OK, I tried hydrogen audio. It didn't go too well.

[Jud]

David, what an excellent post.

 

Yes, a lot of what you've said above is a reason I'd like to see the use of whatever brain scanning method (now or in the future) can get at the most detail, considering how specialized sensory neurons can be (e.g., particular neurons in the visual cortex specialized for specific types of horizontal movements, others for vertical, etc.). Unfortunately, I have my doubts even largish companies with audio divisions would put up the millions likely necessary, probably go through an institutional review board process, etc., all for the sake of the curiosity (keen though it may be) of us crazy audiophiles.

[Jabs1542]

Ah yes, forgot, you have one of those good DACs that is absolutely immune to any audible effects of jitter, electrical noise, etc. Just happy little 1s and 0s marching along and being converted....

 

The Lemming DAC

[Jabs1542]

David, what an excellent post.

 

Yes, a lot of what you've said above is a reason I'd like to see the use of whatever brain scanning method (now or in the future) can get at the most detail, considering how specialized sensory neurons can be (e.g., particular neurons in the visual cortex specialized for specific types of horizontal movements, others for vertical, etc.). Unfortunately, I have my doubts even largish companies with audio divisions would put up the millions likely necessary, probably go through an institutional review board process, etc., all for the sake of the curiosity (keen though it may be) of us crazy audiophiles.

 

Lets suppose you had the magic brain scan and could objectively validate what the listener is hearing based on the scan. Aren't we then getting down to a level of precision that varies more by person than by product (personalized audio as opposed to personalized medicine)? After all, your ears are certainly different from mine, and your years of listening experience is different from mine. So the brain scan proves that I can hear modification X but was oblivious to modification Y whereas you were the exact opposite. What is a product manufacturer to do with this information?

 

Clearly we want to understand what is going on, particularly within the electronics. But at some point we are going to take our precision well beyond our accuracy, which is what I see some of the format wars getting into - today's' 24:192 could become next year's 32:384.

[Jud]

Lets suppose you had the magic brain scan and could objectively validate what the listener is hearing based on the scan. Aren't we then getting down to a level of precision that varies more by person than by product (personalized audio as opposed to personalized medicine)? After all, your ears are certainly different from mine, and your years of listening experience is different from mine. So the brain scan proves that I can hear modification X but was oblivious to modification Y whereas you were the exact opposite. What is a product manufacturer to do with this information?

 

Clearly we want to understand what is going on, particularly within the electronics. But at some point we are going to take our precision well beyond our accuracy, which is what I see some of the format wars getting into - today's' 24:192 could become next year's 32:384.

 

Oh I think we are already there (wider variation by person than product). Witness the variation in filtering preferences among not only consumers on the iZotope SRC thread, but among professionals in terms of the filters available in players and DACs.

[Paul R]

Would you find a DBT more compelling than EEG results?

 

Actually yes, I at least would, with a caveat or two. Those reservations would be that the test was designed to test audiophile claims, and in doing so, actually used audiophile grade equipment.

 

That would probably preclude things like doing double blind tests in a classroom or with a $39 pair of headphones, and allowing longer term listening periods, as well as 10-15 second switching. Among other examples.

 

A well designed test, not setup with a heavy expectation bias that the claims being tested are foolish, would be valuable. That is not what we see a lot of on the gasbag forums.

 

Or to be honest here either, with a few exceptions. But the purpose of testing here is (usually) not to ridicule.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Lets suppose you had the magic brain scan and could objectively validate what the listener is hearing based on the scan.

What you might objectively validate is that changing variable X in the audio signal reliably causes the same consistent change in the brain scan.Thats different to saying it validates what the listener is hearing. What the listener is hearing may or may not be related to the change on scan.It would however suggest the change in signal is being detected.If the correlation was strong it would give support to looking to establish a causal relationship.

 

Aren't we then getting down to a level of precision that varies more by person than by product (personalized audio as opposed to personalized medicine)? After all, your ears are certainly different from mine, and your years of listening experience is different from mine. So the brain scan proves that I can hear modification X but was oblivious to modification Y whereas you were the exact opposite. What is a product manufacturer to do with this information?

 

Well assuming you got this far, a validated reliable test for auditory perception then at least you could end the debate "does a difference exist".The next challenge presumably would be to define the difference/s caused by manipulating the variable, like say if you established less measurable jitter leads to the perception of increased "air" or "transparency" or whatever.This would be similar to the way that we know from psychacoustics that changing the left-right balance will shift the illusion of the stereo image.

