What never gets explained about ABX testing.

[pyrrhon]

The ear will tune in to a speaker over time. Thats why you ear a big difference when you change a component. You ear it clearly at first then the ear compensate and tunes in to the new sound, the brain compensate till you dont ear it anymore. You need to listen to the new setup for a while before you can change back to the old one and notice anything. Then this change will vanish quickly. Thats why ABX always seems to contradict most audiophiles because that feel of a change is generated by a recalibration activity in the brain and time is a key factor.

Some sound ingeneers do recommand to buy 2 pairs of cheap studio monitor that sound different cause once your ear tunes to a non neutral speaker your mixing is flawed.

That said nothing is perfectly neutral and a different sound does not mean a better one its rather a subjective feeling.

 

[Gazzip]

The ear will tune in to a speaker over time. Thats why you ear a big difference when you change a component. You ear it clearly at first then the ear compensate and tunes in to the new sound, the brain compensate till you dont ear it anymore. You need to listen to the new setup for a while before you can change back to the old one and notice anything. Then this change will vanish quickly. Thats why ABX always seems to contradict most audiophiles because that feel of a change is generated by a recalibration activity in the brain and time is a key factor.

Some sound ingeneers do recommand to buy 2 pairs of cheap studio monitor that sound different cause once your ear tunes to a non neutral speaker your mixing is flawed.

That said nothing is perfectly neutral and a different sound does not mean a better one its rather a subjective feeling.

ear ear!

 

[Vladimir]

How do you explain the fact that people hear instant audible difference when they introduce a new component to a system sighted but need long term listening unsighted?

 

[davedotco]

First of all the OP does not appear to be talking about ABX testing, he is describing AB testing which is a different thing entirely.

This is a fairly complex subject and if it is to be discussed in a meaningful way, you need to be precise about what you say.

ABX testing, is, by it's very nature a short term test. AB testing can take place over as long a timespan as you wish, (though maintaining the double blind integrity of the test may be difficult in practical terms).

So which test are we talking about...?

 

[Covenanter]

The ear will tune in to a speaker over time. Thats why you ear a big difference when you change a component. You ear it clearly at first then the ear compensate and tunes in to the new sound, the brain compensate till you dont ear it anymore. You need to listen to the new setup for a while before you can change back to the old one and notice anything. Then this change will vanish quickly. Thats why ABX always seems to contradict most audiophiles because that feel of a change is generated by a recalibration activity in the brain and time is a key factor.

Some sound ingeneers do recommand to buy 2 pairs of cheap studio monitor that sound different cause once your ear tunes to a non neutral speaker your mixing is flawed.

That said nothing is perfectly neutral and a different sound does not mean a better one its rather a subjective feeling.

Incomprehensible!

Chris

 

[Anderson]

Can anyone ear honestly say they can ear a difference when comparing different cables, I ear no difference myself.

 

[pyrrhon]

You need to have another theory of music here. There are 2 different things. One is analytical conscious identifications of sonds the other happens unconscious and its a feeling that results.

We listen to music for feeling but if I ask you to compare two cable you will get analytical and focus on sound. When its a matter of frequency response or amplitude a measure tool does a much better job then we do with our brain. But instrument dont measure musicality yet.

Times the reel factor. Time is everything here. The same song sounds good for a while then we get bored. The best music is not the one you will love at first. Time and time again. Put a speaker wire for 3 months in your home system then switch it to another brand, youll notice. Switch it back again you wont notice. Time again.

Brain is a calibration machine. Walk for an hour looking at the ground, stop, look at the sky, youll see the clouds moving backward away from you.

There is air vibration, that is physics. There is music thats nowhere in the the air moving around you. its a brain process. The wain the brain works is aweome and can beat sound measurments cause it makes it so clear how 2 cables are different if you open your mind and emotions. But at the same time its not your press button do it again kind of thing.

