Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > The Second Law of Thermodynamics which gives us the concept of entropy > (essentially a measure of disorder, which must stay constant or more > usually increase with time) is the only bit of maths in Physics which is > not reversible in time, & gives rise to the idea of "The Arrow Of Time" > which is sadly consuming us all. To be more precise, I believe that the definition of entropy has recently been redefined to allow strictly -*local*- temporary reductions in entropy (i.e. increases in order) within the universe (caused by such strange phenomena as life, for example), but only if the net effect over a longer period is an even greater increase in entropy (disorder) than would otherwise have been the case. Given the increasingly apparent results of our recent terraforming of our planet as soon as our improving technology presented us with the opportunity, this would seem to be entirely reasonable revision to the original formulation & (unfortunately for us) entirely consistent with the evidence presently available... Entropy can appear on first encounter to be a rather depressing concept - I remember being a bit rattled by it when the penny dropped whilst I was studying the accursed Thermodynamics in my first year at Oxford, although I've become stoically indifferent to the implications over the years. It is interesting to note that Boltzmann who formalised the concept committed suicide subsequently. The rejection of his work by his peers may have been a factor as well, or alternatively it may just have been a sudden & intense mood change that prompted his action. I don't think that he himself left us any explanation by way of note so his reasons must remain a matter for speculation. Dave (trying to stay :) ) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
drmatt wrote: > Hi, > > Yes exactly it has nothing to do with recorded sound per se, and that is > because there is a distinction between remembering the *sound*, and > remembering the *music*. It's a different part of the brain and a > different learned skill. > > So a conductor's brain remembers the ebb and flow of the music (consider > it the "delivered meaning" of the piece), which though it could be > exceptionally complex, is actually only a mental representation of the > sound they heard and the actions of the players. This it's possible to > know, and remember, from one day to the next, just like any person who > can read can remember the meaning and story from a 100,000 word novel > without having to remember all the words. > > Musicians (I know some but wouldn't claim to be one) have muscle memory > (actually subconscious mental programming) that does the hard stuff of > translating the feel of the music and that remembered melody and energy > into the movement of fingers/lungs/lips/limbs whatever to play the > instrument. The musician rarely has to think consciously about where to > place fingers/limbs etc in response to the tune. This is that final step > from conscious competence to unconscious competence. The point I think > to take from this is that the musician / conductor only really > consciously remembers a very simplified meta view of the piece, and the > subconscious fills in the rest... So you are entirely correct they are > not reliant on auditory memory for anything other than very short term > reanalysis. > > Matt. > > Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk Hi Doc, Thanks for indulging me. It's making more sense (I think)... Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Doc! > > I believe that Mozart transcribed an entire mass setting from memory > after exiting the church where the music was performed (& jealously > guarded) when he was about 12. But he was somewhat remarkable... > > My original question related to the rehearsal sessions held by > conductors with their orchestras prior to an important concert (or > recording, or both in the case of a live recording). Obviously each > individual conductor will have his own "take" on a piece of classical > music, which itself may evolve over time. > > It had nothing direct to do with recorded music per se, but rather I was > trying to put comments about the brain's inability to recall specific > sounds for more than a few seconds into the performance context. Are you > suggesting that the members of the orchestra use the rehearsals to > annotate their copies of the score, or that their skill with their > instruments is down to some memory other than auditory recall, such as > muscle memory, etc.? > > I think we're at bit at cross-purposes - sorry if I'm missing something > obvious here, as I said I'm not a musician myself. I find playing Guitar > Hero with the kids taxing enough (but fun - our family band is called > "Muesli Is Murder"). > > Dave :) Hi, Yes exactly it has nothing to do with recorded sound per se, and that is because there is a distinction between remembering the *sound*, and remembering the *music*. It's a different part of the brain and a different learned skill. So a conductor's brain remembers the ebb and flow of the music (consider it the "delivered meaning" of the piece), which though it could be exceptionally complex, is actually only a mental representation of the sound they heard and the actions of the players. This it's possible to know, and remember, from one day to the next, just like any person who can read can remember the meaning and story from