IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/decision, enjoyment, and so on, Split from “xiphmont—‘There is no point to 24/192’”/TID:93853 (TOS #5)
icstm
post Mar 23 2012, 12:44
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



QUOTE (drewfx @ Mar 22 2012, 17:05) *
If you're driving down the street you might not consciously notice a red car with the windows rolled down parked on the left (along with a lot of other stuff), but that doesn't mean you couldn't see it if you were looking for it.
but what if their door opened and without realising you took corrective action. So not only did your brain register the car (your example) but your brain also took some action (my addition). Then this would be interesting. And I am pretty sure this happens, as there have been many times when drivers get someone and cannot remember exactly how they did.
QUOTE (drewfx @ Mar 22 2012, 17:05) *
Or are we discussing a theoretical possibility that such things could possibly exist and thus should be tested for?
Theoretical in this space possibly, but we have examples, like the one above which show the brain can do exactly this.

@greynol does this show that there is a chance for the spaghetti monster here?
Maybe I am misunderstanding the conditions of an ABX test, but as I said in the OP or early on, there are definite states of mind in which we take certain inputs and get different ouputs. After all we are a Mealy machine of sorts. So unless you are saying that doing an ABX test and just listening for enjoyment are one and the same state (which Arnold was suggesting can almost happen) then you can get different outcomes.

And I saying that we DO get different outcomes? Do I believe that this is likely? - No, but I have to admit it would NOT surprise me if it was shown that there was something that we hadn’t yet considered.


Remember again either from my OP or near the top, I am interested in a conscious outcome. It is no good that an unconscious input leads to no changes in our conscious awareness (ie we swerve the car and even in retrospect do not realise we did so) we are only interested when we are changed in our consciousness. I am comfortable that ABX can test of overt changes in consciousness, however there are 2nd order changes in consciousness that a) it is harder to pin point what caused the change and b) we be hard to replicate

Now with ABX, it actually circumvents the problem with (a), but does not address (b). So in my initial example around “happiness” forcing someone to be happy is rather difficult.

However I now seem to have done full circle in re-articulating why I think this is worthwhile and in the process only Arnold has provided an example of how when he felt he could make that 2nd order call.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Mar 23 2012, 12:51
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



@greynol
There was a post in that old thred you pointed to that says:

QUOTE
The point of double-blind testing is to make sure that you're getting goosebumps over something you actually hear, and not something you expect to hear. The whole point is to try to evaluate what you're hearing without knowing whether it's the original or the lossy encode. That shouldn't remove the "emotional" part of it, just make sure that you're reacting based upon something that is really there, and not what you want to hear or what you expect to hear.

The problem is that if I am expecting to be shocked / amazed / surprised I actually end up less shocked / amazed / surprised.
I want to be able to measure how much someone enjoyed the music experience without them knowing beforehand that they are going to be doing this analysis, as knowing that they are going to analyse changes what their objective whilst listening to the music
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Mar 23 2012, 17:13
Post #53





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Are we expected to believe the more consciously attentive driver would not have spotted the car with the open door?

Anyway, if you think that a test of the unconscious mind will show that it influences how the conscious mind responds to differences in stimulus that the conscious mind cannot detect on its own, devise a test and have at it. Unlike you, I would be surprised if such a test was anything other than a waste of time.

This post has been edited by greynol: Mar 23 2012, 17:37


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Mar 23 2012, 17:29
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Could a signal just above the hearing threshold cause temporary 'dull hearing' (presumably, most noticeable one octave lower)?



Oh, by the way, <derail>
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-W5H-fLcy...al-illusion.jpg
</derail>


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
drewfx
post Mar 23 2012, 21:10
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 17-October 09
Member No.: 74078



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Mar 22 2012, 18:12) *
I'd like to see Drewfx answer the following question, which I think needs to be answered before his.

How do you reliably know that you unconsciously perceive something that you are not conscious of during the test, and possibly never conscious of?

In an attempt to have some fun last night, I was a bit flippant in my "I don't know and I don't care" response.

Upon reflection, it occurred to me that the difficulty in easily answering this question tends to show that there's no known evidence of such things - if any test had been done that produced credible evidence, just explaining that test's methodology would be the answer here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Mar 26 2012, 14:42
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



I agree, but nor have I seen evidence for any tests.
I would happy just to know that the tests have been done and there is nothing to report.
I am not saying that it is not unlikely that the brain does not provide a different response in ANY way to a signal higher than 16/44. However, a) there is no theorem that shows that there is nothing in the brain that CANNOT respond to signals better than 16/44 and b) nor is there empirical evidence that the whole brain cannot respond (only, and I use the word only loosely, that we do not respond consciously when consciously looking, as shown through DBT ABX tests).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Mar 26 2012, 15:01
Post #57





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Should I start binning appeals to the flying spaghetti monster?


