IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

DBT Is Flawed Because Bob Stuart Says So, Split from Topic ID #11442
2Bdecided
post Aug 6 2012, 11:22
Post #1


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5062
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



I don't think it's helpful criticising someone for not running proper DBTs of loudspeakers. As far as I know, only one or two members here have tried.

I know the loudspeaker comments were part of a longer post that had many other issues, but I don't think ABX-ing loudspeakers is a realistic thing to jump on.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
audioclaudio
post Aug 8 2012, 20:17
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 3-December 11
Member No.: 95560



The trouble with ABX testing is always the fact if you want it to be truly objective you have to collect a large enough number of subjective test results to start with, and then apply statistics in order to filter out the unwanted subjectiveness part. This is because every individual test result always has a significant chance of being highly inaccurate, so you need lots of people to participate if you want the final conclusions to be reliable ones.
Often, if not practically always, it is too time consuming and/or too uneconomical to conduct an ABX test properly, i.e. in such way that expectation bias doesn't creep in through the back door etcetera. Experts in auditory neuroscience and psychoacoustics have gathered experimental evidence which appears to indicate the following. Humans who remember different things are perfectly capable of hearing the same sounds differently as a result of remembering different things. For example, Bob Stuart of Meridian, who has a Ph.D in neuroscience, believes that it is perfectly possible for a person to not hear a specific detail in a piece of music when it is played back on one particular system "A", then to discover this specific detail by listening to the same music again on a better, more resolving system "B" next, and then, finally, to turn back to the previous system "A" and always hear this detail on system "A" even though the detail could previously not be heard on system "A". Moreover, Bob Stuart believes rapid switching between sounds can inevitably cause humans to perceive sound objects differently.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audioclaudio
post Aug 10 2012, 14:14
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 3-December 11
Member No.: 95560



QUOTE (dhromed @ Aug 10 2012, 10:57) *
QUOTE (audioclaudio @ Aug 8 2012, 21:17) *
Moreover, Bob Stuart believes rapid switching between sounds can inevitably cause humans to perceive sound objects differently.


I found the source for that. Haven't fully read it yet myself.

Yes, and the page before that. http://www.avguide.com/article/tas-194-mer...t-harley?page=1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Aug 11 2012, 01:26
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 2184
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (audioclaudio @ Aug 10 2012, 09:14) *
QUOTE (dhromed @ Aug 10 2012, 10:57) *
QUOTE (audioclaudio @ Aug 8 2012, 21:17) *
Moreover, Bob Stuart believes rapid switching between sounds can inevitably cause humans to perceive sound objects differently.


I found the source for that. Haven't fully read it yet myself.

Yes, and the page before that. http://www.avguide.com/article/tas-194-mer...t-harley?page=1



"What I think is outrageous is to say we understand everything about how the human hearing system works, "

Well, Bob, who is saying that, really?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Aug 11 2012, 09:58
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 3650
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (krabapple @ Aug 10 2012, 20:26) *
Bob Stuart believes rapid switching between sounds can inevitably cause humans to perceive sound objects differently.

Yes, and the page before that. http://www.avguide.com/article/tas-194-mer...t-harley?page=1


"What I think is outrageous is to say we understand everything about how the human hearing system works, "

Well, Bob, who is saying that, really?


Can we all say "Straw man argument" ;-)

The reference seems very confused or confusing;

QUOTE
"Robert: That brings to mind a conversation we had at CES about why blind listening tests may not be reliable. You said that when exposed to sound, our brain builds a model over time of whatís creating that sound. The rapid switching in blind testing doesnít allow that natural process to occur, and we get confused.

Bob: Thatís right. Perception happens on lots of different time scales.


Well, yes!

QUOTE
Thereís something called the conscious present, which is a period of time over which some of this integration into an object would happen.


No! Counscious(ness) is being aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc

(two big problems: First the correct form of the word was not used, and secondly consciousness acts over time where time is an independent parameter. Time is not consciousness itself.) These guys are obviously way over their head even entering this discussion!

If you were dropped into a concert hall, how long would it take you to really understand what it is youíre hearing? It can take several seconds, or even minutes, before youíre listening fully into the space.

QUOTE
Sometimes when youíre looking for a difference between A and B, you can hear it quickly. Other times the difference between A and B can come on a time scale of minutes or even longer where you find that youíve changed something and you donít notice a change but find that you have a very different connection to the music. But if you are doing quick switching that mechanism gets broken.


Major conflation! Small details in sound only remain in the brain for a very short period of time - the time scale is seconds at most. You may remember that you heard a small detail that you converted into a memory, but the actual sensation related to the small detail comes and goes almost instantly.


QUOTE
The problem with A/B switching, or blind listening tests,


Another major error involving conflation - blind tests and A/B switching are completely independent. You can do either independent of the other. Equating them again shows that the people talking are way out of their depth


QUOTE
is that it doesnít always eliminate things that we find to be important on a lot of time scales.


Hello! Aren't we talking about hearing small details and not eliminating the perception of them?

QUOTE
Obviously you can do blind listening on long time scales, and thatís good.


Actually, it has been found that listening on long time scales erases the reliable perception of small details. The most important use of long term listening is to search for short passages of music where the audible difference we are investigating is portrayed most clearly.h


All of the confusion I see above IME is greatly helped by true blind testing. Has either done more than diddle around with blind testing? I don't see it here!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
2 Pages V   1 2 >


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: 30th July 2014 - 19:25