Blue or red pill?

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes, whether conscious of them or not, the same tells if they existed would have been in operation during the previous ABXXXXXXX tests. If present they would have told you the correct responses. Since you failed the ABXXXXXXX tests there could not have been any tells and therefore none carried forward into the successful ABX trials.

I think you are being obtuse about the problem of audio memory and the element of learning. I don’t think any reliable conclusion can be drawn from the ABxxxxx. (If they can then the results should be aggregated)

 

On a separate note there is a material difference between saying 

- repetition would strengthen; and 

- without repetition, the result is at most a curiosity.

 

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

I think you are being obtuse about the problem of audio memory and the element of learning. I don’t think any reliable conclusion can be drawn from the ABxxxxx. (If they can then the results should be aggregated)

 

What a load of tosh.

 

We have:

 

1. from the 1st ABXXXXXXXXXX, that there is no evidence of any 'tells'

2. from the 2nd ABXXXXXXXXXX, that there is no evidence of any 'tells'

 

We can conclude:

 

3. if you believe that some 'tells' magically appeared in the subsequent 10 ABXs (conducted literally minutes later), that you believe in magic

 

Mani.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, adamdea said:

I think you are being obtuse about the problem of audio memory and the element of learning. I don’t think any reliable conclusion can be drawn from the ABxxxxx. (If they can then the results should be aggregated)

 

On a separate note there is a material difference between saying 

- repetition would strengthen; and 

- without repetition, the result is at most a curiosity.

 

 

13 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

What a load of tosh.

 

 

 Yep, tosh seems about right. Sorry, that obtuse. Just plain total tosh !

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Yes, whether conscious of them or not, the same tells if they existed would have been in operation during the previous ABXXXXXXX tests. If present they would have told you the correct responses. Since you failed the ABXXXXXXX tests there could not have been any tells and therefore none carried forward into the successful ABX trials.

The same argument works against there being any actual audible difference in the sound too.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

45 minutes ago, mansr said:

The same argument works against there being any actual audible difference in the sound too.

 

Not as I see it. It only argues against "tells" being carried forward. If there were "tells" Mani would have passed the ABXXXXXXX trials. One thing that links the two test methods as being alike is the potential for click based "tells" ie being the same in both instances. Its like saying maybe room temperature or lighting cued Mani to know the results. However these variables, like the clicks, were held constant between the two tests so in that way the tests were not dissimilar but alike. Something else other than room temperature or lighting or clicks differentiated between the tests. ABXXXXXX is fundamentally a different test methodology to ABX ABX ABX. Occam's Razor suggests this fundamental difference explains the difference test outcomes if all other things are held constant.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The same argument works against there being any actual audible difference in the sound too.

 

Back to clutching at straws.

 

The two test protocols were different wrt identifying X correctly:

 

On 27/03/2018 at 9:47 PM, manisandher said:

This is what we did first:

 

A, B, X, X, X, X, X, X, X, X, X, X

 

I found this pretty much impossible. When listening to an X, all I had as a reference was the previous X. One or two Xs in, I was totally lost. Before the scoring I was well aware that most of my responses were guesses.

 

What we then did was:

 

A, B, X

A, B, X

A, B, X

...

A, B, X

 

I was much more relaxed and confident in this test than previously.

 

But the protocols were identical wrt the influence of any potential 'tells'.

 

There were clearly no tells present during the first protocol... and they didn't magically appear before the second.

 

Mani.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, manisandher said:

There were clearly no tells present during the first protocol... and they didn't magically appear before the second.

 

 

Yes , exactly

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Back to clutching at straws.

I didn't say it was a good argument.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I didn't say it was a good argument.

Funny!

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

I didn't say it was a good argument.

 

You've got to differentiate between those things that were consistent between the two protocols, and those that were different:

 

- any potential tells would have been consistent

- identifying X correctly was different (for the reasons I cited)

 

Mani.

[Sonicularity]

2 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

You've got to differentiate between those things that were consistent between the two protocols, and those that were different:

 

- any potential tells would have been consistent

- identifying X correctly was different (for the reasons I cited)

 

Mani.

 

In the two ABXXXXXXXXXX tests, your 1st response was incorrect on both tests.  This should have been identical to the ABX test methodology, yet your response was incorrect both times.  Not sure what the significance might be, but it does seem a bit odd for someone to be able to get 9/10 correct when facing the exact same scenario.

 

If we exclude the fist test in both of the ABXXXXXXXXXX runs, every time that your response was correct when B was the actual, you were 3/3 when the next actual sample played was A.   First test 3 to 4 and 9 to 10, second test 3 to 4.   In all 3 of these situations, you correctly assumed to be listening to B and then identified A when it was played next.   You got this right whenever this occurred, with the odd exception of the very first tests, as mentioned in my first paragraph.

 

It was interesting to me, but further investigation would require additional testing.  

 

I'm not assuming anything about what may have been the cause of the difference in sound, I'm only looking at the test itself and looking for trends or anomalies.  There really isn't enough data available to rationally conclude anything from the results, but I believe you were hearing a difference.  When I mention a tell or cue, I don't know what it might be.  It could very well be something heard in the music itself, as you strongly believe.  

[adamdea]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

The same argument works against there being any actual audible difference in the sound too.

I think the argument depends on not thinking about the difference between ABxxxx and ABx, but it's difficult to say because it isn't an argument it's just a repeated assertion. If it could be dignified as an argument there would be a hidden premise about the nature of the tell. I keep referring to audio memory and can't understand why anyone would want to assert that comparing x with a now forgotten A and B would be the same as comparing it with a non forgotten B, but there we have it. At some point you have made your point and leave it.