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Mar 27 2012, 10:41
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



but we have satellites and telescopes that would have shown some proof of flying spaghetti monsters by now.
We also have EEG/fMRI and other scans that could show a difference.
Actually I wish I have thought of that 6 months ago - a friend had some time with a fMRI for some research he was doing nearly every day for about 6 weeks - I am sure we could have run some tests then.

What I have now decided is that even though I am only interested in some conscious state change, given that DBT/ABX shows that no consciously perceptible change results in a conscious state change, then if we can show that there is no change in unconscious response to those samples, there can be no conscious stage change due to unconscious responses.

What techniques were used to design perceptual encoders?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Mar 27 2012, 14:06
Post #59





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 27 2012, 05:41) *
We also have EEG/fMRI and other scans that could show a difference.


Given the noise, possible claustrophobia, and reported direct stimulation of nerves by MRI machines, I don't see how it would be a good tool for measuring subliminal sound effects below the threshold that ABX could.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Mar 27 2012, 14:14
Post #60


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



This "subconscious perception" is a red herring icstm. Audiophiles regularly claim to hear night-and-day differences in sighted A/B listening tests, that vanish under the scrutiny of a properly controlled double blind test.

To then fall back on "subconscious perception" is to look in an entirely different place. The strong conscious belief was either due to conscious perception, or placebo. Where sighted test = difference heard, and otherwise identical but double-blind test = no difference heard, we know what was heard in the first test. We don't need to look any further.

If "subconscious perception" sold audiophile equipment, then I guess there would be genuine interest in it (real or not). But when placebo sells it so much better, there's no need wink.gif

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
googlebot
post Mar 27 2012, 19:19
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 698
Joined: 6-March 10
Member No.: 78779



That placebo can cause a significant effect on the human body could be shown in clinical trials. Subjects believing to receive active agents reacted differently from subjects knowingly receiving placebos.

I wouldn't wonder, when the belief of what kind audio source you are listening to can alter your perception measurably (medical variables) vs. a double-blind test. So these people aren't necessarily hopeless fools, they are just reporting what they are genuinely perceiving.

PS:

I also wouldn't wonder, when a music lover listening to his/her hand-selected high-end system, is able to reach higher levels of musical enjoyment and satisfaction than an objectivist with an ABX-proven conviction, that said system is not distinguishable from his onboard-codec, feeding his China made, plastic-enclosed D-AMP.

I do not claim that the latter is necessary.

This post has been edited by googlebot: Mar 27 2012, 19:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Mar 27 2012, 19:29
Post #62





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (googlebot @ Mar 27 2012, 11:19) *
So these people aren't necessarily hopeless fools, they are just reporting what they are genuinely perceiving.

I don't know that any of the regular participants in these types of discussions disagree with you on this. I certainly don't.

QUOTE (googlebot @ Mar 27 2012, 11:19) *
I also wouldn't wonder, when a music lover listening to his/her hand-selected high-end system, is able to reach higher levels of musical enjoyment and satisfaction than an objectivist with an ABX-proven conviction, that said system is not distinguishable from his onboard-codec, feeding his China made, plastic T-AMP.

...and I wouldn't wonder if some objectivist is able to reach higher levels of enjoyment than some audiophile with high-end equipment. I still wouldn't wonder even when the audiophile is focusing on the actual music rather than his high-end gear.

FWIW, I was getting chills listening to some new music in mp3 format on my crappy PC speakers. I would gladly put my level of enjoyment during that session up against anyone with a high-end system.

Hopefully my testimonial illustrates the uselessness of this type of subjective argumentation.

This post has been edited by greynol: Mar 27 2012, 19:40


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Mar 27 2012, 19:44
Post #63





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 27 2012, 02:41) *
but we have satellites and telescopes that would have shown some proof of flying spaghetti monsters by now.

I hope I am not the only one who sees the irony in this.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
googlebot
post Mar 27 2012, 20:03
Post #64





Group: Members
Posts: 698
Joined: 6-March 10
Member No.: 78779



I have stopped arguing with audiophiles in my social network, when I

  1. realized that it's hopeless
  2. realized that they really had superbly sounding systems most of the time - I guess mainly by good speakers and manual room tuning (and lots of invested time).