a 100,000 word novel without having to remember all the words. Musicians (I know some but wouldn't claim to be one) have muscle memory (actually subconscious mental programming) that does the hard stuff of translating the feel of the music and that remembered melody and energy into the movement of fingers/lungs/lips/limbs whatever to play the instrument. The musician rarely has to think consciously about where to place fingers/limbs etc in response to the tune. This is that final step from conscious competence to unconscious competence. The point I think to take from this is that the musician / conductor only really consciously remembers a very simplified meta view of the piece, and the subconscious fills in the rest... So you are entirely correct they are not reliant on auditory memory for anything other than very short term reanalysis. Matt. Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
drmatt wrote: > A better analogy is perhaps to ask you what you remember of the font > that was used in the last book you read. Nothing? Same thing. The medium > (carrier) vs the content (signal). A musician is interested in the > signal - the notes, the timing, the stressing of each portion of the > note, they are not interested in whether the violin sounds"realistic", > because they don't care. A professional musician can extract extremely > detailed transcription notes from poor recordings. Hi Doc! I believe that Mozart transcribed an entire mass setting from memory after exiting the church where the music was performed (& jealously guarded) when he was about 12. But he was somewhat remarkable... My original question related to the rehearsal sessions held by conductors with their orchestras prior to an important concert (or recording, or both in the case of a live recording). Obviously each individual conductor will have his own "take" on a piece of classical music, which itself may evolve over time. It had nothing direct to do with recorded music per se, but rather I was trying to put comments about the brain's inability to recall specific sounds for more than a few seconds into the performance context. Are you suggesting that the members of the orchestra use the rehearsals to annotate their copies of the score, or that their skill with their instruments is down to some memory other than auditory recall, such as muscle memory, etc.? I think we're at bit at cross-purposes - sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, as I said I'm not a musician myself. I find playing Guitar Hero with the kids taxing enough (but fun - our family band is called "Muesli Is Murder"). Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Doc! > > Not being a musician or an artist myself, I'm not really in a position > to fully understand this. > > Can't really grasp how you can remember something you've forgotten. > Don't musicians listen to themselves playing? If so, what exactly are > they comparing that apparently fleeting audible sound to? > > Dave :confused: A better analogy is to ask you what you remember of the font that was used in the last book you read. Nothing? Same thing. The medium Vs the content. Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
darrenyeats wrote: > It's all relative. A number of samples too large for me to stomach on my > own! > It is all about how serious you are about obtaining reliable knowledge. > > The aforementioned fatigue seems to spiral as the size of the (audible) > difference shrinks. > Not really. > > And sadly, we tend not to test the grossest differences in blind tests! > > False again. The best way to train listeners to listen reliably is to have them progress from tests involving large differences, to smaller and smaller differences in a gentle progression. There are several techniques to enhance the size of actual audible differences so that they are easy to hear, even unmistakable. Learn the test paradigm and the nature of the difference to detect using enhanced audio samples, and then decrease the size of the difference in stages to their natural size, or even smaller. > > If you get many rounds wrong you can still achieve a good p-value but > you need many rounds. > Taking this strategy too far can lead to unrealistic expectations. It is possible to reliably detect differences in ABX test that are undetectable in typical audiophile listening sessions. > > I think the amateur blind test is great for telling if the "huge > difference" you hear sighted is actually -small-to-nothing- - not so > great for telling you if it is precisely small or nothing. Not true. The mind-blowing differences that audiophiles report from sighted evaluations are very often an illusory product of placebo effects. There is no reasonable way to compare imaginary experiences with real ones. ABX tests relating to differences that are known to be audible are often more sensitive than the usual textbook results. Listening for actual audible differences is often a very different experience than sighted evaluations. Many audiophile reactions to ABX tests are often due to the fact that audiophiles are actually unfamiliar with the experience of hearing real differences, not imaginary ones. Real differences generally are harder to hear than imaginary ones, but the reasons why are not the fault of the test methodologies, but rather the fault of relying on false perceptions based on hyperactive imaginations. Many people underappreciate the fact that in the absence of actual evidence, the brain is built to fabricate something that it thinks is equivalent. But, it is a random fabrication and only the real thing is reliable. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