 

Now,as you say, people would be expected to vary in their abilities to 'pass the test'. Manufacturers would need to look at epidemiological studies of the poulation. If only 0.01% of the population could demonstrate they could hear the difference one might expect not much interest.If the absolute numbers (as opposed to percentages) were high enough there might still be enough demand.Moreover, if we had a test for "transparency" designers could start targeting **how** to design better audio gear such that it became more audible to most of us.

 

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Unfortunately, I have my doubts even largish companies with audio divisions would put up the millions likely necessary, probably go through an institutional review board process, etc., all for the sake of the curiosity (keen though it may be) of us crazy audiophiles.

 

Couldn't agree more and just another reason why i fear this issue will not be resolved any time soon.So back to the Christmas left-overs I guess :-)

Cheers

David

[Allan F]

Unfortunately, I have my doubts even largish companies with audio divisions would put up the millions likely necessary, probably go through an institutional review board process, etc., all for the sake of the curiosity (keen though it may be) of us crazy audiophiles.

 

Especially, since most equipment designers finalize their designs by listening. Of course, they measure throughout the process, but final decisions on components, etc., are usually based on what subjectively sounds best or, at least, produces the sound that they prefer ("voicing"). Obviously, cost considerations have to play a role in choices as well.

[sullis02]

Hi Krabapple,

 

First a bit of forum history. The DSP Room correction forum is maybe a year old, I think a bit less. I with others pestered Chris to get one. I did so because we can't do much about bad mastering, but the other problem of the room/speaker interface there is a chance to improve. I am glad Chris set it up, but the DAC forum has been here since the beginning so naturally it has more total activity.

 

The room, whether through DSP or other measures is where big genuine improvements are possible. Not so many seem aware of it. Many audiophiles even seem to ridicule it. I wish they could hear systems with and without it. I think some eyes (ears?) would be opened. If the money spent on high end rubbish that is borderline fraud were spent on DSP solutions we could fund some fabulous improvements in just a short period of time.

 

Couldn't agree more. DACs , 'hi rez' , analog vs digital, amp differences, cables, etc, are a silly sideshow compared the to main event in home audio: what your speakers and room do to the signal. Yet look where the bulk of attention goes. (Mastering is the other main event, but as you say, we have no control over that, though the industry keeps promising that if we buy hi rez, they will give us better mastering. Forgetting that they promised us that with CD originally. And again with DVDA/SACD.)

 

 

I, and I believe I can speak for wgscott, are aware of how sighted evaluation is flawed. I am not a scientist by profession. I too however share some of Bill's opinion that some of the blind test ideas at HA could be handled better.

 

which ideas would those be?

 

Almost as bad as being an objectivist in most audio forums, suggesting controls and changes might be worthwhile at HA get one treated as if they must be a subjectivist audiophile who doesn't get it. The derision builds too quickly to explain how that isn't the case.

 

What controls have been suggested that have been shot down? What new ideas are being offered to 'improve' blind testing? (HA has been around for a long time.)

 

I most definitely understand how that happens. It is amazing the forums one can get banned from or at least find it difficult to post with any effect just by telling the truth, pointing out problems that should not cause much disagreement, and saying your wacky, crazy, impossible claims have no chance of being correct. So a 'safe haven' of people who have experienced that can become something of the same in reverse. Just one of those things about being human.

 

If the wacky , crazy claims are simply sighted anecdotes, they stand no chance at HA, it's true. Nor would they in a scientific publication, which is generally held to be a virtue. It forces the reporters to supply more evidence.

 

It is good HA is in existence, but it could be better. And yes I realize even the most basic blinding of evaluations has more validity than any sighted comparisons. If I could get one thing across to do with sighted comparisons that would help, even in that flawed procedure it would be the need to be super persnickety about level matching. Even sighted, I have seen plenty of believed differences in components evaporate once you matched levels.

 

The crucial need for level matching is well-accepted at HA, has been forever. So, again, what would make *HA* better?

[sullis02]

My unironic comment is that I would love to see some work on how effective DBTs are at probing sensory limits. (Thinking along the lines of Oohashi's subjects not being able to hear ultrasonics consciously, but EEG results being different in the presence of ultrasonics.)

 

According James Johnston, whose authority I would not challenge, DBTs are sensitive down to the physical limits of human hearing -- that is, the sound of air molecules impinging on the eardrum, in an anaechoic chamber.

 

And Oohashi is a....curious fellow. A couple reference requests - Hydrogenaudio Forums. If someone can explain to me in simple terms what 'kansei brain science' (one of Oohashi's several fields of expertise it seems), I'm all ears.

