音響評論員的角色

[Leo Yeh]

References

1. S.P. Lipshitz, “The Great Debate—Some Reflections Ten Years Later,” presented
at the Audio Engineering Society 8th International Conference, “The
Sound of Audio,” May 1990.
2. Comment of participant at the AES 8th International Conference, “The
Sound of Audio,” May 1990.
3. Comment of participant at the AES 8th International Conference, “The
Sound of Audio,” May 1990.
4. J. Bruck, open letter to AES members.
5. Ibid.
6. F.E. Toole, “Listening Tests: Turning Opinion into Fact,” Journal of the
Audio Engineering Society, Vol.30 No.6, p.431 (June 1982).
7. S.P. Lipshitz, op. cit.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, New York,
Harper and Row (1958) (First published by The University of Chicago Press, 1958),
p.55.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. S.P. Lipshitz, op. cit.
“Many reviewers have, over the intervening years, dabbled with controlled tests and found that many imagined differences seem to vanish under blind conditions. This doesn’t surprise anyone who has spent some time trying to get to the bottom of such cases, but does tend to make one cynical about the likelihood of ever resolving the question in the public’s mind. After all, the sale of magazines is probably boosted by the controversy, and the more differences between components that reviewers are able to ‘perceive’ (or imagine that they have perceived) the better it is for their egos and their publishers. In other words, there may be strong ulterior motives for not wishing to resolve the matter.”
16. M. Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper &
Row (1990), p.33.
17. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1989 edition, Vol.8, p.47.
18. M. Polanyi, op. cit.
19. Ibid.
20. R. Harley, “CD Transport Performance,” Stereophile, Vol.16 No.11, pp.83-113.
21. M.O. Hawksford and C. Dunn, “Is the AES/EBU/SPDIF Interface
Flawed?,” AES preprint #3360.
22. S.P. Lipshitz, op. cit.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. M. Csikszentmihalyi, op. cit., pp.28-29, 31.
26. M. Polanyi, op. cit.
27. W. T. Gallway, The Inner Game of Tennis, Bantam (1974), pp.22-23.
28. E. Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery, Pantheon (1953), p.vii.
29. A. Stiller, “Toward a Biology of Music,” The Audio Amateur, One/1990 p.40.
30. I. Masters, “Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?,” Stereo Review, January,
1987.
31. C. Grewin, T. Rydén, “Subjective Assessments on Low Bit-Rate Audio
Codecs,” proceedings of the 10th International AES Conference, “Images of
Audio.”
32. Recorded comments of Bart Locanthi replayed at the 91st AES
Convention workshop on low-bit-rate codecs

[Leo Yeh]

Footnotes

1. The term “observational listening” was coined by Harry Pearson, founder of The Absolute Sound magazine. Pearson also invented much of today’s widely accepted language used to describe artifacts in reproduced music.
2. John Watkinson, author of six books on digital audio, articulated the idea during a presentation the 10th AES conference “Images of Audio” in London (1991) that if the ones and zeros are the same, the sound must be the same. Making reference to binary ones and zeros, Watkinson stated, to great laughter from the audience, “Somehow I can’t conceive of an audiophile ‘one’. . . You can only say that [if the data are identical, the sound is identical] once, which is a problem if you have to publish a hi-fi magazine every month. It leaves an intellectual vacuum. . . When the term ‘audiophile’ replaced ‘hi-fi freak,’ I immediately thought of necrophiles (sic) and pedophiles. Perhaps I wasn’t far off.”
3. Fortunately, some academic researchers see critical listening as an expansion of rationality, not a rejection of it. For example, AES Fellow Michael Gerzon wrote in his paper “Limitations of Double-Blind A/B Listening Tests,” presented at the 91st AES convention, “Most subjectivists don’t deny the possibility of eventually finding objective justifications for what they hear. . . One should take the comments of less cranky subjectivists seriously as at least guides for designing listening-test protocols.”
4. S.P. Lipshitz, op. cit.
“It is usually best, rather than conducting a preset number of trials, to monitor the statistics as the trials proceed, and to extend the number of trials if there appears to be a reasonable possibility that a subject is performing somewhat better than random.”
5. T. Nousaine, “The Great Debate: Is Anyone Winning?,” presented at the 8th Audio Engineering Society Conference “The Sound of Audio,” May 1990.
Mr. Nousaine incorrectly stated Stereophile magazine’s blind poweramplifier listening tests were “falsely reported” as indicating statistical
evidence that the listeners could distinguish between power amplifiers. For a more rigorous statistical analysis of the data and an accurate reporting of the results, the reader is referred to the analysis by Professor Herman Burstein in Stereophile, Vol.12 No.10 (October, 1989), pp.33-41. Mr. Nousaine also ignored in his paper the positive results of a later blind test performed by Banks and Krajicek at Pomona College using samples of the same two amplifiers and featuring an almost identical methodology. This later test demonstrated statistically significant blind identification of the two amplifiers and was reported in full in Stereophile (Vol.12 No.11, November 1989).
6. Many respected academic researchers also question the validity of blind A/B testing. Michael Gerzon stated in his paper “Limitations of Double- Blind A/B Listening Tests,” presented at the 91st AES convention, “It would be a disaster if we had protocols that didn’t reveal subjective differences that the average consumer would notice in five years’ time. I want to indicate possible areas in which normal double-blind A/B protocols may not be adequate to reveal faults that may be audible to even unsophisticated end listeners. I’m going to do this with possible models of how we hear.” Gerzon encouraged other researchers to look beyond double-blind testing and “to develop experimental methodology matched to the phenomenon which is being tested,” and to “not believe that one simple protocol—double-blind or A/B or ABX—is the answer to all kinds of measurement problems.”
Similarly, AES Fellow J. Robert Stuart stated in his landmark papers “Estimating the Significance of Errors in Audio Systems” and “Predicting the Audibility, Detectability and Loudness of Errors in Audio Systems” that “A/B testing using program material and particularly musical program is fraught with difficulties. . .the author sets out some reasons why the ‘objective’ approaches of A/B listening and null-testing may be flawed.”
7. A survey taken by David Clark at the amplifier listening tests conducted during the 85th AES convention showed that 70% of the AES members in
attendance believed audible differences existed between power amplifiers.
This figure alarmed Clark, who stated in his paper “Ten Years of ABX Testing” “This is an amazing response from members of an engineering society who are all undoubtedly aware of the many controlled tests which failed to support the claim. Mechanical, civil or nuclear engineers would certainly be held to a higher level of scientific integrity.”
8. The greatest expression of the reconciliation between two apparently disparate modes of thought is found in Robert M. Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values (William Morrow & Company). My interpretation of Pirsig’s ideas is the foundation of this paper.

[sp007]

野心很大哦.................

[Leo Yeh]

他出的書我有兩本，果然是主筆，很會寫

野心很大哦.................