drmatt wrote: > This is a different skill to the one being invoked in an audio quality > comparison. Like asking an artist to copy the brush strokes or blobs of > paint used to make a picture instead of copying the picture. > > You perceive through the audio to the instruments and the stressing and > balance that carries, but you store the product of that perception, not > the medium it was received via. > > Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk Hi Doc! Not being a musician or an artist myself, I'm not really in a position to fully understand this. Can't really grasp how you can remember something you've forgotten. Don't musicians listen to themselves playing? If so, what exactly are they comparing that apparently fleeting audible sound to? Dave :confused: Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
ralphpnj wrote: > Now you are beginning to understand my overall uncertainty. Hi Ralph! I saw the last one in the lower reading room of the King's Arms next to Blackwells. The other one was better: "To do is to be": Nietzsche "To be is to do": Sartre "Do be do be do": Sinatra Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > "Heisenburg probably rules OK" Now you are beginning to understand my overall uncertainty. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
ralphpnj wrote: > Only to the degree predictable when applying the uncertainty principle. "Heisenburg probably rules OK" Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > If we all forget what we've heard, why do conductors hold rehearsal > sessions with their orchestras of professional musicians who are quite > competent enough to play through a complex piece of orchestral music on > their own without a conductor? > > What benefit can the conductor achieve from the rehearsal if the players > are incapable of remembering the often subtle requirements he requires > in terms of orchestral balance? Or are we going to allow such > professionals "golden ears" on account of their musical talent & > training? This is a different skill to the one being invoked in an audio quality comparison. Like asking an artist to copy the brush strokes or blobs of paint used to make a picture instead of copying the picture. You perceive through the audio to the instruments and the stressing and balance that carries, but you store the product of that perception, not the medium it was received via. Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Ralph! > > You're welcome. > > Do you have any idea what we're talking about? > > Dave :) Only to the degree predictable when applying the uncertainty principle. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Darren! > > I'll have to take issue with you here. The whole point of doing > statistical analysis on data samples is that the samples do not need to > be particularly large to yield statistically significant results It's all relative. A number of samples too large for me to stomach on my own! The aforementioned fatigue spirals as the size of the (audible) difference shrinks. And sadly, we tend not to test gross differences in blind tests! I think amateur blind tests are great for telling if the "huge difference" you hear sighted is actually -small-to-nothing- - not so great for telling you if it is precisely small or nothing. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
ralphpnj wrote: > Okay gentlemen using "quantum mechanics" we have now managed to bring > this usually objective sub-forum down to the level just about every > other audio forum. Good job! Hi Ralph! You're welcome. Do you have any idea what we're talking about? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
I always curse Sir Isaac Newton when I knock something over or drop things. Apparently before he invented gravity, things stayed where you wanted them to... :D Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
darrenyeats wrote: > The problem with this statistical angle is that a large number of > samples is needed. Hi Darren! I'll have to take issue with you here. The whole point of doing statistical analysis on data samples is that the samples do not need to be particularly large to yield statistically significant results, and in fact increasing sample size is of diminishing value compared to the effort required to achieve it. Many sampling schemes use fixed sample sizes to make predictions about underlying populations of considerably variable size. I haven't fully researched the statistical angle yet, but given that the identification of "X" as "A" or "B" has a 50% individual chance of being correct by chance I was thinking along the lines of a "Normal" approximation to a binomial distribution to see how many standard deviations (right or wrong) each listener's answers are from the expected value which would be that you could expect to get half of your answers right using ear defenders & a fair coin toss with "A" for heads & "B" for tails, or vice versa. Perhaps someone would help me out if I'm up a gum-tree with this approach. In any event, once the results have been collected, statistical analyses of any kind can be applied later. Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Okay gentlemen using "quantum mechanics" we have now managed to bring this usually objective sub-forum down to the level just about every other audio forum. Good job! Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Just thought I'd drop this in. If we all forget what we've heard, why do conductors hold rehearsal sessions with their orchestras of professional musicians who are quite competent enough to play through a complex piece of orchestral music on their own without a conductor? What benefit can the conductor achieve from the rehearsal if the players are incapable of remembering the often subtle requirements he requires in terms of orchestral balance? Or are we going to allow such professionals "golden ears" on account of their musical talent & training? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Arny, I think you've mistaken the point I'm trying to make. Dave was asking about doing his own listening test, and I was pointing out serious problems with us punters doing this kind of thing and then labelling the results as conclusive (generally, they're not). Well organised tests are possible and have been done. But as you seem to agree, this takes a lot of doing. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
arnyk wrote: > Sorta. Since you contradict yourself as follows: "There are NO > scientific facts[/I][/B]. There are facts..." its hard to form a > coherent summary of what you said above. > > The science I know starts out "All findings of science are provisional, > only valid until better evidence is found and/or a better hypothesis is > proposed." > > In that context words like *fact* are at best troublesome. What most > people call facts are actually either hypothesis or evidence. Neither > are guaranteed to be correct. Here's an idea - let us forget about > talking about *facts* since they may not be what they seem. Experiments > are just fishing expeditions, trying to gather some evidence, hopefully > in a systematic and relevant way. > > People often don't distinguish Mathematics from Science. They are vastly > different. Mathematics differs from Science in that while Science is > about the natural physical world, Mathematics is artificial, and need > not have any relationship at all to the physical world. An important > part of Science are Mathematical models but they are actually just > hypothesis stated in a certain formal way. In Mathematics everything is > defined, and within those definitions a new Scientific hypothesis can be > tested first for conformance with the relevant principles of > Mathematics, but should also be tested for conformance with reality by > means of physical experiments. There are a lot of models that are > consistent enough as mathematical entities, but have been found to be > completely irrelevant to reality. Others like Newton's laws of Motion > are more than accurate enough in most of everyday life and even > exceptional situations like planetary motion in the Solar system and > most space travel as we know it today, but require Relativistic > adjustments to be accurate and useful in an increasing number of > exceptional situations like GPS and cell phone systems. > > I was taught Engineering by first equipping me with enough basic > Mathematics (Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, and Calculus in that order) > so that I could understand and benefit from some simple, generally > accepted mathematical models of common physical systems. For example, > without those basic elements of Math, the common models related to > non-relativistic motion of real objects, electricity, and basic thermal > processes are very difficult to understand. The study of > Thermodynamics departs from the pattern set by the study of motion and > electricity in that we quickly encounter math models that cannot or > recently could not be derived from first principles, but are accurate > based on observations. Morning Arny! I think we're on the same page here. I'm always sceptical of physicists who come up with grand hypotheses derived from mathematics alone - it seems to me to be a dodgy "extrapolation" in the absence of present evidence. Stephen Hawkins has been guilty of this to some extent recently. I believe that some relativistic corrections to Newton's Laws are also necessary to correctly predict the orbit of Mercury (which is of course both very small compared to the Sun & uncomfortably close), FWIW. The Second Law of Thermodynamics which gives us the concept of entropy (essentially a measure of disorder, which must stay constant or more usually increase with time) is the only bit of maths in Physics which is not reversible in time, & gives rise to the idea of "The Arrow Of Time" which is sadly consuming us all. Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