[sullis02]

Not directly related, but some transient pulse trains with fMRi result.

 

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/13685844_Measurements_of_the_temporal_fMRI_response_of_the_human_auditory_cortex_to_trains_of_tones/file/79e4150cb39d654e85.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3CEyZ0Df7aRIbqgSeGbeP72ViTlA%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=X&ei=MOScVICkIoKvggT7oYPQDA&ved=0CB4QgAMoADAA&usg=AFQjCNGcg49NfJo72IuTvJ60QfZ585r8sg&cad=rja

 

My idea is the reverse of course. If they get fMRi or EEG results mapped out quite well, I want to see how the results differ when someone listens to a sighted change. Say being monitored while listening to CD, then being told (and seeing) they next listen to DSD or 384/24. Then compare that to being told we are going back to CD (while actually playing Hires). In other words the effect of sighted information on aural perception.

 

then again....

 

Scanning Dead Salmon in fMRI Machine Highlights Risk of Red Herrings | WIRED

[sullis02]

Information by Jud about EEG and ultrasound correlation is interesting. May be it give new look to sound perception and audio equipment development.

 

 

and has been discussed numerous time over the years...at HA

[sullis02]

Dunno about your DAC, but mine has a comparator at the input stage that turns 1.1's and 0.9's back into 1's. Thus making it a DAC and not a DA3C (Digital and analog to analog converter). But if you have a problem, then get the Schiit wyrd.

 

 

Mine claims to 'fill in' the bits (or is it samples?) and output analog-like soundwaves via something called a 'reconstruction filter' (which I suspect is snake-oil, since we all know that digital means *stairsteps*)

[sullis02]

it depends on what the subject matter is and the decided outcome measure. This is relevant to audio perception if you look at say parallels to pain perception. A totally subjective Visual analogue scale (rate your pain from o to 10) is acceptable given the inherently subjective nature of the subject matter,"I feel pain". A positive intervention is seen as one that is statistically significant say beyond a 30% expected placebo response or compared to a control.Others demand more rigorous outcomes of say at least 80% pain relief for a spinal block. One of the difficulties with determing JND's (just noticeable differences) with sensory phenomena is that they may fall within the margin of error of the test instrument, and/or placebo response.This is IMO one of the reasons that BDT ABX audio tests are problematic, you need big differences to make it more reliable, and as hobbyists we are concerned with even the smallest nuances. In medicine the approach That I see most commonly is along the lines well if you cant determine a difference beyond placebo (say 30%) it doesnt really matter ie its not worth risking any potential harm of the intervention.In audio perception there is no harm apart from potentially to your wallet.

 

Big differences are by definition easier to detect, but that doesn't necessarily 'need big differences to make ABX more reliable'. You could do more trials, or use more subjects, or better trained subjects, or some combination of those. The main thing is correctly interpreting the results of whatever test you *do* perform, and knowing how globally (or not ) they apply.

 

JND for audible difference is very small, and detectable by DBT. There is no 'test equipment' other than the ear involved, and a 'placebo response' will be revealed statistically because you are literally including 'no difference' in the test protocol as one of the conditions (that's harder to do with pain research, where you have to do a 'sham' ).

 

 

 

 

Even when being tested for eye spectacles it is commonplace to get muddled and confused when 'challenged' with "which one is better A or B".

 

which one is *better* is a subjective difference, and that would not involve an ABX if it was an aural test. ABX is for difference, for subjective preference scaling, ABC/hr , MUSHRA or other DBT protocol would be used

 

After a while, when measurable differneces become small, I really just can't tell.This may well support the notion that it really doesnt matter.Yet, on more tha one occasion I have returned to get my eye prescription altered after a week of use and unhappy with the first test "result."

 

The hypothesis here is that for whatever reason, the first test failed to reveal a real quality difference. And now a week of experience ('training') has sensitized you to the difference. The scientific thing to do then, of course, would be another test. If your dissatisfaction isn't purely psyhcological, then a second test, now that you've experienced and noticed the 'problem', should reveal it handily.

[sullis02]

It's amusing to me when dogged suspicion of DBT -- a method where the listener's subjective experience is directly reported -- is accompanied by faith in the saving power of fMRI -- where the researcher interprets pictures of blood flow through the brain as a proxy for 'listening experience'.

 

It might be that even 'subjectivists' yearn for some science to back them up. They'll take what they can get, at the risk of believing in a dead fish.