 

[pyrrhon]

I know that most people have notice english is my soncond language. Sorry about that! Im still proud to be able to babble something in a second language in a technical subject. Im not ashamed and frankly I couldnt find a better place to explore those topice that i love. Hope someone picks up here and give those ideas some wings I beleive in them ! I have tought alot about all that. Damn hope im not turning into a weirdo *man_in_love*

 

[steve_1979]

I know that most people have notice english is my soncond language. Sorry about that! Im still proud to be able to babble something in a second language in a technical subject. Im not ashamed and frankly I couldnt find a better place to explore those topice that i love. Hope someone picks up here and give those ideas some wings I beleive in them ! I have tought alot about all that. Damn hope im not turning into a weirdo *man_in_love*

Your English is very good.

Although I don't agree with your theory it certainly is an interesting and thought provoking one worthy of a moments consideration.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I have to admit I cannot fathom why the thought of a person hearing differences in cables connecting their equ is such a thorn in the sides of some on this site.

I would genuinely love to see how some have their kit set up. Because to me the differences in cables via the equipment I have is obvious.

I have several cables - interconnects and swap them when bored but I definitely have a preferred cable.

The funny thing is most people here, if they have a set up that they enjoy if someone changed the cables without them knowing between, equ they would notice.

They may run their bare arms through an open flame and deny it once told about the change, but I'd guarantee they'd swap the cables back because 'it didn't sound right'.

What does amuse me is when science is brought into it and used to justify what we hear.

Lol......

 

[ID.]

The funny thing is most people here, if they have a set up that they enjoy if someone changed the cables without them knowing between, equ they would notice.

I hope that in order to make this statement, you've had your cables swapped without your knowledge and found it didn't sound right. Otherwise there's a certain level of hypocrisy because it is based on the same pure speculation you accuse the other camp of.

That said, while I think ABX testing has a big role to play, I think that due to subtlety of changes sometimes I would also be interested in the results of longer AB comparisons, provided they were unsighted.

 

[basshound]

Damn hope im not turning into a weirdo *man_in_love*

That is the first requirement of posting in this forum *biggrin*

 

[pyrrhon]

How do you explain the fact that people hear instant audible difference when they introduce a new component to a system sighted but need long term listening unsighted?

We need to dive into a theory of how brain acts in the process of creating music. Music is not out there in the air vibrating where science is king at putting numbers on it. Air vibration is not what people talk about or refer to as beeing music. Music is a product of perception processes in the brain. Like every emotion we have its non repeatable, contextual and greatly influenced by our mood. Take a walk alone in the forest and then you have a loud sound and get scared. Then as you walk along you perceive the shape of an animal. You react in immediate fear and focus all your attention on the shape. Getting closer you realize its only a shadow. When in fear we see things that are not there. Fear amplifies our perception. But look at this in this other way: If there really was to be a predator in those shadows, you would have seen it faster under fear. Knowledge can also amplify or reduce perception. The name 'naim' (example) will link to many expectations and alter slightly our mood. Perception beeing amplified music appears different too. At the point we explain ABX beeing the true. ABX = percetion of music an inner psychological process totally influenced by our mood, knowledge. I would just leave this part here with the small warning that if knowledge that there should be a difference affect us in seeing that difference, knowledge that there should be no difference can also affect us in seeing A and B as the same.

The most important part is the next one. Its the result of my own observations. I dont beleive in break in time very much (Well I do but so very slightly). I beleive it is mainly (like 80% just a guess) brain correction. I have many times tried amp switching and noticed that overtime they end beeing very similar while sounding very different at first. A bright speaker will sound very bright to someone coming from a dark one. But can feel dark to someone coming from a bright one. With cables the first time I biwired I was taken aback, just like every believers. It was just adding another cheap monster but god it was so different, so obvious. I tried to switch back hum I was not so convinced. I switched to bi-wire again and it was gone. Same thing with amps. I reaalized that the less I had been used to a component over a long period and the more I switched the less I would feel a difference. Overtime the component vanishes more and music end up sounding very normal. That is where ABX fails in that the brain adapts rather quickly and fixes things. When listening for a system for like 2 years the brain kinds of apply the sound patch. Switch to a component that does not need this brain correction and the brain at first still applys it and you get totally new sounds emerging and often plain oddness. This is my explanantion of break-in time. But also my explaination of the thousand of people litterally swearing to god that this amp/cable sounded soooooooo different. The brain is not passive, it created the music, its like imagination creating images. It also corrects faults, get used to exces and so to speak calibrates over time to a sound.