[adamdea]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Not as I see it. It only argues against "tells" being carried forward. If there were "tells" Mani would have passed the ABXXXXXXX trials. One thing that links the two test methods as being alike is the potential for click based "tells" ie being the same in both instances. Its like saying maybe room temperature or lighting cued Mani to know the results. However these variables, like the clicks, were held constant between the two tests so in that way the tests were not dissimilar but alike. Something else other than room temperature or lighting or clicks differentiated between the tests. ABXXXXXX is fundamentally a different test methodology to ABX ABX ABX. Occam's Razor suggests this fundamental difference explains the difference test outcomes if all other things are held constant.

Occam's razor has nothing to with it because the issue is not about why Abx was different from ABxxxx but what caused ABx,. The essentiae are not being multiplicandae in aid of explaining why Abx was different from ABxxxx. The latter is easily explained by audio memory.

ABx involves a different comparison.

[mansr]

22 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Occam's razor

can never prove anything.

[Ralf11]

I prefer to shave with this:

 

 

[Ralf11]

later transmogrified into this:

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

I hope you guys will focus on the mechanism for whatever you may have found at whatever likelihood of significance...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

can never prove anything.

 

I agree, exactly so, and it is not about proof.

Occam's razor in this case is an apt principle to consider where multiple and even far fetched explanations are offered.

At any rate, simple logic dictates that Mani is correct in his deduction that "tells" were not carried forward from the ABXXXXX trials to the ABX trials. They remained consistent in their potential influence=constant=controlled variable.

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I hope you guys will focus on the mechanism for whatever you may have found at whatever likelihood of significance...

 

Pretty obvious, which it makes it remarkable that there is so much thrashing around, in the conversation regarding the possibilities with the hearing. In audio reproduction there is one large circuit producing the sound, usually separated in separate boxes - one could have the audio server, media player, DAC, amplifier all in one box, and then people would say, of course it's obvious that there could be interference effects disturbing the sound audibly. But put everything in separate boxes, and suddenly a great miracle occurs - there is now infinite separation between the various parts, they are all pure, Black Boxes. So, so nice for the objectivists ...

 

I've found the hardest thing is to completely separate areas of functionality, so that in fact they are truly robust in the face of other electrical activity - this is the chasm that has to be crossed to secure competent sound, always. What the precise mechanism is, is vastly less interesting than resolving the linkage - a fully sorted rig should always sound identical, irrespective of what the media player is, and its settings - that's the real goal, if there is to be long term sanity in all this.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, adamdea said:

the issue is not about why Abx was different from ABxxxx but what caused ABx,.

 

 

You miss the point. The specific context was about excluding clicking "tells" and which should have been equally apparent in both test methodologies.

 

Quote

The essentiae are not being multiplicandae

 

nimium te loqui, in linguam Latinam

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You miss the point. The specific context was about excluding clicking "tells" and which should have been equally apparent in both test methodologies.

 

snip...........

I am not so sure that would be the case by default.  Just as one method of switching allowed mani to hear a difference it also could have allowed a tell to come thru where it wouldn't with the ABXXXXXX methodology.  If you insist tells are equally apparent in both methodologies you might be in a position to be consistent in saying sound differences had to be equally apparent as well.  We have good evidence the latter is not the case. 

 

Anytime tells come up people seem to get the wrong idea.  It isn't about 'cheating', people aren't always conscious they are reacting to a tell instead of the stimulus, our minds are booth easily fooled and incredibly ingenious.  That is part and parcel of the whole Clever Hans story. 

 

I'll say the procedure described makes a tell being the driver of the result of the ABX portion difficult to grasp a way such a tell occurred, but then unintended tells are always like that. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

I am not so sure that would be the case by default.  Just as one method of switching allowed mani to hear a difference it also could have allowed a tell to come thru where it wouldn't with the ABXXXXXX methodology.  If you insist tells are equally apparent in both methodologies you might be in a position to be consistent in saying sound differences had to be equally apparent as well.  We have good evidence the latter is not the case. 

 

Dennis, I don't think it presents a problem.The switching tells (or lack of) and  hearing sound differences can be viewed separately. One is a potential confounder to the outcome and the other is the outcome. There is a logical explanation why the sound differences might be more apparent with one switching *methodology* but the actual switching mechanism itself remained constant and controlled.Sure the sequence of switching changed but a "click" for A and a "clack" for B (or whatever the tell might be) was consistent throughout.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Dennis, I don't think it presents a problem.The switching tells (or lack of) and  hearing sound differences can be viewed separately. One is a potential confounder to the outcome and the other is the outcome. There is a logical explanation why the sound differences might be more apparent with one switching *methodology* but the actual switching mechanism itself remained constant and controlled.Sure the sequence of switching changed but a "click" for A and a "clack" for B (or whatever the tell might be) was consistent throughout.

Your idea of what might constitute a tell is far too constrained.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Your idea of what might constitute a tell is far too constrained.

 

Do "tell".

[fas42]

Still doodling with the 9 and 10 waveforms - all manual, I'll leave it to Paul to get a "proper" mechanism to fire up, - upsampled to 18 Meg, to make it easy to adjust alignment, and just looking at above 5kHz audio ... starting to look interesting - there's a spike in the spectrum at about 13k in the diff; and getting some single cycles in the diff waveform peaking very significantly at points where there is nothing particular in the original, at those high frequencies. Confirmed that I'm looking at something real, by slipping one sample on 10, and looking at what that produces when diff'ing.

 

Is this just pure noise, random artifacts from the ADC imperfections? Need to peruse further ...