Who's afraid of DBTs

[esldude]

This isn't QUICk A/B testing then, is it? The premise of quick A/B testing is the unreliability of audio memory & how we can only retain what we just heard for about 4 seconds which then allows us, supposedly, to compare to the next piece in this time frame - as you say "the most revealing" So why are you now ignoring this premise & the supposed strength of quick A/B testing to suggest that it can be used for long term testing? What exactly are you saying?

 

I was referring to Peter's description of how he listens. 5 days at a time. He had described how if you listen to something and then listen again you will hear something different. He is quite correct about this. At least some ABX testing lets you swap several times to overcome that issue. So you misread me if you thought I was advocating that 5 day test period.

 

On the other hand it can be used for any length of time the testee thinks appropriate. The results are finer differences are found in short tests vs longer tests. Yet audiophiles will regularly complain longer listening is more discerning. Blind testing of that proposition says otherwise. The explanation of echoic memory of a few seconds explains why. Doesn't mean the test loses validity at longer intervals. It becomes less effective. That isn't to say at longer intervals sighted testing will do better. Though many have that opinion.

[barrows]

I am afraid, mainly because blinded testing of virtually any sort is a waste of time for evaluating high end audio systems.

And I hate wasting time!

[trithio]

To esldude

 

Of course it is silly. I would say it's actually much worse, somewhere close to counterproductive.

But I do not wanna comment too much, especially since it's clear that my appeal to 'forget trithio' didnt do any wonders. Luckily I've not been called a troll. Yet. And there is quite enough on-subject and interesting commentary.

 

Small middle-page reminder for all: that subject(s) would be the role of science and particularly DBTs in the audio world and press and particularly Stereophile/JGH.

[elcorso]

Is the same “science” that killed the validity of DBT.

 

If you take, for example, DBT made on statins drugs (to lower cholesterol levels). They demostrated that lower those levels, but never, that doens’t protects you for a myocardial infarction and didn’t mentioned the lot of tragic side effects from this drug. There has been never a clear definition of the whole scenario.

 

Maybe in audio could be even more difficult because they are too many variables that matters, like:

 

The chosen audiency. How do you know they have the same hearing habilities and musical taste.

 

The chosen additional gear. From the source (computer) to the speakers. They are really high definition (if you believe in this, if not why the test?).

 

The chosen audition room. With good acoustics matched for the choosen speakers.

 

The chosen music. That likes everyone in the test.

 

And, I agree here with Paul, there isn’t the appropiate units of measure in audiophilia to get an accurate impression of the full scenario. BTW, I remember Harry Pearson of TAS, who inventend crazy terms like pfffffffffffff trying to describe a SQ, or different SQ.

 

Also agree with the others that doesn’t want DBTs and enjoy the music as it is. Some times I perceive a different SQ I like from a cable that stay as it is and remains with me. The last I bought has ten years now in my system (when I was only 82 years old and less rich).

 

Roch

[Daudio]

A few appetizing, random thoughts from this thread, then my summary of the 'DBT fear and loathing' Subject since it's in the thread title, and the OPs stated desire ! Then a tasty finish

 

 

"The premise of quick A/B testing is the unreliability of audio memory & how we can only retain what we just heard for about 4 seconds."

Yeah, I forget the sound of my mothers voice all the time

 

"People hear lots of things that aren't different due to the soundwaves reaching their eardrums."

Yeah ? So, all us subjective folks are crazy and have auditory hallucinations ? Well, screw you too. Nobody likes being told they are nuts, so stop it. Please.

 

"The prevalent atitude on CA seems to be that science is useless when it comes to audio. Many people seem to be convinced that audio components are somehow build by wizards with sticks and clay."

 

Oh yeah, you're really trying to piss people off ! There are many CA members who know 'science'(s) and technology, many know how the equipment works, many that can build, upgrade and repair equipment, and some who actually design that equipment (& software) and sell it commercially ! Know your audience, or look the fool.