So I have those notions that im working on in order to explain the thruth with abx AND those thousands of people swearing that they had a clear perception of a clear difference. While you seem to be camped on one side right?

The way ABX should be done : put people for 7 days in room and play the same song over and over again. On the seventh day you give them a button to press when the song is played on the different cable. My prediction is that they will all get it.

 

[davedotco]

How do you explain the fact that people hear instant audible difference when they introduce a new component to a system sighted but need long term listening unsighted?

We need to dive into a theory of how brain acts in the process of creating music. Music is not out there in the air vibrating where science is king at putting numbers on it. Air vibration is not what people talk about or refer to as beeing music. Music is a product of perception processes in the brain. Like every emotion we have its non repeatable, contextual and greatly influenced by our mood. Take a walk alone in the forest and then you have a loud sound and get scared. Then as you walk along you perceive the shape of an animal. You react in immediate fear and focus all your attention on the shape. Getting closer you realize its only a shadow. When in fear we see things that are not there. Fear amplifies our perception. But look at this in this other way: If there really was to be a predator in those shadows, you would have seen it faster under fear. Knowledge can also amplify or reduce perception. The name 'naim' (example) will link to many expectations and alter slightly our mood. Perception beeing amplified music appears different too. At the point we explain ABX beeing the true. ABX = percetion of music an inner psychological process totally influenced by our mood, knowledge. I would just leave this part here with the small warning that if knowledge that there should be a difference affect us in seeing that difference, knowledge that there should be no difference can also affect us in seeing A and B as the same.

The most important part is the next one. Its the result of my own observations. I dont beleive in break in time very much (Well I do but so very slightly). I beleive it is mainly (like 80% just a guess) brain correction. I have many times tried amp switching and noticed that overtime they end beeing very similar while sounding very different at first. A bright speaker will sound very bright to someone coming from a dark one. But can feel dark to someone coming from a bright one. With cables the first time I biwired I was taken aback, just like every believers. It was just adding another cheap monster but god it was so different, so obvious. I tried to switch back hum I was not so convinced. I switched to bi-wire again and it was gone. Same thing with amps. I reaalized that the less I had been used to a component over a long period and the more I switched the less I would feel a difference. Overtime the component vanishes more and music end up sounding very normal. That is where ABX fails in that the brain adapts rather quickly and fixes things. When listening for a system for like 2 years the brain kinds of apply the sound patch. Switch to a component that does not need this brain correction and the brain at first still applys it and you get totally new sounds emerging and often plain oddness. This is my explanantion of break-in time. But also my explaination of the thousand of people litterally swearing to god that this amp/cable sounded soooooooo different. The brain is not passive, it created the music, its like imagination creating images. It also corrects faults, get used to exces and so to speak calibrates over time to a sound.

So I have those notions that im working on in order to explain the thruth with abx AND those thousands of people swearing that they had a clear perception of a clear difference. While you seem to be camped on one side right?

The way ABX should be done : put people for 7 days in room and play the same song over and over again. On the seventh day you give them a button to press when the song is played on the different cable. My prediction is that they will all get it.

Such long term blind tests have been carried out, usually of the black box variety, and there is no evidence whatsoever that our hearing improves with time. Such tests that have produced results suggest the opposite, ie in terms of sound quality, our long term memory is less reliable than our short term

That said, the feeling of the way a system behaves and influences listeners over time is one that many of us believe that we have experienced. I have reported my own experience of 'upgrading' my amplifier, a change that within approx 1 to 2 months left me hardly ever wanting to play music.

Again, this is an interesting phenomena though I doubt it is a simple one, and very difficult to prove because in the main, this is usually a sighted, subjective assessment, so other facrors come into play.

'Black Box' tests, as mentioned above involve placing such a box in a system and attempting to gauge the owners reaction over time or when the box is switched for another (but different) box. Quite gross changes can be introduced in this way yet the subjects fail to hear them, even in their own system, in their own room, even though these 'gross changes' when tested in a conventional switched comparison are easily discernable.

BTW. The real problem of any meaningful blind test is the simple monotony of it, difficult to maintain concentration at the necessary levels.

BTW 2. You should not use the term ABX when refering to conventional blind tests, it is inaccurate.

