:
Like what?

Well I'm glad you ask. Normal A/B testing, if blind and controlled (and other variables nullified such as cables etc.), is indisputably good and quasi-scientific at producing some objective results. Mind you, it's a funny thing objectively measuring something like subjective enjoyment but you can make an objective yes/no or 1/0 bit, which is a fact, over whether someone says "I like it better".

Like what, we're literally getting a god and a goddess to mate. What I mean is the god of objective science "sans voodoo" and a brightly colourfully dressed emotionally subjective gypsy, the goddess of enjoying music with a thrill. Normally as we know these two gods speak a different language and bicker about almost every-effing-thing.

However, keeping then fun mythological metaphor going, both gods exist in the same world so must meet somewhere and this is where transcendental methodology can exist. For example, you could scientifically measure actual serotonin levels in the A/B to see whether A or B is pleasing the gypsy goddess more, there is so much more than can be done. I for one think the most obvious thing is addressing the fact that A/B testing is based on conscious analytical discrimination in the 5% conscious layer of mental processing which is (mostly) not where enjoyment happens, so that you can kinda tweak the A/B testing a little to get under the gypsy's skin, so to speak.

Why would that be relevant?
Because ultimately, subjective opinions are something we can argue forever, and are unscientific and indecisive for settling a score. But scientific opinions are also based on lots oof presumptions too such as (what we're measuring is what's most important to quality of music). Transcendental methodology handles where the objective and subjective meet and cleverly conquers both, as well as other issues such as coaxing out the unconscious. (For example, you can coax out unconscious in an A/B just by making someone listen to A for a super long time then surprising them with B and for a brief second, even TIN-EARS can hear a hint at what GOLDEN-EARS could immediately hear. But do A/B testers use these tricks to get a better stab at that 95% majority of the experience? So far I'd say no.

Voodooless said:
That’s because those so called 95% are actually not contingent on the actual musical signals coming from devices, but from many other stimuli. The whole point of blind testing is to eliminate as many as possible of those.

Mostly, false. 95% of the music is being processed not-consciously, and 5% does obey where attentive focus goes (one second on treble detail, one second on muddy bass, one second on glow/warmth, etc.) It's absolutely true that other things happen like "This is now my 18th A/B test and on number 18 I felt a combination of greater fatigue and bladder getting fuller", but when you say that ALL HEARING is conscious, you're just exposing ignorance there.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Voodooless said:
Like what?

Well I'm glad you ask. Normal A/B testing, if blind and controlled (and other variables nullified such as cables etc.), is indisputably good and quasi-scientific at producing some objective results. Mind you, it's a funny thing objectively measuring something like subjective enjoyment but you can make an objective yes/no or 1/0 bit, which is a fact, over whether someone says "I like it better".

Like what, we're literally getting a god and a goddess to mate. What I mean is the god of objective science "sans voodoo" and a brightly colourfully dressed emotionally subjective gypsy, the goddess of enjoying music with a thrill. Normally as we know these two gods speak a different language and bicker about almost every-effing-thing.

However, keeping then fun mythological metaphor going, both gods exist in the same world so must meet somewhere and this is where transcendental methodology can exist. For example, you could scientifically measure actual serotonin levels in the A/B to see whether A or B is pleasing the gypsy goddess more, there is so much more than can be done. I for one think the most obvious thing is addressing the fact that A/B testing is based on conscious analytical discrimination in the 5% conscious layer of mental processing which is (mostly) not where enjoyment happens, so that you can kinda tweak the A/B testing a little to get under the gypsy's skin, so to speak.

Why would that be relevant?
Because ultimately, subjective opinions are something we can argue forever, and are unscientific and indecisive for settling a score. But scientific opinions are also based on lots oof presumptions too such as (what we're measuring is what's most important to quality of music). Transcendental methodology handles where the objective and subjective meet and cleverly conquers both, as well as other issues such as coaxing out the unconscious. (For example, you can coax out unconscious in an A/B just by making someone listen to A for a super long time then surprising them with B and for a brief second, even TIN-EARS can hear a hint at what GOLDEN-EARS could immediately hear. But do A/B testers use these tricks to get a better stab at that 95% majority of the experience? So far I'd say no.