 

 

And, Ta Da ! now for the main course

"particularly DBTs are hated with a passion worthy of a better cause."

 

I could haul out all the serious issues with DBTs, but that's been done and you probably wouldn't listen anyway, so hear this:

I was at one of the very first demonstration/tests of the ABX box. It was a big let down then, and nothing has changed much in the 35 years I have heard/seen DBT and ABX discussed back and forth in person, in magazines, and online. There was promise there, but it failed the long term reality test

 

DBT's ? Bah humbug ! In three and a half Decades DBT/ABX has not changed or improved our audio world in any significant way that I can see, therefore I think of them as basically useless. And so very boring...

 

Of course there are lots of folks like you who think they are a shortcut to a cheap 'scientific' certainty, and just can't stop talking about them and pushing them in other peoples faces.

Could they function as a kind of lazy objectivist audio nirvana, or crutch ??

IMHO

 

 

And now for a little desert

 

JGH: "Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space."

 

Yeah, Harry Pearson called that the 'Absolute Sound' and named his magazine after it. And I still believe in that goal, and enjoy its pursuit, knowing full well the impossibility of its achievement, regardless of all the bozos along the way

[beanbag]

 

DBT's ? Bah humbug ! In three and a half Decades DBT/ABX has not changed or improved our audio world in any significant way that I can see, therefore I think of them as basically useless. And so very boring...

 

It's a good thing you added the "that I can see" at the end because otherwise I would chastise you severely.

 

DBT is as useful to audio advancements as screwdrivers are to advancements in experimental physics. But you don't read about the screwdrivers in the publications. That's because it is such a common tool that nobody bothers to even mention it.

 

For example:

Somebody designing an amp wants to see the effect of a circuit change on sound quality -> blind test

 

A software or hardware designer wants to see if one kind of filtering or DSP sounds better than another -> blind test

 

An amplifier designer wants to see if his 0.001% THD amp sounds the same as this 0.0001% THD amp -> blind test

[PeterSt]

Beanbag, just for fun, OK ?

 

Somebody designing an amp wants to see the effect of a circuit change on sound quality -> blind test

 

In your schoolbook maybe, because not so here.

 

A software or hardware designer wants to see if one kind of filtering or DSP sounds better than another -> blind test

 

In your schoolbook maybe, because not so here.

 

An amplifier designer wants to see if his 0.001% THD amp sounds the same as this 0.0001% THD amp -> blind test

 

In your schoolbook maybe, because not so here.

 

In the end you are quite ignorant, because I already said I didn't. So you see, so many are capable of really going against all odds that it is beyond someone like me.

Now call me fake.

 

:)

[PeterSt]

Last edited by Daudio; Today at 05:19 AM. Reason: a little polish

 

Didn't notice much of it ! But then I had my focus on the content of your post I suppose.

(pravda or sth)

[PeterSt]

The last I bought has ten years now in my system (when I was only 82 years old and less rich).

 

Hey Roch, your translation machine must have failed on you this time; Had more difficulties following your post than usual, probably because of a too high THD. This tone still jumped out though : I heard years, but has to be months.

[PeterSt]

Got that ?

[Daudio]

Didn't notice much of it !

(pravda or sth)

 

Peter, Pravda, can't you see it shine ?

 

sth ?? say what ?

 

 

P.S Nice to (mostly) understand you for a change !!

[PeterSt]

So you DBT adheres,

 

Let me try to make some proof or proving or proofing of what I claim with my "5 days". You can nicely try to debunk that, and you won't be able to do that with other means of doing it better. Mind you, I am familiar with the other means just the same, while you DBT adheres are not familiar with mine. Also keep in mind that what I am talking about is the most minute differences and not those who are audible in 2 seconds; I can do that too obviously, and won't need 5 days at all. Do notice though that "2 second" claims can only be about perceiving something for the worse. Never about the better, unless you hold it against something which was declared being worse in the first place by yourself (as a re-check for fun or making it clear to others).