 

[steve_1979]

There is no time limit for ABX testing. they still work the same whether you listen for 1 second or 1 week. Although considering how short peoples audio memory is I'd expect them to be much more accurate with shorter time periods.

 

[pyrrhon]

There is no time limit for ABX testing. they still work the same whether you listen for 1 second or 1 week. Although considering how short peoples audio memory is I'd expect them to be much more accurate with shorter time periods.

So you dont think we get accustomed to our own sound system over time? You think that we dont because we forget? I mean that sounds a surprising claim for sure! I have seen some ABX test result but never in the scope of days where people have been accustomed to one system before a change got introduced. Well my bad here I should have checked those tests methodology. The ones I heard of are always rather quick switching and the user have to guess the hifi vs the cheap one. Like I said if my predictions are wrong then Im wrong so please can you point to me thoses tests over long periods that I can settle my case. Ill read and report back here.

 

[Craig M.]

I've only ever seen ab/x tested against long term listening once. It was conducted in Japan as part of a test into the audibility threshold of jitter. The results of the 1st jitter test were contested (I believe) on the basis that ab/x wasn't the best way to spot small differences and long term listening was the way, whatever - they decided to try to get evidence of the best way of testing and then run the jitter test again. Everybody taking part in the test (a mix of audiophiles, musicians, studio engineers, and students) was given a small black box to introduce into the system, the black box had an unmarked switch, one way introduced a small amount of distortion to the signal - the other way did nothing. The test subjects had to identify which switch position introduced the distortion. Half of them performed a/b switching every 30 seconds or so, half of them would keep it in one position for at least 2 weeks. The short term a/b group learnt to spot which was which and identify it blind in under 10 minutes, the long term group still couldn't reliably pick it after 3 months.

The above is correct to the best of my recollection, I found it following a link from another forum but the link no longer works.

 

[pyrrhon]

BTW. The real problem of any meaningful blind test is the simple monotony of it, difficult to maintain concentration at the necessary levels.

In a test like the one I suggest people are aware that a change will occur they press the button when they feel it thats all. So it would not be double blind if Im correct. But yes I will stop throwing ABX around since its not exactly that. The only thing that matters is what a certain test could prove.

Expectations alter perception but could it be like fear, it amplifies it? Knowing of a change would help us seeing it and not just inventing it? I would like to have another explanation to those big changes I have felt when switching components then: I invented them. Its scary that we could be so badly fooled isnt it? I have had those cables at home that sounded very bright and detailed. I didnt want to like them, I didnt want to buy at the price an I didnt. When I returned at the shop the seller asks if it made any difference. I said night and day! He ask why I didnt keep em and I told him that I prefered the warmer sound of my monster cables! Getting in the better/worse debate I will never do that. But I report that my recent amp change got me up all night. I was totally amazed and shocked at all this new information coming from my system. But to be honest I can remember one morning with my old system where I had this very feeling of everything beeing different and nothing was changed. I am definitively going to read your amp post! If im wrong Ill be a bit sadened frankly cause I would have like an explanantion that favors both the subjective experience and the scientific method. Like both are right with their own claims and limitations.

 

[steve_1979]

So you dont think we get accustomed to our own sound system over time?

That's not what I ment at all.

Of course people become accustomed to the sound of their system over time.

 

[TatuHoo]

It is all too familiar experience to me at least that you spot your ears/brain has done some work, wihropus asking your permission!

What you say I think is true. At the same time we have this what we want to think as our intellectual part odf us. That is actually very smart. E.g. I can now revoke in my memory a set of different sorts of understandings & emotions evoked by the charateristics of the sound in a particular system produses and then make generalisations concerning the "brains memory music signal analysed results" and learn what good sound actually is. I think this is what amplifier & speaker designers are able to do & do as their work!

 

[pyrrhon]

I've only ever seen ab/x tested against long term listening once. It was conducted in Japan as part of a test into the audibility threshold of jitter. The results of the 1st jitter test were contested (I believe) on the basis that ab/x wasn't the best way to spot small differences and long term listening was the way, whatever - they decided to try to get evidence of the best way of testing and then run the jitter test again. Everybody taking part in the test (a mix of audiophiles, musicians, studio engineers, and students) was given a small black box to introduce into the system, the black box had an unmarked switch, one way introduced a small amount of distortion to the signal - the other way did nothing. The test subjects had to identify which switch position introduced the distortion. Half of them performed a/b switching every 30 seconds or so, half of them would keep it in one position for at least 2 weeks. The short term a/b group learnt to spot which was which and identify it blind in under 10 minutes, the long term group still couldn't reliably pick it after 3 months.