None of them got there by double-blind testing, but by spending a fortune on ordering stuff (that they had read about in very subjective reviews) and actually extensively testing it in their houses.

None of my friends, who are believing - as I mostly do - that AAC should be enough for everybody, own a system of comparable playback quality. Probably because they just do not share this fetish or mental condition to feel the constant urge to project something into their audio equipment. But if I just compare the results empirically, by means of overall system playback quality, the "subjectivists" frequently win by far.

That they still often rather deserve our pity than indignation, because they are pursuing what money and playback technology can't buy, is another story... smile.gif

Just my 2 cents. I'm somewhat getting tired of those "lets make fun of another fool who doesn't believe in double blind testing"-threads (not this one).

This post has been edited by googlebot: Mar 27 2012, 20:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Mar 27 2012, 20:21
Post #65





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (googlebot @ Mar 27 2012, 12:03) *
None of them got there by double-blind testing, but by spending a fortune on ordering stuff (that they had read about in very subjective reviews) and actually extensively testing it in their houses.

Which doesn't address the other perhaps more crucial part of the problem: the limitations in the human auditory system and its certain deterioration with age.

QUOTE (googlebot @ Mar 27 2012, 12:03) *
None of my friends, who are believing - as I mostly do - that AAC should be enough for everybody, own a system of comparable playback quality. Probably because they just do not share this fetish or mental condition to feel the constant urge to project something into their audio equipment.

They are probably not inclined to train themselves to identify artifacts resulting from lossy encoding either. wink.gif

QUOTE (googlebot @ Mar 27 2012, 12:03) *
I'm somewhat getting tired of those "lets make fun of another fool who doesn't believe in double blind testing"-threads (not this one).

Obviously not this one. For me this one is about the lengths people will go bending over backwards grasping at straws in order to deny that what they're experiencing is placebo effect, plain and simple.

This post has been edited by greynol: Mar 27 2012, 20:31


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Mar 27 2012, 23:28
Post #66





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



A blog I wrote on the psychology behind this issue is up at audioskeptic.blogspot.com

It wasn't intended for this audience, so it's very, very gentle on the science, but it none the less makes the point.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Mar 28 2012, 02:30
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



QUOTE (googlebot @ Mar 27 2012, 12:03) *
Just my 2 cents. I'm somewhat getting tired of those "lets make fun of another fool who doesn't believe in double blind testing"-threads (not this one).


Same here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Mar 28 2012, 09:39
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (greynol @ Mar 27 2012, 19:29) *
Hopefully my testimonial illustrates the uselessness of this type of subjective argumentation.


Just my two eurocents: I completely agree, and since long I've made up my mind about this matter: through listening, both objectivists and subjectivists may reach a kind of superior enjoiment of which the musical content is only part of the whole. Good for them everytime they can, here at HA we are (should be?) only strictly concerned about musical reproduction as a matter of fact, not about other tricks one might use to better enjoy his/her life, though... wink.gif

This post has been edited by Nessuno: Mar 28 2012, 09:40


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Mar 28 2012, 10:15
Post #69





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ Mar 27 2012, 20:29) *
I was getting chills listening to some new music in mp3 format on my crappy PC speakers. I would gladly put my level of enjoyment during that session up against anyone with a high-end system.


What about those of us who are happily attending concerts mixed in almost mono by some old fart 'sound engineer' who first turned semi-deaf when he saw The Who, played too loud for the room, filtered through highly nonlinear earplugs, and to cap it all we are sharing the event with lots of drunk idiots who will be shouting during quiet parts and otherwise trying to include you in their goddamn moshpit?

... and we even pay more for the tickets than for the CD.

This post has been edited by Porcus: Mar 28 2012, 10:18


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Mar 28 2012, 11:06
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



QUOTE (DonP @ Mar 27 2012, 13:06) *
QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 27 2012, 05:41) *
We also have EEG/fMRI and other scans that could show a difference.


Given the noise, possible claustrophobia, and reported direct stimulation of nerves by MRI machines, I don't see how it would be a good tool for measuring subliminal sound effects below the threshold that ABX could.

I completely agree that this is a likely limitation and posted as such some posts earlier. However I still think it shows that there are tools at our disposal.

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Mar 27 2012, 13:14) *
To then fall back on "subconscious perception" is to look in an entirely different place. The strong conscious belief was either due to conscious perception, or placebo. Where sighted test = difference heard, and otherwise identical but double-blind test = no difference heard, we know what was heard in the first test. We don't need to look any further.