Re-read if you think this was too much of my Dutch. It really isn't difficult.

 

Claim : If I claim that I need 5 days to be sure, it just is so for you the same. I can turn this into an *it* needs instead, which I do.

 

So a given fact just because I tell you so. But how can it be ?

Well easy, because if I, with all my so-called knowledge but merely experience on what to listen for, are "able" to debunk something which should be better at only the 5th day, then why would this not happen to you. Are you better than me so you can do it in an hour ? seems far sought to me. So that is one.

 

Claim : No one is able to play a sufficient amount of music and music types in the proposed time required for a decent AB(X), so that all what's in there for theoretical judgement will have passed.

 

You think you can ? then sorry, but then you don't know much about it. For me this is proof. Is that important ? for me not but for you it is because you clearly show what you and your system is about - nothing much.

Yes, dig that.

But all I do is challenge you, so you get some senses in your body. Can take that literally in this case, for those who think that not only ears are required for this. Yes, now that.

 

Claim : If you don't have a system with sufficiently extended (frequency) range that all what's possible in music can not be observed in the first place, what do you think you are doing (suggestion : nothing much).

 

Oh. The next suggestion I dare have is that right now 99% should drop out for being contender or part of the discussion if you like. Mind you, I now make it all dependent on objective "real life" (I didn't say liVe) music, which is very different from making it subjective to high distorting systems because of not being sufficiently wide band where all can happen. But to give a clear example : if you don't use a nice sub woofer to extend the lower range to what's actually in most of the music, how would you ever come to the idea of listening to music containing that. Ok, you hope it's not in there.

Next is : If you indeed have such a nice sub woofer or more of them, investigate the distortion figures at the level you use it. If you don't have this sufficiently right, then the tweak you compare with is going through heavy distortion in the first place, that is, *if* you got the sense of listening to music with the LF content required.

I said it, 99% are out already and I included those with subs already. Too bad.

 

Claim : You don't even own the music that will show all, let alone that you will know what that is.

 

Although chances are fair to begin with that I am right on this one, I think it can be proven statistically because even those who tell me to have a very broad interest, still don't know f*ck of all the music I am playing for them to prove a few things, which music they even like. So I just never ran into someone. No real prove though. Soft claim.

 

Claim : DBT's never ever use music content that even approaches what I am hinting at. Not an inch on 100 miles.

 

But obviously this is redundant to most of what I have said above.

 

Claim : You don't agree sh*t of what I just all said.

 

Nah, this is a half-one, because maybe only few may disagree. But for those who do, you will most probably tell about a few Diana Krall's, Yello's and Boston Symphony's being sufficient.

Man, don't be so ignorant, because when I tell you it is not, it just is not. And I wish it were because it would save me half of my life time (I reckon).

 

Context so we can be assured that you did not miss it : If I say that I need 5 days, then I say this because of the experience that at day five the whatever tweak can be rejected after all. This should tell you that it can be about such small anomalies that only after 5 days they come forward as a general nature/flavor in all, *or* that only at this 5th day finally the music type was played which shows it.

 

 

Right. Although I implied it maybe, this is nothing like a very long B or A etc.; it is just going through all the music of which I know it can matter and this includes music which was rejected as being "bad recording" so far always. It now could work you know.

Of course it is ridiculous to require any levels to be the same (as say the month in advance of it) because it is no A-B in the first place. It is going through the music and all what worked previously, is not allowed to have gotten worse in a single element anywhere. And if so after all, I could accept it if only a 1000 elements got better (just theory and I don't recall such a decision).

 

What's way important is that this all has to go unconsciously. Only then you'll find yourself foot tapping for a week in a row, or being annoyed too soon and seek for a next album to play without the current being finished. That sort of thing.