Voodooless said:
That’s because those so called 95% are actually not contingent on the actual musical signals coming from devices, but from many other stimuli. The whole point of blind testing is to eliminate as many as possible of those.

Mostly, false. 95% of the music is being processed not-consciously, and 5% does obey where attentive focus goes (one second on treble detail, one second on muddy bass, one second on glow/warmth, etc.) It's absolutely true that other things happen like "This is now my 18th A/B test and on number 18 I felt a combination of greater fatigue and bladder getting fuller", but when you say that ALL HEARING is conscious, you're just exposing ignorance there.

What is your point and can you get some facts?

 

[voodooless]

Mostly, false. 95% of the music is being processed not-consciously, and 5% does obey where attentive focus goes (one second on treble detail, one second on muddy bass, one second on glow/warmth, etc.) It's absolutely true that other things happen like "This is now my 18th A/B test and on number 18 I felt a combination of greater fatigue and bladder getting fuller", but when you say that ALL HEARING is conscious, you're just exposing ignorance there.

I never said anything about the conscious or non/unconscious processing of these stimuli. The fact is, they are there. You're proposing that our unconscious mind is capable of discerning sounds that our conscious mind cannot? Somehow deriving preference from that. And blind testing would prevent this processing from happening? Why would that be? The only thing one does with a blind test is remove the unwanted stimuli. All that is left is processed both consciously as well as unconsciously. Rarely blind tests are about preference. You see it with speakers, not so much for amps or DAC. The simple reason is that to have a preference, you’ll need to first be able to differentiate the two DUTs. In a vast amount of cases, that doesn’t happen.

 

[Lexxie]

I never said anything about the conscious or non/unconscious processing of these stimuli. The fact is, they are there. You're proposing that our unconscious mind is capable of discerning sounds that our conscious mind cannot? Somehow deriving preference from that. And blind testing would prevent this processing from happening? Why would that be? The only thing one does with a blind test is remove the unwanted stimuli. All that is left is processed both consciously as well as unconsciously. Rarely blind tests are about preference. You see it with speakers, not so much for amps or DAC. The simple reason is that to have a preference, you’ll need to first be able to differentiate the two DUTs. In a vast amount of cases, that doesn’t happen.

Voodooless said:
You're proposing that our unconscious mind is capable of discerning sounds that our conscious mind cannot?

This is already established science. Are you familiar with attention, otherwise known as attending to things? When you do so, it's almost like an EQ in your mind brings the thing you pay attention to, way up +10 dB, and while still aware of other things (which you can selectively attend to later), they are , how to say, EQ'd down. Your own mind is an EQ that your consciousness controls. You, Sir Voodooless, are an amazing piece of Hifi equipment !

The things you're not currently focused on while listening are still there but not "as much". You're conscious MOST on what you're focusing on, and less on what you're not. What you're not is closer to the subconscious. And some is lost, unless you are a super-freak eidetic photographic memory , which most of us aren't.

So, when we listen we're actually EQ'ing our own music, so to speak, by what we focus on, and other things we don't focus on go below the "mental noise floor" which is just a fancy metaphor for saying bye-bye to awareness. YOU'RE NOT AWARE. You missed that detail. But don't worry, your subconscious got it and IFF something really distinctive stands out in the subconscious, it writes a "upgraded focus ticket request" and puts a sticky note on it, so that you might suddenly say "hey, i just noticed i got an itchy toe" or "hey I just noticed that plucked bass i wasn't paying attention to because i was listening to the trumpet, has incredibly good detail resolution of the scratchy fingernails sliding along the metal grooves in the string!"

Psychology is a BIG part of the audio experience. I'm not dismissing measurements, because hey, it's facts. But you go wrong when you start acting like you have all the facts and are omniscient at interpreting how they please the gypsy goddess who doesn't even return the text messages from the horny science god.

Voodooless said:
And blind testing would prevent this processing from happening? Why would that be?

Blind testing (mostly) only accesses the 5% of the experience the subject is conscious of, it's hard to comment on the unconscious mental processing without lots of really voodoo-ish self introspective magic.

Voodooless said:Voodooless said:
Rarely blind tests are about preference.

