McGurk effect and DBTs

[Werd]

Hey guys I think I am on to something regarding all this DBT debacle misuse for testing gear. Check this out tell me what you think. I am using the McGurk effect

http://youtu.be/qD3w3cAhEYU



If you are going to apply the McGurk effect with blind testing. What will happen the cables are going to be taken out of the equation sonically. So long as it's cables that are DUT. The remaining gear will be the guiding signature,  the way the mouth guided "far" in the McGurk vid. So the mind will apply the known sound of the amp to the subject. Or it maybe the speakers. What ever component the subject will apply their own McGurk signature to. What ever component (remains known) that has the most influence on the person tested.  

To add to the MCGurk effect, if you are testing cables to hear a difference. The cables need to be shown while the rest of the gear remains hidden.  To avoid any Mcgurk effect from the rest of the gear on the cable sound.

This makes sense and explains the problems with DBTs. The problem is the way they're administered. The DBT is looking for the opposite answer of the truth. This explains why there are so many people who claim to hear a difference while DBTs shut down many of those differences. It's a (similar to)  Mcgurk effect applied to the known gear.

[Werd]

I'm calling it the werd effect on gear sound. 

[Werd]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431611/

This article suggests testing Prat doesn't require blind testing to eliminate visual cues. The ear doesn't rely on vision to assess sound. But spatial testing the ear relies on vision and visual cues play boss.
Applied to stereo this might be looking at the space between speakers and visually assessing a soundstage. Like air between instruments and stuff like that. So it sounds like resolution.

So prat doesn't require blind testing to rid visual biases while resolution may require blind testing to rid visual biases.

This is far more complicated than I've seen any DBT take into consideration. That is why they are so pointless and driven by agenda's.

[rollo]

  Took me a while to digest the theory McCurk spews. DBT IMO is a waste of time for the average audiophile.
   We all know by now sound is subjective to the listener due to many factors.
     We as hobbyists know our sound. If anything is inserted to such we hear a difference. Perceived or not we hear a difference. Then there is the chase. Finding another way of getting what we like. Not what others tell us we like or should like.
     After all the testing , measuring, building at the end of the day it is the sound we experience in our room that matters.
    Since we are the customers and have ears only our opinion counts towards a purchase.
      In all my years at this never have I heard two systems sound the same. You ??


charles

[Werd]

It is just a bunch of smoke n mirrors to reinforce an objectvist agenda. Usually trying to sell something at the end of it.

The way I see it there are only 2 possibilities that can exist with gear.
The first is we hear distortion. The reason why we hear cables differences is because of distortion.  Not in a bad way like THD but f something is different we can call it a distortion or difference. It also works electrically because this distortion should theoretically be measurable.

The 2nd is we are driven by biases and those biases influence are ability to hear properly. We don't so we are somewhat delusional and tricked.

The problem with the first is the electrical measuring equipment is some what outdated and not able to interface what ear hears and what the gear is doing (electrically). Oscilloscopes were never designed to track hearing. They are there to measure circuits.

The 2nd one is the objectivist main playing card. They play their main card by citing DBT tests.  The whole DBT pitch is based on controlling biases through DBTs. The problem is once you eliminate a bias another one shows up.  There are no failsafes with multi integrated sensory perception. You can't take away a persons visual perception and expect their audio perception to not look for another bias. And once it finds it, it skews the main intent. To hear without biases.

So if you are looking at your stereo with out any knowledge of the cables being swapped out.  My opinion   (I gotta lot of em too btw) is that your multisensory integration biases will make everything sound what is known like your speakers or amp. It won't hear the cables.

Unless you train yourself to adjust to these biases. Which is retarded and a waist of time IMO.

This is how I applied the McGurk and what it demonstrates to me is how much visual can impair hearing.  Not just visual but "knowing" through sensory integration about something. That DBTs are incomplete and do not properly address the biases in hearing.

[Werd]

One more thing. From my understanding of biases (which is well read but not academic) is.  If you want to know what something really sounds like. Cables for eg. (This would not be DBT test but and an observation). To get the best un-biased perspective you would need to hide, make not know all the gear (including speakers) to the listener. The listener would then be able swap out known cables to hear the differences. There you would hear cables for what they are and control the most significant bias. That being the visual of the cables.

 If you did it completely unknowing your mind would immediately start searching for a crutch. A known bias. Could be room, or music association played at a different time on a different stereo.

Biases are fricken bizarre and very real but wielded incorrectly by an objectivist.