I don't say that I am counting the pros and cons and put them to paper or anything, but after this while you or have the idea that nothing annoyed, or somewhere along the lines you'll have the feeling "enough of this !". Can already be because you attenuate more than usual. Volume more up than usual can also be an indication for the worse, and when that starts to happen (as a common behavior) I am always very much focusing on possible lost dynamics. Keep in mind : something which is not clear after one track at all, and something which surely occurs for specific albums/tracks only (when the difference is marginal).

 

Another unconscious thing is the "I want more of this !". For me this becomes apparent when I like to play a next album from the same artist, but it bugs me because no time for that (or the 5 days become 10). So what's unconscious now becomes explicit. Good.

Contrary, when an otherwise in well fashion playing album now annoys at the 2nd track, this is explicit right away. Again good, because it speeds up things. Notice though that such a phenomenon can easily happen on day 3 only. Say that the ultra low frequencies don't work out any more and the ambient (ambiance) is lacking now. But first play that album with the ambient in it.

Can easily be the other way around as well, ambient works perfectly, but after the 10th album (or track) with a fair amount of normal low frequency (say 25-50 Hz), it become apparent that all sounds too deep down earth in similar fashion. And now, a double bass won't show such behavior (LF of it could be less defined though) so you'd need to play something like a choir in a church or something. But more of them because otherwise that same deep down flavor doesn't show and you'd only say "nice church !".

 

I'll leave it at this.

[esldude]

So you DBT adheres,

 

snippage of content for space saving........

 

I'll leave it at this.

 

Rather than go through a point by point response I can sum it up a bit more succintly.

 

When you make cognitive or perceptive tasks more complex, more involved, over longer periods of time, the precision of discernment possible goes down. The different ways that outside factors can intrude or interfere are increased. The results are more variable, and less reliable at the extremes of perceptive ability of our senses.

 

So you are describing using a very large amount of music of widely varying content. I suppose the idea being to flesh out and explore all the possible areas where your playback might get tripped up along the way. Doing this over 5 days time. Sounds like you wish to perceive or attempt to perceive exactly how something differs as a guide to what is different or why it differs perhaps leading to how to fix or improve it. To use this process to gain more depth about what is being heard than whether it simply is different.

 

In comparison a DBT of short duration samples only asks you to determine if something differs. Not if it is better or worse or anything so complex. Merely if it differs. A positively minimal cognitive load to what you are describing. Further once one has done this a bit and become comfortable with this simple (though boring process) one can often make good choices one is not even conscious of hearing as different. The DBT is to find if something is audibly different. Design, improvement, determing preference are all done otherwise.

 

Your process would give you great confidence in your findings. You are investing much effort and attention into it. That will tend to make concrete in your mind the idea of your thoroughness, and how solid are your conclusions.

[Jud]

Sounds like you wish to perceive or attempt to perceive exactly how something differs as a guide to what is different or why it differs perhaps leading to how to fix or improve it.

 

Peter can tell us which is correct, but my thinking is that the 5 day period is needed, with all sorts of different music, to do precisely the opposite of hearing what is different. My guess is that 5 days is needed to tell if there is any commonality or sameness to the sound of all these different pieces of music, because that is automatically wrong, even with equipment and filters that sound very good at first. As Peter mentioned, to tell whether certain things are different (things he's trained himself over a long period to hear) takes perhaps 2 seconds.

[Jud]

Hi trithio. I'll try to be concise.

 

- Conceptually, I like the idea of DBT. As has been mentioned by at least one other commenter, I want to see that provision has been made for false negatives (not detecting a difference when one exists). When the question is precisely about whether a difference can be detected, or what level of difference can be detected by our senses, that question becomes a little more complex than it would be for something like pharmaceutical testing. So whatever the exact protocol for the DBT in a particular test is, I want to know whether that protocol has been checked against other tests of perception to determine a false negative rate.

 

- In practice, I want to see DBT that is scientific. After all, that's one of the primary advantages being claimed for it; if it's not done scientifically, then why go through any additional hassle versus good old *un*reliable sighted testing? I've seen almost no DBT in audio that could be called scientific. I've seen people doing careful, competently run tests on various audio systems, yes. But I wouldn't call that scientific any more than I'd rely on a bunch of people using home chemistry sets for scientific results in the field of chemistry.