[Paul R]

It's amusing to me when dogged suspicion of DBT -- a method where the listener's subjective experience is directly reported -- is accompanied by faith in the saving power of fMRI -- where the researcher interprets pictures of blood flow through the brain as a proxy for 'listening experience'.

 

It might be that even 'subjectivists' yearn for some science to back them up. They'll take what they can get, at the risk of believing in a dead fish.

 

What is amusing is a blind obedience to TPTB over at the gasbag forums, and their tunnel vision belief that they understand that of which they speak.

 

There are none so blind as they who will not see. (shrug)

 

By the way, why are you over hear singing the praises of the gasbag forum? Could it be their blind faith leaves some questions unanswered for you? Or is it just the unending rudeness? Or perhaps missionary zeal?

 

Doesn't really matter, Chris welcomes dissenting views here. Science, faith, poor, rich, all one hobby.

[esldude]

 

 

 

which ideas would those be?

 

 

 

What controls have been suggested that have been shot down? What new ideas are being offered to 'improve' blind testing? (HA has been around for a long time.)

 

 

 

If the wacky , crazy claims are simply sighted anecdotes, they stand no chance at HA, it's true. Nor would they in a scientific publication, which is generally held to be a virtue. It forces the reporters to supply more evidence.

 

 

 

The crucial need for level matching is well-accepted at HA, has been forever. So, again, what would make *HA* better?

 

You misunderstood me on some points. Likely my fault for not being clear. The level matching is accepted at HA yes. I was referring to other forums where even that is ignored while doing sighted listening tests. I was relating that to my experience that even with the foibles of sighted comparison some people quickly accept the differences they had assigned to different items disappeared with good level matching. So no need to go blind to convince them they had fooled themselves accidentally.

 

And all the talk about getting banned was for rational comments on forums other than HA. So that had nothing to do with complaining about HA etiquette.

 

Wgscott can speak for himself as he may not fully agree with my comments on what could be better. One area often overlooked is including positive and negative controls in blind tests. Even the simplest blind testing is far better than sighted, but that doesn't mean following good procedure won't improve the results or make them more convincing.

 

I also have other ideas that crude blind testing is given more credence than it deserves. But there is little point going into those.

 

I guess my main experience I participated in was one that turned out a little bit like wgscotts in answering the poll about his playback software. I suggested an alternative blind testing format. Not suggesting it was better in terms of efficacy at the limits. Or suggesting the normal ABX method was wrong. My motivation was it answered an oft heard criticism about doing an ABX type test. That those were stressful and tiring. It was a form used by some researchers at times even in academic psychoacoustic research though only rarely. It is used in other industries quite often. I believe it would be easier to the participant. My goal being to get subjectivists to take part in blind testing that isn't so onerous in the hope they might see the benefit. It was two alternative forced choice. Not exactly radical, not lacking blindness, just possibly easier to get people to participate in.

 

So what was the reaction? It was assumed I didn't know how good DBT ABX is, or claiming it wasn't the best or by voicing complaints from subjectivists that I must agree with their opinon otherwise. None of which was true. But the ideas like that were coming out faster than I could rebut and correct. And when I did correct some of those who took it the wrong way the few replying were so intent on "setting me straight" they never even noticed what I posted in response. Nor that they had been wrong in their assumptions about me, my motivations or my ideas. It was like walking into a church, and declaring myself a Methodist only to have the Baptist Pastor yell out, "get the unbeliever". Then being treated as if an atheist. I only posted a few times and let it slide. I still post there on occassion, and in the whole forum there is lots of terrific information. That atmosphere puts me off sometimes though.

[esldude]

It's amusing to me when dogged suspicion of DBT -- a method where the listener's subjective experience is directly reported -- is accompanied by faith in the saving power of fMRI -- where the researcher interprets pictures of blood flow through the brain as a proxy for 'listening experience'.

 

It might be that even 'subjectivists' yearn for some science to back them up. They'll take what they can get, at the risk of believing in a dead fish.

 

Well blind audio testing differs from blind medical testing in that objective verification of results is possible in some cases. The cancer disappeared or it didn't. The infection went away or it didn't. In audio you are relying on self reporting in a sense. As very well done blind audio testing does get us near to the physical limits of possible sound it looks plenty good enough when all is said and done. But if you could understand the brain and get objective verification without the interceder of the person choosing it might convince some not convinced. It also would allow testing not directly possible now. Plus if it were well enough developed it would be a lot nicer, more efficient and comfortable than the regimen of blind testing.

