IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Should HA promote a more rigorous listening test protocol?, was: "HA -- guilty as charged?" (TOS #6)
krabapple
post Nov 23 2012, 19:01
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 2318
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



I was taken aback to read today this exchange on gearslutz, from earlier this year

QUOTE ("Bob Ohlsson")
It's important to understand that what JJ considers a listening test and what the ABX/Hydogen Audio skeptics crowd considers a listening test are two very very different things.


QUOTE (Kees de Visser")
Perhaps JJ can explain what he considers a listening test and how it's different from the Hydrogenaudio standpoint.
I was somehow under the impression they were not that different.


QUOTE ("j_j")
Including positive and negative controls, lots of training for the test as well as familiarity with the equipment and music, and equiment validation are the biggies.

Test evaluation might be an issue, too. Many tests, including some of the MPEG tests and 1116 make assumptions that the entire population reacts the same to impairments. While basic masking is universal, what people dislike when they can hear something is NOT universal.



http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7672621-post329.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7674886-post337.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7677113-post348.html


Now, I agree with Kees -- I don't think the HA community 'take' on listening tests is that different from what JJ mentions. Few here, I suspect, would dismiss the real utility of training , or of positive controls, or familiarity etc., in making a listening test maximally sensitive. (as for the rest, I confess I;m not really clear whether JJ's criciticsm of test evaluation is directed at HA)

What I think is happening is a difference in what listening tests are used for. Most individual HA reports of ABX tests are from users wanting to know if file X sounds different from file Y to them, as they are now, using the equipment they have, not as they would be after training to hear artifacts, on the most revealing equipment. They aren't doing basic research into a difference's audibility, as JJ did, for example, when developing lossy codecs. For that purpose, trained listeners, positive & negative controls, familiarity and 'validated' equipment are necessities.

Still, HA *does* host mass listening tests from time to time -- which are more akin to 'basic research' -- and its few 'official' guidelines on setting up listening tests -- the HA wiki, and Pio's sticky threads -- make no mention of training, +/- controls, etc. as factors in such tests.

Time to change this?

This post has been edited by krabapple: Nov 23 2012, 19:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Woodinville
post Nov 25 2012, 09:20
Post #2





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



Ok, I'm a little confused here. How does what I said have anything to do with TOS 8 bashing? I'm asking for better tests, and yes, there should ALWAYS be positive and negative controls in a test, and no, they aren't that hard to add, and yes, you can add them in varying levels of positive control and get some very useful information. So you should. I'm standing absolutely firm on that position, because I see so many tests that I can't even evaluate the results coming to me in capacities as reviewer or editor, tests that have no way to relate them to other sets of results in any fashion. (no, I don't mean you should combine results)

As to evaluating for multiple axis, that's only for tests that do more than "can you detect" testing, obviously. I am known to be a very serious unfan of the "impaired signal multiple choice" tests people are using these days. (I am avoiding the name of the popular test, I've been accused of stealing a trademark once when I mentioned the name of this test in a critical fashion.) One of the big failures of that kind of testing is the forced ranking. Such tests assume that relative rankings are transitive. We all know better.

I am frankly surprised at the apparent offense taken to what I said. I'm simply describing standard practice.

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Nov 25 2012, 09:22


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 25 2012, 17:31
Post #3





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10022
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 25 2012, 00:20) *
How does what I said have anything to do with TOS 8 bashing

My reply may sound defensive, but I don't care. Please show me where I called any particular individual out on bashing TOS8. You can't because I didn't. If I didn't make myself clear enough earlier, I don't want this thread to attract yet another set of placebophile trolls to railroad the discussion into another referendum on TOS8. I could link discussions and name names if you want, but I don't see the point; except to demonstrate that you and Kees do not provide cause for concern.

QUOTE
I am frankly surprised at the apparent offense taken to what I said. I'm simply describing standard practice.

I agree with you on principle, but I am frankly surprised you haven't taken the opportunity to talk about it here; rather you seem to only talk about it in forums which either don't require objective evidence or worse, forums where this criteria is rejected and even shunned by a sizable portion of it's more vocal and respected members.

Hopefully this thread will prove me wrong, assuming that I'm not wrong already, though I've closely followed this forum and your contributions in particular for many years now.