 

- Also in practice, I would like to see what the results of training the subjects are. We are all pretty good at knowing what a difference in loudness sounds like. Many of us are quite good at knowing what a difference in frequency sounds like (those with "perfect pitch" are excellent at this). But how many of us know what jitter sounds like? What "smearing" of transients due to a ringing filter sounds like? Does training people to hear these things make a difference in DBT results?

 

Edit: Re training - There is of course a question (on which experiments may have been done, but I haven't seen them) as to whether, even if people aren't trained to hear the particular thing that makes A different from B, they can still say simply whether A sounds different than B.

 

Those are some of the questions that occur to me regarding DBT. Note I'm not saying this makes sighted testing results reliable, I'm purely talking about DBT.

[PeterSt]

Peter can tell us which is correct, but my thinking is that the 5 day period is needed, with all sorts of different music, to do precisely the opposite of hearing what is different. My guess is that 5 days is needed to tell if there is any commonality or sameness to the sound of all these different pieces of music, because that is automatically wrong, even with equipment and filters that sound very good at first. As Peter mentioned, to tell whether certain things are different (things he's trained himself over a long period to hear) takes perhaps 2 seconds.

 

Precisely. So I really must emphasize that when I had to apply A-B for an intensified hour or so, I would have ideas about in what music the difference might show, but if I don't perceive any I can't draw a "no difference" because of knowing that then I better try different music. So the one hour is too short or better put : I didn't try enough music.

 

This is clear, right ?

 

Well, obviously it never is about judging for equality, but about applying something which should for the better. So say I applied something which theoretically should improve the bass. Low and behold, right in the first track "I was right !".

And by sheer guarantee : you would perceive the same, that significant it is.

But what to do with this, if the bass works for the better and now dynamics are all over vanished which only becomes apparent when high transient music comes around which the tested Jazz is not at all.

 

Having said this, I see there can easily be a misunderstanding about DBT because what you, Dennis, may be applying for only perceiving differences, is not in my interest - and should not be of anyone's. I mean, to me it really doesn't make sense to improve the bass, A-B it and confirm that, without knowing whether the transients / dynamics are still OK. Just an example of course. And do notice that when I remove the highs, the bass usually gets deeper. All fake of course, but to make clear how wrong the checking of too few music (types / elements) can be.

[Jud]

I've got just a bit of time here, and wanted to make one other quick comment.

 

DBT is often seen (quite rightly) as a way to counter the effects of expectation bias. But what if expectation bias isn't necessarily the problem?

 

Let's look for example at a claim that's occasionally engendered some controversy, that different USB audio cables sound different, especially feeding a DAC with async USB input. I believe I've heard such differences. Here are the approximate prices, apparent construction quality, and my sound quality preferences (worst to best) for each of the different USB cables I've heard in my system:

 

Furutech GT2 - ~$110 - Excellent apparent construction quality (Worst SQ by far)

 

Wireworld Starlight - ~$80 - Excellent apparent construction quality

 

Audioquest Forest - ~$30 - Good apparent construction quality

 

Audioquest Carbon - ~$110 - Good apparent construction quality

 

Audioquest Coffee - ~$275 (I bought it for less) - Excellent apparent construction quality, very "technical looking"

 

Mapleshade Clearlink Plus - ~$130 - Poor to fair apparent construction quality, extremely thin conductors inside what looks like a piece of a woman's white mesh stocking (Best SQ by far) (Mapleshade has apparently tried to make the cable look a little better by using black rather than white mesh now)

 

There's no pattern of perceived sound quality here with regard to cost (except within the Audioquest line), nor with regard to apparent construction quality. The perceived sound quality did not match my expectations, nor others' observations I'd read. (From judgments I'd read by others, I expected the Furutech and Wireworld to sound better than the Audioquest Forest I had at the time. The Wireworld wasn't bad, but not as good as the less than half as expensive Forest. I did not at all expect the Furutech, with many good user reviews and at four times the price of the Forest, to sound purely awful. I hadn't read any user reviews of the Mapleshade cable; though I expected it to sound good for the price, I did not at all expect it to simply blow the AQ Coffee completely out of the water for perceived sound quality.)