 

Perhaps you are forgetting how upsetting it is to so clearly hear a difference in say cables. Only to have it collapse and disappear when blinded in the test. Not hard to see how someone has such a bizarre experience to think the test itself must have interferred. If you could get something like brain scans or other methods to just quietly monitor activity and detect differences it would be another step in convincing someone. I am all for finding ways to convince without someone having to become an EE, research scientist and blind testing afficionado to get it. Although in a minor sense that is what it took for me.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Big .........snip......... should reveal it handily.

 

Wow, there are just too many flaws in your logic and reasoning to address.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

some people quickly accept the differences they had assigned to different items disappeared with good level matching. So no need to go blind to convince them they had fooled themselves accidentally.

 

Hi dennis, yes i fully agree except I think "fooled themselves" has the wrong connotations especially in a scientific setting where one does not have to have an expectation bias or axe to grind. Attribution of causation is as you know a very complex area.

 

 

One area often overlooked is including positive and negative controls in blind tests.

 

not 100% sure what is meant here in relation to audio perception DBT

 

Even the simplest blind testing is far better than sighted, but that doesn't mean following good procedure won't improve the results or make them more convincing. I also have other ideas that crude blind testing is given more credence than it deserves. But there is little point going into those.

 

I think IMO the whole testing for differences in musical perception is poor, as it is commonly done. There would need to be a "gold reference" standard testing procedure, for which I an unaware, that compares results to audio ABX DBT. The latter could then be refined in terms of methodology to better match results of the gold standard. In medicine this happens all the time such as with measuring things like insulin sensitivity.The gold standard is a complicated research tool/test procedure but there are many 'field' or clinical tests that have been used as a practical alternative.These latter tests have been validated to whatever extent with the gold standard.

[Jud]

It's amusing to me when dogged suspicion of DBT -- a method where the listener's subjective experience is directly reported -- is accompanied by faith in the saving power of fMRI -- where the researcher interprets pictures of blood flow through the brain as a proxy for 'listening experience'.

 

 

Ah, you must have missed the part where we were talking about ideally wanting more specific objective measurements than fMRI. But we would not want that to get in the way of your amusement at our supposed "faith in the saving power of fMRI," especially during this holiday season when we wish everyone amusement, a/k/a "joy."

[audiventory]

It's amusing to me when dogged suspicion of DBT -- a method where the listener's subjective experience is directly reported -- is accompanied by faith in the saving power of fMRI -- where the researcher interprets pictures of blood flow through the brain as a proxy for 'listening experience'.

 

It might be that even 'subjectivists' yearn for some science to back them up. They'll take what they can get, at the risk of believing in a dead fish.

 

Double blind test is not exact tool itself. For avoiding delusion it must be performed correctly.

Many people believe in DBT. Need check every condition of this test.

[sullis02]

What is amusing is a blind obedience to TPTB over at the gasbag forums, and their tunnel vision belief that they understand that of which they speak.

 

There are none so blind as they who will not see. (shrug)

 

By the way, why are you over hear singing the praises of the gasbag forum? Could it be their blind faith leaves some questions unanswered for you? Or is it just the unending rudeness? Or perhaps missionary zeal?

 

Doesn't really matter, Chris welcomes dissenting views here. Science, faith, poor, rich, all one hobby.

 

It's amusing that you decry the dismissiveness, condescension, and closemindness of HA all the while referring to it as the 'gasbag forum' populated by the 'blind'.

 

And one might wonder why you've spent so much verbiage doing it.

 

Btw, I don't know what 'TPTB' is.

[Paul R]

It's amusing that you decry the dismissiveness, condescension, and closemindness of HA all the while referring to it as the 'gasbag forum' populated by the 'blind'.

 

And one might wonder why you've spent so much verbiage doing it.

 

Btw, I don't know what 'TPTB' is.

 

The Powers That Be - TPTB for short.

 

Well, for one, by using the "gasbag forum" instead of it's proper name, I inject a small amount of humor and more importantly, avoid giving the place free advertisement by putting the name into search engines.

 

While one might wonder about what you question, the more interesting questions would revolve around why one would go to such lengths to popularize the gasbag forums. We have had more than one evangelist from there come over to convert the heathen. (*sigh*)

 

As noted by me and other people before, there is a lot of good information available from the there, but there are far too many pseudoscientists over there looking to make a name for themselves to discuss anything at all controversial, unless one adheres one hundred percent to the party line and ridicules the opposition.

