Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

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

ReplayGain developer

Group: Developer
Posts: 5663
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.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
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
post Aug 13 2012, 18:00
Post #3

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 11380
Joined: 1-April 04
From: Northern California
Member No.: 13167

He has no argument.

He's simply regurgitating something said by someone else (in whom he has put his blind faith) who is trying to justify why people should buy his expensive technology without having to demonstrate tangible benefit in a scientifically acceptable fashion.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 13 2012, 18:03

Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Aug 13 2012, 18:36
Post #4

Group: Members
Posts: 131
Joined: 17-October 09
Member No.: 74078

QUOTE (greynol @ Aug 13 2012, 13:00) *
He has no argument.

I consider it a purely hypothetical argument that we get here every few months - IF there are some kind of tiny differences that are real and audible but somehow still manage to evade detection under ABX testing, then it follows that ABX is flawed.

Of course no one ever manages to provide any actual evidence whatsoever that such stealth differences exist and are audible.

So we are left with the supposition that they conceivably somehow might exist and are therefore EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

But personally I don't find purely hypothetical arguments particularly compelling.
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: 26th November 2015 - 16:14