This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 25 2012, 17:37


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- krabapple   Should HA promote a more rigorous listening test protocol?   Nov 23 2012, 19:01
- - saratoga   Lots of the personal listening tests are by people...   Nov 23 2012, 19:16
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (saratoga @ Nov 23 2012, 13:16) Lot...   Nov 24 2012, 04:10
- - greynol   Pio's post does make mention of relegating ABX...   Nov 23 2012, 19:24
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 23 2012, 13:24) Pio...   Nov 24 2012, 04:02
- - Canar   With all due respect to Mr. J., while his criticis...   Nov 23 2012, 23:16
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Canar @ Nov 23 2012, 17:16) With a...   Nov 24 2012, 04:09
|- - greynol   QUOTE (krabapple @ Nov 23 2012, 19:09) Wo...   Nov 24 2012, 17:36
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 24 2012, 11:36) QUOT...   Nov 25 2012, 16:34
|- - greynol   QUOTE (krabapple @ Nov 25 2012, 07:34) QU...   Nov 25 2012, 18:17
- - Canar   Honestly, I think our procedure is fine, given wha...   Nov 24 2012, 04:39
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Canar @ Nov 23 2012, 22:39) Honest...   Nov 24 2012, 14:07
- - greynol   My concern about people coming here to argue that ...   Nov 24 2012, 05:00
- - Axon   There's a tradeoff going on here. One the one...   Nov 25 2012, 08:04
- - Woodinville   Ok, I'm a little confused here. How does what ...   Nov 25 2012, 09:20
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 25 2012, 00:20) ...   Nov 25 2012, 17:31
- - Porcus   I agree with Axon, if that is what is being discus...   Nov 26 2012, 08:25
- - 2Bdecided   Do that many tests meet BS.1116? It's a long t...   Nov 26 2012, 13:58
- - dhromed   I am frankly surprised that there is no sticky at ...   Nov 26 2012, 14:22
- - IgorC   Great. A lot of problem statements. Now people can...   Nov 26 2012, 18:14
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 26 2012, 09:14) Sorry,...   Nov 27 2012, 02:27
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 26 2012, 20:27) ...   Nov 27 2012, 15:31
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 26 2012, 22:27) ...   Nov 27 2012, 17:43
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 27 2012, 17:43) You ju...   Nov 27 2012, 18:12
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Porcus @ Nov 27 2012, 09:12) Also,...   Nov 27 2012, 23:05
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (Porcus @ Nov 27 2012, 14:12) If an...   Nov 28 2012, 02:12
- - greynol   Krabapple, the author of this discussion, did in f...   Nov 26 2012, 18:30
- - Canar   With the talk about "including positive and n...   Nov 26 2012, 18:38
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Canar @ Nov 26 2012, 09:38) With t...   Nov 27 2012, 02:32
|- - Dynamic   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 27 2012, 01:32) ...   Nov 27 2012, 15:05
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Dynamic @ Nov 27 2012, 09:05) I th...   Nov 27 2012, 15:40
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Dynamic @ Nov 27 2012, 06:05) We u...   Nov 27 2012, 23:03
- - Canar   There's a concept that might be useful: ...   Nov 27 2012, 20:21
- - IgorC   Let's suppose two separate tests and 3 codecs:...   Nov 28 2012, 01:17
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 27 2012, 16:17) Let...   Nov 28 2012, 04:03
- - IgorC   Indeed it's a different one. I took just one ...   Nov 28 2012, 05:00
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 27 2012, 20:00) Do You...   Nov 28 2012, 06:40
- - IgorC   Got it. The idea of positive and negative control...   Nov 28 2012, 08:03
- - greynol   Not really JJ's technique, but that which is c...   Nov 28 2012, 08:15
- - 2Bdecided   I agree that using controls is necessary in a prop...   Nov 28 2012, 12:05
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 28 2012, 08:05) e....   Nov 28 2012, 17:41
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 28 2012, 08:41) QUOTE ...   Nov 28 2012, 18:35
- - Dynamic   Good point, David. I guess a rough and ready pre-...   Nov 28 2012, 15:54
- - greynol   If the contenders are statistically tied, changing...   Nov 28 2012, 16:51
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 28 2012, 07:51) If t...   Nov 28 2012, 18:32
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 28 2012, 09:32) ...   Nov 28 2012, 19:00
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 28 2012, 10:00) QUOT...   Nov 28 2012, 19:15
- - Dynamic   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 28 2012, 15:51) If t...   Nov 28 2012, 20:08
- - IgorC   QUOTE (Dynamic @ Nov 28 2012, 16:08) My p...   Nov 29 2012, 01:04


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: 20th October 2014 - 14:30