The above is correct to the best of my recollection, I found it following a link from another forum but the link no longer works.

Highly interesting to say the least. Makes me wonder if the brain can fix problems! Hence long time listeners cant make the difference anymore! That would fit my understanding. Great info tough im really in doubt of everything I think of right now! Thats good, I can evolve from that.

 

[davedotco]

Just to be clear.

There are two kinds of scientifically viable blind testing that are carried out in audio.

The first is an ABX test done blind (ideally double blind, see below).

It is simple, a music sample is played through component A, then through component B. It is then played again and the suject is asked whether he thinks it is being played through component A or B. In most cases the subjects are allowed to repeat the samples and listen in any order.

This is then repeated with different music samples, repeated many times in fact to give a statistically viable result.

In a conventional AB blind test the subjects are played a music sample on component A, then component B and asked to say which is better. Again repeated listening is usually allowed and repeated many times with different samples.

In both these tests it is best if the person fronting the test and interacting with the subjects does not himself know what component is being played, this is double blind.

The problem is simply setting them up and performing sufficiant repititions for the results to be viable, boredom, fatigue and just plain impracticality cause all kinds of problems.

Few if any 'blind' tests are carried out with this standard of rigor but taking part in even simple, informal blind testing, of the sort that any interested group can carry out is very enlightening for those taking part.

 

[pyrrhon]

So you dont think we get accustomed to our own sound system over time?

That's not what I ment at all.

Of course people become accustomed to the sound of their system over time.

Sorry! I cant figure out where i got that from your post. I guess Im trying to respond to to many comment at the same time!

This topic apears to me very crucial and applys outside of the audio world. We are somewhere deep into psychology philosophy science. We need thinkers and passionate people thats an audiophile right? lol. Some things have to be better explained! Im expecting Vlad too cause I have seen pretty good posts from him.

 

[matt49]

The problem is simply setting them up and performing sufficiant repititions for the results to be viable, boredom, fatigue and just plain impracticality cause all kinds of problems.

Few if any 'blind' tests are carried out with this standard of rigor but taking part in even simple, informal blind testing, of the sort that any interested group can carry out is very enlightening for those taking part.

Absolutely.

Informal blind testing is a very useful reminder of how fallible our impressions are.

At the same time, scientifically rigorous blind testing is far beyond the capabilities of any but the most well resourced audio manufacturers. Harman do it, though I have some doubts about the rigour of their tests. And when you consider the billions (yes, billions) spent by pharmaceutical companies on testing of e.g. psychopharmaceuticals, most of which are scientifically worthess, it kind of puts things into perspective.

 

[pyrrhon]

Just to be clear.

There are two kinds of scientifically viable blind testing that are carried out in audio.

The first is an ABX test done blind (ideally double blind, see below).

It is simple, a music sample is played through component A, then through component B. It is then played again and the suject is asked whether he thinks it is being played through component A or B. In most cases the subjects are allowed to repeat the samples and listen in any order.

This is then repeated with different music samples, repeated many times in fact to give a statistically viable result.

In a conventional AB blind test the subjects are played a music sample on component A, then component B and asked to say which is better. Again repeated listening is usually allowed and repeated many times with different samples.

In both these tests it is best if the person fronting the test and interacting with the subjects does not himself know what component is being played, this is double blind.

The problem is simply setting them up and performing sufficiant repititions for the results to be viable, boredom, fatigue and just plain impracticality cause all kinds of problems.

Few if any 'blind' tests are carried out with this standard of rigor but taking part in even simple, informal blind testing, of the sort that any interested group can carry out is very enlightening for those taking part.

Very informative! Thanks. Next time I talk about the subject it will be in that meaning! I guess im also a bit new. While i have loved music all my life the language and knowledge around it is very abondant. I eat my crusts (french expression)