Now is the hearing upper limint of human hearing completely independent of waveform, or is it not?
It appears that humanity, so far, have been unable to show audible differences between the CD format and the DVD-A/SACD formant, a prominent difference between the two is that the latter allows extension far beyond the 20kHz or so of CD.
Quote from: knutinh on 18 June, 2013, 08:01:57 AMIt appears that humanity, so far, have been unable to show audible differences between the CD format and the DVD-A/SACD formant, a prominent difference between the two is that the latter allows extension far beyond the 20kHz or so of CD..... indicating that the CD format is “more than good enough”, but not what would be “precisely good enough”.
ly. In principle, one could play a pristine recording, and that same recording to which very low levels of a very irritating form of audio distortion had been added, while monitoring a specific physiological attribute. With a sufficiently large N, and with the right attribute, one might find significant differences in physiological response to the pristine and non-pristine versions, even if the subjects subsequently failed to distinguish them based on ABX testing.
If it is found that subjects indeed fail to reliably distinguish colors when presented sequentially that they can reliably distinguish when presented simultaneously, this will suggest that sequential ABX testing may not be a good method for assessing our perceptual limits (i.e., for determining transparency) -- and not just for vision, but possibly for hearing as well.
...sequential ABX testing is hard, because it requires accurate memory of both A and B when judging X...
The fact that a person's ear could discriminate between samples if they were simultaneous is irrelevant since that isn't feasible.
Quote from: antz on 04 August, 2013, 08:46:01 AMThe fact that a person's ear could discriminate between samples if they were simultaneous is irrelevant since that isn't feasible.And what level-roving experiments show is that you want clean, clickless near-instantaneous switching, no more, no less.As to the title, the Shannon theorem is right, and ABX testing is as sensitive as anything else when it's done right.I've seen many miserable excuses for why that isn't, but I am frankly tired of them, it's the same old mistakes over and over again.
And what level-roving experiments show is that you want clean, clickless near-instantaneous switching, no more, no less
however I've always assumed that the reason we want to avoid transitional clicks between A, B, and X is because they potentially may act as a "tell", a giveaway as to the samples' identity, not because hearing the minor clicks themselves diminishes our sensitivity to picking up on small differences. Correct?
I see a distinction without a difference. Subjective interpretation requires memory. If memory is suspect then so are the impressions born from it.This was already addressed, was it not?
So you are exploring the possibility that the reason no difference is reported is not because we cannot hear the difference, but because we cannot remember it for a few seconds.
If we have forgotten it before we have even drawn another breath, how do we subsequently know that we ever heard it?
Now you're getting a bit too far into the weeds. I did not want an epistemic discussion of what we know, I simply wanted to explore what seems like a legit criticism of dbt from those in the know.
People who look for reasons to doubt DBTs generally believe they can hear an audible difference sighted but cannot hear an audible difference blind. They are trying to discover some difference in the testing methodology (other than sighted-vs-blind) to justify their belief that they really hear a real audible difference. They want this other difference in testing methodology to be the reason the believed audible difference vanishes in blind testing, rather than accepting that it vanishes simply due to the blinding. In both kinds of tests, people need to rely on their memory. If there is any difference, it is that they need to rely on memory less so in some DBT designs (as saratoga says), not more. Hence reliance on memory is not this "other" testing methodology difference that they seek.In short, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.Cheers,David.
How can something that serves to make distinguishing two samples more difficult also serve as a tell?
Except comparing two mono signals simultaneously, one fed to each ear via headphones. A niche pass-time, but possible.
I guess I like my data to be more raw and empirical. Brains are really amazing biological devices, but they make for piss poor lab equipment.