 

So why am I posting these anecdotes - yes, that is absolutely all they are - here? After all, I've noted that my listening experience with the Wireworld and Furutech cables was completely at odds with other listeners' impressions, so there's no universal truth to be found through my sighted observations.

 

It's this: Whatever is the cause of this "disease" (anecdotal impressions by various listeners all over the lot), expectations isn't it. My listening impressions flouted my expectations multiple times, and particularly with regard to the cables I thought sounded worst and best by far. If expectations don't cause the "disease," then is DBT the "cure"?

[trithio]

Peter dear I have to admit that you are quite a spectacle (dont take that the bad way, good spectacles exist too). But I wonder if anyone reads all that or understands even 10%. I really, really tried to enjoy your show. But then you did put in a 'magic' show-stopper

Man, don't be so ignorant, because when I tell you it is not, it just is not.

 

Waaaaay to spicy for my hearing, especially since it comes after another big show-brake

a given fact just because I tell you so

Whatever good or useful content there may be in your posts it just cannot survive beyond those two 'gems'. Probably nothing can.

Hopefully you at least have fun writing all those funny phrases.

[alfe]

Peter dear I have to admit that you are quite a spectacle (dont take that the bad way, good spectacles exist too). But I wonder if anyone reads all that or understands even 10%. I really, really tried to enjoy your show. But then you did put in a 'magic' show-stopper

 

 

Waaaaay to spicy for my hearing, especially since it comes after another big show-brake

 

Whatever good or useful content there may be in your posts it just cannot survive beyond those two 'gems'. Probably nothing can.

Hopefully you at least have fun writing all those funny phrases.

 

Peter is Peter he talk nicely to bits but badly to people:)

[Jud]

Whatever good or useful content there may be in your posts it just cannot survive beyond those two 'gems'.

 

He's involved with audio hardware and software on a professional level and is quite knowledgeable. He may not speak in the language you prefer, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned. Of course I cannot change how you wish to learn or how you evaluate what others say, but I would suggest there is actually knowledge to be gained if you choose to.

[PeterSt]

But I wonder if anyone reads all that or understands even 10%. I really, really tried to enjoy your show. But then you did put in a 'magic' show-stopper

 

Haha. But that happens when only 10% can be understood. I mean, how I tried to pose things doesn't leave anything else for conclusion then "of course I am right". Mind you, this doesn't per se intend to tell you that I am right, but the further text can fairly easily be agreed upon and the challenging statement as such is in that context.

But of course, if you can understand 10% of the text only, then how to see the justification of the statement.

 

Claim : I just went outside and something was dripping from the sky and it was not the car washing of the neighbor.

 

And so I tell you it is raining.

 

This is a bit for fun now :

Without paying much attention it looks like I am a God and when I say it rains you must believe me just because I say it is so and I added some proof for it. But say it is common for you guys to read fast and without much detail, especially when the detail is in the devil. So what did I actually say ?

 

- At least not that my wife was or was not washing the car. But she can and maybe she did.

- My going outside is in the past. My telling you it is raining is in the present. So I did not provide proof already because of that.

- I told that something dripped from the sky, not from above as such. So I *am* telling you that it is raining and the remainder is unrelated data.

- Still that sentence is in the past, so what's up really.

- Birds shit from the sky, at least they can.

- Those over here at this moment will know I am lying because it is too cold to enable rain; snow maybe.

 

Now tell me how much you understood prior to my explanations. Or thought to understand.