Yet somehow are meant to help us pick what we prefer... think about it, sir, how many dogmas you must believe as presumptions, to feel guiltless about not giving a scientific schitt about preference, when doing tests to help real humans make preferential decisions.

 

[VintageFlanker]

 

[amirm]

It's a lot of arguing about basics but no discussion of higher methodology. Well, one thing is for sure, you have to get the basics right first. BUT now assuming if we do, where is the high-level talk on finer more transcendental methodologies of testing, a mélange of the factual scientific with the subjective nuanced of golden-ear hyperaesthetes? I see none of it. I don't even hear people talk about 95% of mental processing is not on the conscious layer such that A/B testing results are only scraping and discriminating along this 5% layer, a layer at which musical enjoyment (mostly) does not take place (a few times yes you can get some analytical conscious satisfaction, but the real muse's joy is coming under that 95% threshold.)

Are you practicing with ChatGPT????

 

[voodooless]

This is already established science. Are you familiar with attention, otherwise known as attending to things? When you do so, it's almost like an EQ in your mind brings the thing you pay attention to, way up +10 dB, and while still aware of other things (which you can selectively attend to later), they are , how to say, EQ'd down. Your own mind is an EQ that your consciousness controls.

So where is that science? Citation, please.

Blind testing (mostly) only accesses the 5% of the experience the subject is conscious of, it's hard to comment on the unconscious mental processing without lots of really voodoo-ish self introspective magic.

And how can blind testing switch off the unconscious part? What mechanism is in place to do that?

As for the rest... You cannot focus on things that don't exist.

Yet somehow are meant to help us pick what we prefer...

No, they are not. They are meant to prove that a human can hear the difference between two stimuli.

 

[voodooless]

Are you practicing with ChatGPT????

I don't think even ChatGPT can manage this much mind-bending "logic"...

 

[VintageFlanker]

I don't think even ChatGPT can manage this much mind-bending "logic"...

In addition, ChatGPT is, sometimes, right.

 

[Lexxie]

Graphs don't make you feel jiggly jangly over preternatural musicality. Or maybe you get an orgasm over seeing a dead-flat graph, who am I to say? LOL

I'm just hear to share another perspective on chasing the dragon of how to find best experience. I respect measurements and graphs as showing facts and things that really are. I only ask that you not confuse them as a 100% verisimilitude for the actual experience of musicality!

"So where is the science, citation please?" OK, I think psychology 102 or 203 on sensory processing and conscious awareness of stimuli. I would hate to see this convo degrade into bickering about basics all over again. I had put out everything about two partisan incompatible views of objective vs subjective and proposed creative ways to transcend it, because such bickering appears to go on for decades with new faces, and no one transcending.

Science/Facts! NO! Feeling/subjective pleasure! NO! YES! NO! YES! NO! Moommmmmy, Johnny hurt my feelings and don't understand me! Mommmy! Really, we can do better.

If you pick audio equipment over a human can hear stimuli differences then LORD HELP YOU. I pick it from pleasure. And if I can't hear what I'm about to buy, scientific measurements are a part of helping me guess. But if I can hear it, then I give a F, I go with what sounds better. I'm assuming you don't enjoy music only based on knowing/bragging u have a lower noise floor. But if I assume it only makes an ...

 

[amirm]

Graphs don't make you feel jiggly jangly over preternatural musicality. Or maybe you get an orgasm over seeing a dead-flat graph, who am I to say? LOL

Graphs? The video is about proper listening tests. Have you not bothered to watch it?

 

[Lexxie]

One can't have a spiritual awakening in how one relates to music if one presumes one already knows it all and only picks slightly variant opinions to fight with.

 

[AdamG]

Are you practicing with ChatGPT????

Not sure about the ChatGBT, but it is obvious that far too much Melange has been consumed. Red lips and all. Juice of Saffu. Might have to repot this to the local CHOAM office.

 

[Lexxie]

I not only watched it, I responded in great detail how we can accept that as taken for granted and jump to the next level. The video was 1000% facts, test on Monday, let's graduate to grade 2 now.

 

[amirm]

But if I can hear it, then I give a F, I go with what sounds better.

You don't say... as if the rest of us do different. Learn to properly listen to audio gear and we are in agreement. Do otherwise and you are just stating fantasies.