darrenyeats wrote: > Dave, > The "facts" in this case are the results of rounds picking A or B as the > identity of X. > > A statistical analysis is needed on these results to generate a p-value > - the outcome of the experiment is a probability. > Agreed\ > > The problem with this statistical angle is that a large number of > samples is needed, and so listening tests involving one or a few people > run into trouble with listening fatigue. > *False. * The above statement actually says nothing because of the reliance of vague terminology, such as "large number". Here, let me show you how to actually say something. For common statistical methods to work with reasonable accuracy, at least 5 and hopefully more like 10 or 15 trials (the technical word for the word rounds which sounds like a kind of song or adjustments to a mechanism). If one is actually hearing a difference then listening fatigue is usually not much of a problem. However, if you are trying to prove the existence of something like high sample rates or cable magic or audible differences between reasonably good amplifiers or DACs that other science pretty clearly indicates is impossible for humans to hear, then you can indeed get exhausted doing enough trials (50, 100, 200...) to show even vanishing statistical significance. If you approach a reliable listening test with a belief system that is based on placebo effects, the same problem(s) can exist. The role of listener training cannot be overemphasized. Early listener training often serves to provide people with evidence that they have indeed based their beliefs on something other than reliable facts, because the apparent reliability of their perceptions disappears when sight and other irrelevant cues are removed and only listening to music that varies only in terms of the effect or equipment beind studied is the only influence on the test. > > Note this is not physical fatigue. For example: we never "hear" the same > thing twice, because hearing changes the hearer, and hearing is a > combination of stimulus and experience; this has a long-term and > short-term aspect (e.g. you just get "fed up" of hearing the same thing > many times and A and B start to mush). There may be other mechanisms at > play, but I've done enough blind tests to come to believe fatigue is a > factor beyond 3-4 rounds of listening to the same sample for the same > particular difference, at least without a significant break. Usually > this sort of problem is not mentioned. > *False.* The most common kind of audio listening test for subtle differences is the ABX test described by Clark and others in several AES publications dating back to 1978-1983. One of the properties of ABX testing that critics such as the above *like to ignore or obfuscate* is the fact that while choices are forced to be of one kind or the other (usually labelled A or B), the circumstances in terms of time and effort that is used to obtain those results is up to the listener. The listener and/or test coordinator (ABX testing is designed so that they can be the same person) can use as many test sessions as he wishes, engage in whatever kind of listener training as is desired, take as many breaks as he wishes, listen as long as he wishes, adjust levels at will as long as the adjustment is uniformly applied to the audible samples, use whatever music he chooses, etc., etc. > > Another problem with listening tests in general is the number of > confounding factors. For example, driving hours to a bake-off affects > your hearing. You are more familiar with your own system at home, this > process of familiarisation can take a long time - I can pick out an > unusual squeak in my car, but a passenger can't, yet we're hearing the > same sounds. These confounding factors mean NOT hearing a difference > EVEN SIGHTED is not necessarily real evidence of non-audibility. (aside) OK folks,* this is what anti-science propaganda looks like*. Remember its contents and its source. It is pretty common because of the real and present economic danger that ABX testing presents to those who would use false evidence to sell audio gear. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Dave, The "facts" in this case are the results of rounds picking A or B as the identity of X. A statistical analysis is needed on these results to generate a p-value - the outcome of the experiment is a probability. The problem with this statistical angle is that a large number of samples is needed, and so listening tests involving one or a few people run into trouble with listening fatigue. Note this is not physical fatigue. For example: we never "hear" the same thing twice, because hearing changes the hearer, and hearing is a combination of stimulus and experience; this has a long-term and short-term aspect (e.g. you just get "fed up" of hearing the same thing many times and A and B start to mush). There may be other mechanisms at play, but I've done enough blind tests to come to believe fatigue is a factor beyond 3-4 rounds of listening to the same sample for the same particular difference, at least without a significant break. Sometimes this sort of problem is not mentioned. Another problem with listening tests in general is the number of confounding factors. For example, driving hours to a bake-off affects your hearing. You are more familiar with your own system at home, this process of familiarisation can take a long time - I can pick out an unusual squeak in my car, but a passenger can't, yet we're hearing the same sounds. These confounding factors mean NOT hearing a difference EVEN SIGHTED is not necessarily real evidence of non-audibility. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > Morning Arny! > > Not trying to score points, or indeed particularly to take issue your > position on the specific matter you were commenting on. > > However there is an important point of principle here. *-There are NO > scientific facts-*. There are facts (for example, the results of a > repeatable scientific experiment, with due regard to the precise > experimental procedures used and the exact conditions under which the > results were obtained), opinions (which are personal beliefs) & > scientific hypotheses that offer the potential to be testable either now > or in the future (these are theories proposed to explain some aspect of > how the universe works). > > "Hypotheses" that appear to be inherently untestable are actually just > opinions, unless some ingenious line of experimentation is later devised > (at which point they would become scientific hypotheses, although > possibly very briefly if the experiment doesn't go their way!). > > Even so-called Scientific Laws are just generally-accepted scientific > hypotheses, cf. Newton's "Law of Gravitation" which was widely accepted > for 300 years until Einstein supplanted the whole idea of gravity as a > force by introducing the concept of curvature in space-time. > > The significance of this is that until you have done an experiment you > cannot "know" the answer you can only predict it on the assumption that > the scientific hypothesis that you rely on will not crumble under you in > these new circumstances. > > This is the essence of the scientific method. Nothing is provable, all > is disprovable. Our knowledge of how the universe works is, and always > will be (in this life at least) provisional. > > Sorta. Since you contradict yourself as follows: "There are NO scientific facts[/I][/B]. There are facts..." its hard to form a coherent summary of what you said above. The science I know starts out "All findings of science are provisional, only valid until better evidence is found and/or a better hypothesis is proposed." In that context words like *fact* are at best troublesome. What most people call facts are actually either hypothesis or evidence. Neither are guaranteed to be correct. Here's an idea - let us forget about talking about *facts* since they may not be what they seem. Experiments are just fishing expeditions, trying to gather some evidence, hopefully in a systematic and relevant way. People often don't distinguish Mathematics from Science. They are vastly different. Mathematics differs from Science in that while Science is about the natural physical world, Mathematics is artificial, and need not have any relationship at all to the physical world. An important part of Science are Mathematical models but they are actually just hypothesis stated in a certain formal way. In Mathematics everything is defined, and within those definitions a new Scientific hypothesis can be tested first for conformance with the relevant principles of Mathematics, but should also be tested for conformance with reality by means of physical experiments. There are a lot of models that are consistent enough as mathematical entities, but have been found to be completely irrelevant to reality. Others like Newton's laws of Motion are more than accurate enough in most of everyday life and even exceptional situations like planetary motion in the Solar system and most space travel as we know it today, but require Relativistic adjustments to be accurate and useful in an increasing number of exceptional situations like GPS and cell phone systems. I was taught Engineering by first equipping me with enough basic Mathematics (Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, and Calculus in that order) so that I could understand and benefit from some simple, generally accepted mathematical models of common physical systems. For example, without those basic elements of Math, the common models related to non-relativistic motion of real objects, electricity, and basic thermal processes are very difficult to understand. The study of Thermodynamics departs from the pattern set by the study of motion and electricity in that we quickly encounter math models that cannot or recently could not be derived from first principles, but are accurate based on observations. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Thankfully as far as I know nobody has seen the need to actually conduct Schrodinger's "thought experiment", but on Niels Bohr's "Copenhagen interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics (which appears to be essentially "Chill out, Albert, this appears to be how it is... "), the cat is in a probabilistic limbo state until the quantum waveform is collapsed by the intervention of the observer who opens the box & looks inside. This would probably be something of a discombobulating experience for the feline, especially if the poor thing survives the exercise... Richard Feynmann who further developed quantum electrodynamics & was a great communicator as well as a great scientist (he acted as an independent expert in the inquiry into the Challenger space shuttle disaster incidentally, as well) public stated "No-one understands Quantum Mechanics". Without it though, we're back to tube amplifiers & LP's... Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
The Young's slits/double slits series of experiments (which I summarised in the other thread yesterday) is an interesting example of how an experiment can appear to support one hypothesis (viz. light propagates as a wave, not as a stream of particles) initially, but after refinement & the availability of new measuring apparatus ends up supporting a different one (wave/particle duality). Even experimental facts are only applicable in the context in which they are obtained. Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