 

-Paul

[sullis02]

You misunderstood me on some points. Likely my fault for not being clear. The level matching is accepted at HA yes. I was referring to other forums where even that is ignored while doing sighted listening tests. I was relating that to my experience that even with the foibles of sighted comparison some people quickly accept the differences they had assigned to different items disappeared with good level matching. So no need to go blind to convince them they had fooled themselves accidentally.

 

And all the talk about getting banned was for rational comments on forums other than HA. So that had nothing to do with complaining about HA etiquette.

 

 

I don;t think I misunderstood, so much as tried to keep the focus on what is right or wrong with HA. I don't really care what other forums do (I'm familiar enough with several of them to know already what they do)

 

Wgscott can speak for himself as he may not fully agree with my comments on what could be better. One area often overlooked is including positive and negative controls in blind tests. Even the simplest blind testing is far better than sighted, but that doesn't mean following good procedure won't improve the results or make them more convincing.

 

A negative control is same-vs-same, which is built-in to audio DBT. Positive control -- some level difference that *should* just be audible -- is advisable for complete rigor but needs work to determine it for each listener.

 

The thing is, though, in most cases what is happening (for DBTS on HA , where there has been an historical focus on lossy codecs) is not testing some universal proposition, but instead this:

 

1) listener listens to two files, sighted, and thinks he hears a difference.

2) fires up ABX software to compare them

3) ABX does or does not confirm the difference

 

This is what most of us do, if we ABX. We aren't testing whether it's possible for someone else, somewhere, to hear a difference (an academic study). We are testing our immediate experience-- was what we just heard (sighted), probably real or not? That doesn't need training, or positive controls -- we are simply repeating our listening , only this time, making it blind. The result tells us whether we, at our current level of training, are likely to have heard a real difference.

 

Which also means (at least theoretically) that with training, perhaps we *could* score significantly on an ABX. But if so, that still wouldn't mean that we 'really' heard the difference the first time.

 

These are all niggling points in a way; but they play into the need for proper interpretation of results.

 

(And for actual lossy coded DBTs, if audible differences is *expected* -- e.g., low bitrates -- then the appropriate DBT is not ABX, but something like ABC/hr, where *preference* is being tested)

 

 

 

I also have other ideas that crude blind testing is given more credence than it deserves. But there is little point going into those.

 

But always keep in mind that typically, the audiophile *does* claim to hear a difference, sighted. At which point much of the objection to 'crudeness' goes by the wayside. If all you have done is 'blind' that listener -- obscure the identity of the source --and suddenly the difference 'goes away' then that says something.

 

IOW, we aren't talking about a lab study, where one is investigating the possibility of whether *anyone* can hear difference between A and B. We are testing a particular subject's claim.

 

 

I guess my main experience I participated in was one that turned out a little bit like wgscotts in answering the poll about his playback software. I suggested an alternative blind testing format. Not suggesting it was better in terms of efficacy at the limits. Or suggesting the normal ABX method was wrong. My motivation was it answered an oft heard criticism about doing an ABX type test. That those were stressful and tiring. It was a form used by some researchers at times even in academic psychoacoustic research though only rarely. It is used in other industries quite often. I believe it would be easier to the participant. My goal being to get subjectivists to take part in blind testing that isn't so onerous in the hope they might see the benefit. It was two alternative forced choice. Not exactly radical, not lacking blindness, just possibly easier to get people to participate in.

 

An 'ABX type test' *can* be stressful but it's not a requirement that it be so. (typoically it's 'stressful' when the differences are....subtle or nonexistant). Not clear why 2AFC would be less so; I'm not even clear on how it could be adapted to audio difference DBT. Can you point me to to the discussion at HA?

 

 

So what was the reaction? It was assumed I didn't know how good DBT ABX is, or claiming it wasn't the best or by voicing complaints from subjectivists that I must agree with their opinon otherwise. None of which was true. But the ideas like that were coming out faster than I could rebut and correct. And when I did correct some of those who took it the wrong way the few replying were so intent on "setting me straight" they never even noticed what I posted in response. Nor that they had been wrong in their assumptions about me, my motivations or my ideas. It was like walking into a church, and declaring myself a Methodist only to have the Baptist Pastor yell out, "get the unbeliever". Then being treated as if an atheist. I only posted a few times and let it slide. I still post there on occasion, and in the whole forum there is lots of terrific information. That atmosphere puts me off sometimes though.

 

Could be that 'the atmosphere' has to do with the fair number of gunslingers who show up and *do* claim that ABX, DBT, Shannon-Nyquist, whatever, are all wrong.

 

Can you point me to the exchanges you describe above?