 

Obviously deliberately I made my example claim as inconsistent as can be. In that other post though, I made it as consistent as as within my capabilities. However, since (I assume) you are American, this will never work because you tend to read (and observe - ahum) globally. Not discussion worthy as this has been talked about and through before. But take it from me it just is so (oops he does it again). Of course (!!!) this does not count for everybody and I am severely generalizing. But point really is (and now please trust me) : I do my best so the "claims" from the other posts become so consistent that it allows me to put out the words (say the higher level claim) as I did. And right at this moment this still counts, although - and I said it - you must maybe re-read because of my Dutch. But when read too globally, not paying all that much attention, then yes, what the heck is PeterSt saying and claiming and shouting.

 

Outside this, of course I can make mistakes. And I did. And in this case it is context related;

What I assume for myself is that the whole exercise of "DBT" in the first place, is about finding the BETTER situation - not whether there's a difference. From this most clearly should follow that this can't be done with 10 tracks of ten albums and if you think you do then I say it can't because I can't myself. Can't what ? find something for the WORSE. Please get that and please understand that it requires 100s of tracks to judge in order to find that - or all sound for the better, or all sounds equal with maybe a few only for the better, and that hopefully none of them sounds for the worse.

If this, the quest for the "is the change for the better really", should have been put as the context by me, and I did not think about that. This is how a complete post can be moot to begin with - or not understood if you want.

 

But then there's the goal of DBT which should be foremost (and I only put that out later, seeing the facts by means of Dennis who put some things forward) : finding out whether the change is for the better. And not whether there's a difference only, which btw also could be a goal (think your amplifiers sound the same when they measure maybe different). But this I'd call theoretical nonsense only to fill up forums (and traffic). So context again : let's be real (said that in my first post) and secondly but more importantly : now it is me who never will have the notice that DBT is being done for some fun. Instead it should always be about finding the better. But if I don't tell that explicitly, you guys seem into it for the fun of the discussion only.

 

Wow, what a lot of words in order to attempt to explain the obvious. Ehm, for me that is. But I thought I already put out 100 times more words than you guys would. I just can't with less, because *then* the inconsistencies could be found all over, if you'd want. I too would be able to sprout one liners and imply "I am the authority". But that's not me and now it requires to understand my poor English.

If I only could improve on that ...

[trithio]

He's involved with audio hardware and software on a professional level and is quite knowledgeable. He may not speak in the language you prefer, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned. Of course I cannot change how you wish to learn or how you evaluate what others say, but I would suggest there is actually knowledge to be gained if you choose to.

 

Got all that. Good knowledge is most of the time hidden and requires big efforts.

But sometimes it simply requires too much. My QED for that is posted by peter himself right above

[sdolezalek]

Somewhere earlier in the thread someone made the comment that not all auditory memory is "short term" using the example of a mothers/fathers/siblings/spouse/child's voice. Clearly we do retain enough memories of those voices that even after a few words over a poor phone connection we can recognize that voice. But ask us to describe why that voice is different from one that we recognize as not our mother etc., and we have a much harder time saying exactly why.

 

So if someone is in the audio business and, as such, is constantly listening to live music from all sorts of instruments, why couldn't that person form the same sort of memory about what a real violin, a guitar, a cymbal, a trumpet, etc. sounds like that persists as much as recognizing a mothers voice?

 

If you agree that is possible, then what Peter is in effect doing over a number of days is listening to all sorts of music and doing a mental check of how often he hears something that is "not right" when compared to his memory of the live instrument. At any given point, that might be the fault of the recording, not the playback, but, if after a number of days the number of "errors" is less than before it would seem that a legitimate improvement was made.

 

On the other side of the equation, if as you listen over those days, a particular recording keeps sounding "off," then you eliminate that recording from the test set. Again, over time, you begin to build the set of recordings that consistently sounds most like the real instrument.

 

Peter further acknowledges that a given tweak might, in an instantaneous ABX test set, make a violin sound better than before, but, until you have also heard that tweak's effect on the trumpet, the cymbal, the drums, etc. you don't really know if it was an overall improvement.