I agree that the group you refer to have not offered up any meaningful information to support their case. In fact I think we have concluded that to date this is no (or almost no) evidence that supports their case that this forum has come across.

QUOTE (greynol @ Mar 27 2012, 18:44) *
QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 27 2012, 02:41) *
but we have satellites and telescopes that would have shown some proof of flying spaghetti monsters by now.

I hope I am not the only one who sees the irony in this.
only if you beleive that we have trained our equipment to look in the right places.

Look I am not a biologist, but an engineer by training, so like block diagrams...

1. Real world inputs
|
|
V

2. Transducers on our sensors (eyes, ears, etc)
|
|
V

3. Central nervous processing
|
|
V

4. Brain processing
|
|
V

{5a. low order Conscious decisioning and control (unrelated example – choosing the order of words to type)
& 5b. unconscious decisioning and control (unrelated example – typing words you know how to type and spell already)}
|
|
V

6. Conscious decisioning, feedback
|
|
V

7. emotional states


Maybe this picture is wrong which is why I am at odds with people in this thread.
So I am happy to be corrected, however if it is right then what I am suggesting is that:

A) Waveform analysis can compare different signals (to decide if there are variations in (1) [answer there can be]
B) ABX checks for differences in 5a
C) Depending on what you want to do in (6) your final state in (7) may be different

We have not tested 5b and if 5b can impact 7 (or indeed (6)) then this is an omission that should be observed, even if we believe it to be insignificant.
I am not saying that I think it is significant and that only greynol at al. think otherwise, I am truly saying that I do not think it will radically change our view of these other music formats, however it will surely improve our understanding all 7 stages of the end to end process.

This post has been edited by icstm: Mar 28 2012, 11:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
knutinh
post Mar 28 2012, 11:33
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 37047



If it cannot be registered, cannot make reliable predictions and in no other way seems to affect man kind, then it may not matter much, and

If e.g. prescence of energy above 20kHz affect our sub-concious state, but not our conscious state, I would think that an experiment can be done where one or several audiophiles receive a playback system that will remove HF for long periods of time, then re-introduce it. One could try to estimate the emotional state of the listeners by direct questioning ("are you happy today? More than last week"), and/or by indirect indicators such as amount of sleep. This would make it a (more) purely psychological experiment, and perhaps more competence could be found in such societies.

I don't think that such an experiment would show anything besides noise, and I prefer to spend my lifetime doing things that I believe is worthwhile. If true "happiness" is what we aim for, investigating the emotional impact of different shape and colors of your loudspeakers, the use of alcohol, how to maintain good social relations etc might be more rewarding.

-k

This post has been edited by knutinh: Mar 28 2012, 11:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Mar 28 2012, 20:39
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 28 2012, 03:06) *
[We have not tested 5b and if 5b can impact 7 (or indeed (6)) then this is an omission that should be observed, even if we believe it to be insignificant.
I am not saying that I think it is significant and that only greynol at al. think otherwise, I am truly saying that I do not think it will radically change our view of these other music formats, however it will surely improve our understanding all 7 stages of the end to end process.


My goodness, please see audioskeptic.blogspot.com

What you are missing is what can,and what can not, be detected at all on the auditory periphery.

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Mar 28 2012, 20:41


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Mar 29 2012, 10:15
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Mar 28 2012, 19:39) *
What you are missing is what can,and what can not, be detected at all on the auditory periphery.
yes I that is exactly right, I am not clear what the response curves are on the auditory periphery. How have we measured this? And by measured, I do not mean asked subjects, I mean where have we done the equivilent of sticking a probe just past the transducer.

Nice set of posts btw, just taken a look.

This post has been edited by icstm: Mar 29 2012, 10:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Mar 29 2012, 11:10
Post #74


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 29 2012, 09:15) *
I mean where have we done the equivilent of sticking a probe just past the transducer.
I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.

I know about the experiments on live cats (there's plenty of published data), but I'd never even dreamt the idea that someone would do it to a human.

It's been done on cadavers, but a lot of the sensitivity (and all of the adaptability) of the ear dies with its owner.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Mar 29 2012, 11:55
Post #75





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Mar 29 2012, 10:10) *
QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 29 2012, 09:15) *
I mean where have we done the equivilent of sticking a probe just past the transducer.
I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.

Did you mean to type that, or was that something between a Freudian slip or your NLP preference?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th July 2014 - 22:07