darrenyeats wrote: > Dave, > Actually facts have a role in science - observations are facts - but > even these are things "that we all agree are true". > > I remember a prominent physicist explaining this, he then gave an > example of a fact using this definition: that it's hard to get a date in > NYC on Saturday night! Ha-ha. > > But yeah, a theory - even one that works very well in practice - is not > equivalent to a fact. Hi Darren! Don't think we're at odds here, I did include all experimental results as objective facts, with the proviso that the experiment should have used an appropriate protocol. How did you like my "audiophool" analysis? :D Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > > If not, I suggest you examine the famous double-slit experiment which > actually illustrates the wave/particle duality of nature. There is an > adequate write-up in Wikipaedia if you need a reference. > Yeah, the double slit experiment captures the essence of quantum behaviour. The "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment is even weirder I think. This is the way I would put it. When the photon is displaying quantum behaviour it is in the superposition state. This is a state of probabilities, and these probabilities move around in a wave fashion - when the photon is in this state, it's not a particle and it makes no sense to say it passes through a slit, let alone two slits at the same time. It just isn't a particle when it's superposition. One could say the particle IS an observation, or an observation is a particle. Between observations there is quantum behaviour in superposition state - wave behaviour - no particle. That's how the experiment works, by observing the particle at one of the second slits, the wave behaviour at that stage is interrupted. And the two slits stage is the key stage, since having the two apertures in parallel would cause the wave to interfere with itself. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Dave, Actually facts have a role in science - observations are facts - but even these are things "that we all agree are true". I remember a prominent physicist explaining this, he then gave an example of a fact using this definition: that it's hard to get a date in NYC on Saturday night! Ha-ha. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
It generally goes like this: 1. Audiophool is impressed by a claim along the lines of "our new product will make your music system sound better". Such claims are often "supported" by vague &/or selected evidence massaged by a marketing department to entice the unwary. This proposition, however improbable, is a scientific hypothesis though, because it *-is-* open to experimental testing. 2. Audiophool parts with £££'s/$$$'s & connects the doubtless impressive-looking product into his system. This would appear to be folly... 3. Audiophool listens to music system and states "I'm *-sure-* it sounds better than it did before" and will probably list the perceived improvements. This is his opinion. 4. No-one subsequently conducts a rigorous experiment (for example by analysing the signal supplied to the loudspeakers with & without the new product after level-matching, and -*then*- should some difference be found to exist by conducting a double-blind ABX test to determine whether the difference is i. audible & ii. an improvement not an impairment (more likely than an improvement!) to the musical experience of the (unbiased) listeners. 5. Any claimed benefit of the product remains unproven because of 4. & consequently anyone else buying it on basis of the marketing claims or the audiophool's recommendation is also foolish (see 2.above)... I am as much against this illogical process as anyone else on this forum. I am merely advocating that we sharpen our pencils before driving home our point :D . Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
arnyk wrote: > It is not my position, it is a reasonably easy to observe scientific > fact. Morning Arny! Not trying to score points, or indeed particularly to take issue your position on the specific matter you were commenting on. However there is an important point of principle here. *-There are NO scientific facts-*. There are facts (for example, the results of a repeatable scientific experiment, with due regard to the precise experimental procedures used and the exact conditions under which the results were obtained), opinions (which are personal beliefs) & scientific hypotheses that offer the potential to be testable either now or in the future (these are theories proposed to explain some aspect of how the universe works). "Hypotheses" that appear to be inherently untestable are actually just opinions, unless some ingenious line of experimentation is later devised (at which point they would become scientific hypotheses, although possibly very briefly if the experiment doesn't go their way!). Even so-called Scientific Laws are just generally-accepted scientific hypotheses, cf. Newton's "Law of Gravitation" which was widely accepted for 300 years until Einstein supplanted the whole idea of gravity as a force by introducing the concept of curvature in space-time. The significance of this is that until you have done an experiment you cannot "know" the answer you can only predict it on the assumption that the scientific hypothesis that you rely on will not crumble under you in these new circumstances. This is the essence of the scientific method. Nothing is provable, all is disprovable. Our knowledge of how the universe works is, and always will be (in this life at least) provisional. Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