 

All of that makes intuitive sense to me. To prove that it cannot be so, I think you would have to show that we cannot ABX our family's voices against those of others and thus prove that there cannot be an extended memory of audio sounds.

[Daudio]

Haha... Wow, what a lot of words in order to attempt to explain the obvious.

 

I don't know why you waste your time and words here, swatting at flies

 

Your posts are one of the better resources of the CA forum, so your time and words are more valuable talking tech, like in the DDR3... thread. Choosing your battles wisely, and all that...

 

cheers,

[PeterSt]

One more, but please skip when you think I over-do it by now, because I myself think I am. See it in the spirit of progressing in audio though.

 

If you agree that is possible, then what Peter is in effect doing over a number of days is listening to all sorts of music and doing a mental check of how often he hears something that is "not right" when compared to his memory of the live instrument. At any given point, that might be the fault of the recording, not the playback, but, if after a number of days the number of "errors" is less than before it would seem that a legitimate improvement was made.

 

Well Yes. A bit of the procedure :

 

I just looked, and in 9 years of time I collected 527 albums with 1, 2 or maybe 3 tracks which I put to what we call a "Demo Gallery". Btw this out of 40K albums.

When a new round of "tweak" is to be observed, I am just listening to those tracks. Not in any particular sequence, although and as said, when the focus should be on better bass, I naturally start with those of which I know will show good bass in the first place. But bass is various and it will easily take me two days before I know enough and all about bass and assumed there's no rejection, a lot of the other stuff needs to be played. Like the cymbals and everything which didn't pass by automatically yet, which I obviously try to less pass on the proper selection of "bass tracks" anyway.

Meanwhile I am just playing music like you all would (hopefully). All as unconscious as possible, which for me is key.

 

Those Demo Tracks do not only contain the "good bass" but also the bad ones; the ones of which I can expect they might improve over time. So, if the bass in general improved, I am the most happy to try a few of the more bad ones also. And if that succeeds for the better, I really achieved something.

 

When 4 days have passed and all still survived it is time at the 5th day to let all loose and play music and don't focus on anything any more. But since this is still testing period, I might try to play albums which are really poor in everything, but which now can have improved. So these too are in that Demo Gallery. And you know, if all still survived with the initial goal of improving possibly only bass *and* that worked out, then you can bet that all improved. So there's a fair chance that I now find albums which suddenly completely work, while being super bad before. I think I told it in another thread recently - this can go by whole "genres" like those who have explicit harmonic more difficult content. I mentioned, Europe, Boston and more of that I liked when I was young. Not that I like to play this today, but once I find them not working ... they *have* to. Not today then next year. But once they work, easily 100s of albums suddenly work, which did not work before at all.

Meanwhile a next new change is not allowed to deteriorate those newly found, so the 5 days always become more tight when time progresses; more and more has to be checked and all is super fragile and it is easy to destroy.

 

Seems all crazy much work, but it is OK once it is your (listening) hobby in the mean time.

 

I can also tell you another most unconscious matter which in an hour or two becomes explicit automatically :

I also have a Gallery with "Nice Stuff". That too only consists of 476 albums at this moment. Say the albums I really like and almost exclusively for SQ reasons. Playing along with those, once in a while it can happen that I put a track from those to the Demo Gallery. Do notice that this is a bit psychological as well because I envision to play from Demo when someone comes over for auditioning and I look forward to that. Now :

You don't want to know how often it happened that I find myself putting all tracks in a row to Demo, knowing that this didn't happen before from that album. At a 3rd track I will stop because it doesn't make sense to put all to Demo. But next album that happens again. And again. *Then* I know ... I must have achieved something major.

For this too, more days are required. What if my mood was coincidentally so. What if all the washing machines were coincidentally off. What is it actually that all (all) suddenly sounds so good.

 

There is no way I see this happening with DBT's or more normal A-B means.