I think perhaps you underestimate the general level of the public's intelligence. Anyone who buys a piece of audio equipment knows that most visitors to their house will point out that this system sounds pretty similar to the last one they were excited about.
Deprived of reference points, acuity suffers. Not badly enough to become deaf, obviously - but badly enough to diminish large variables to small ones, and make small ones vanish entirely - which isn't a bad one-line summary of DBT perception results: particularly with reference to hearing which - being driven by feebler mental horsepower - is more prone to suggestion (and more in need of supporting frameworks) than sight (hence McGurk).
Either this is wrong (as you say), or truly accurate testing of this type will come later, when we can directly, mechanically examine - and analyse - brain response without tampering with the subject's psychological state. Certainly not a 'never possible to know' scenario.
'Knowing what you are listening to' is the troublesome variable.
Deprived of reference points, acuity suffers
Quote from: greynol on 08 October, 2012, 11:54:56 PM@item:Perhaps you could share with us a little about who you are so that we can put your point of view into proper perspective.What do you mean by 'proper perspective'? Am I looking at an ad hominem warmup or a chat-up line?]
@item:Perhaps you could share with us a little about who you are so that we can put your point of view into proper perspective.
Quote from: greynol on 08 October, 2012, 11:54:56 PMFWIW, as a professional tester I can tell you that I actually pay closer attention to detail when I am consciously involved in a test, despite DBT skeptics and snake oil salesmen telling me that I can't or don't.That's exactly the point: test conditions create an environment in which you have to 'pay closer attention' - in reality, listen in an entirely different way, disorientated and deprived of cues.
FWIW, as a professional tester I can tell you that I actually pay closer attention to detail when I am consciously involved in a test, despite DBT skeptics and snake oil salesmen telling me that I can't or don't.
For a psych test, that's inadmissable.
Again, the purpose of DBT is to remove subjectivity as a factor. It can't legitimately be applied with any degree of precision to a study of subjectivity.
Negative DBT results in the physiological domain are always open to question, but in this domain they aren't even interesting, and it's an embarrassment to the cause to see such faith placed in them.
The sole, specific point I'm making is that DBT is rarely used in perception testing for obvious reasons outlined above, and attempting to smear its credibility from the physiological domain is intellectually dishonest.
And that the abundance of negative results indicates coarse granularity in the test method as much as it supports any particular paradigm.
Abstract:A positive DBT result establishes reliably that two outcomes or entities differ.A negative means - equally - either a) the two objects are identical, or b) that the method doesn't permit resolution of their differences.
If you set up test correctly, as expected, there will be only "yes, I can definitely hear the difference between A and B", and "no, I can't hear shit". It doesn't matter if the difference in reality is so subtle you can't hear it (lossless vs high bitrate lossy), because the only thing you are testing is if you can hear that difference, and the results are YES and NO.
If ABXing negatively alters one's ability to hear differences, it's only a problem if you're using negative results to prove that there is no difference, which is a fallacy in any case: while a positive ABX result shows with a high degree of probability that there IS an audible difference, a negative result never proves anything.
Double-blind testing of isolated senses puts a subject into an artificial mode of perception [...] An ABX test can tell you, what an attentive mind, with artificially blocked non-auditory senses, can differentiate at best through the remaining, isolated auditory channel. [...]I do question how much can be inferred regarding to the experience of actual listening situations in peoples' homes,[...]
I do also have come to the belief, that a man convinced that his gold cables sound better in a sighted test, even when he is unable to verify the same results blindly, is not lying to us.
Long term HA usage might turn your mind into something, that has become unable to extract joy from owning expensive audio gear.
A double-blind test does not need to be any different for the subject than a sighted test. The only point is that the subject should not be aware which of the two experiences that are being evaluated is he taking.
While the OP's reasoning and claimed inference from his cited studies are certainly flawed, he touches a valid point: Double-blind testing of isolated senses puts a subject into an artificial mode of perception, that is different from our usual perception of the world, which is always a multisensory blend.
Ehem ... this is not how statistical tests work. And even if it were, your description would only be valid if this “you” is what is supposed to be tested, and arguably not even then.
Quote from: Porcus on 11 October, 2012, 09:20:41 AMEhem ... this is not how statistical tests work. And even if it were, your description would only be valid if this “you” is what is supposed to be tested, and arguably not even then.When doing personal test of codec or parameters, I am testing them for my usage, for myself. And then it's either "i can hear the difference" or " i can't"
I am sorry if I am missing the point - but isn't the point of ABX test to see if YOU can hear the difference between two files?
Except, DBT doesn't do that.