2. cables
  3. 1118611066

Reviews with all double blind testing?

In the July, 2005 issue of Stereophile, John Atkinson discusses his debate with Arnold Krueger, who Atkinson suggest fundamentally wants only double blind testing of all products in the name of science. Atkinson goes on to discuss his early advocacy of such methodology and his realization that the conclusion that all amps sound the same, as the result of such testing, proved incorrect in the long run. Atkinson’s double blind test involved listening to three amps, so it apparently was not the typical different or the same comparison advocated by those advocating blind testing.

I have been party to three blind testings and several “shootouts,” which were not blind tests and thus resulted in each component having advocates as everyone knew which was playing. None of these ever resulted in a consensus. Two of the three db tests were same or different comparisons. Neither of these resulted in a conclusion that people could consistently hear a difference. One was a comparison of about six preamps. Here there was a substantial consensus that the Bozak preamp surpassed more expensive preamps with many designers of those preamps involved in the listening. In both cases there were individuals that were at odds with the overall conclusion, and in no case were those involved a random sample. In all cases there were no more than 25 people involved.

I have never heard of an instance where “same versus different” methodology ever concluded that there was a difference, but apparently comparisons of multiple amps and preamps, etc. can result in one being generally preferred. I suspect, however, that those advocating db, mean only “same versus different” methodology. Do the advocates of db really expect that the outcome will always be that people can hear no difference? If so, is it the conclusion that underlies their advocacy rather than the supposedly scientific basis for db? Some advocates claim that were there a db test that found people capable of hearing a difference that they would no longer be critical, but is this sincere?

Atkinson puts it in terms of the double blind test advocates want to be right rather than happy, while their opponents would rather be happy than right.

Tests of statistical significance also get involved here as some people can hear a difference, but if they are insufficient in number to achieve statistical significance, then proponents say we must accept the null hypothesis that there is no audible difference. This is all invalid as the samples are never random samples and seldom, if ever, of a substantial size. Since the tests only apply to random samples and statistical significance is greatly enhanced with large samples, nothing in the typical db test works to yield the result that people can hear a difference. This would suggest that the conclusion and not the methodology or a commitment to “science” is the real purpose.

Without db testing, the advocates suggest those who hear a difference are deluding themselves, the placebo effect. But were we to use db but other than the same/different technique and people consistently choose the same component, would we not conclude that they are not delusional? This would test another hypothesis that some can hear better.

I am probably like most subjectivists, as I really do not care what the outcomes of db testing might be. I buy components that I can afford and that satisfy my ears as realistic. Certainly some products satisfy the ears of more people, and sometimes these are not the positively reviewed or heavily advertised products. Again it strikes me, at least, that this should not happen in the world that the objectivists see. They see the world as full of greedy charlatans who use advertising to sell expensive items which are no better than much cheaper ones.

Since my occupation is as a professor and scientist, some among the advocates of double blind might question my commitment to science. My experience with same/different double blind experiments suggest to me a flawed methodology. A double blind multiple component design, especially with a hypothesis that some people are better able to hear a difference, would be more pleasing to me, but even here, I do not think anyone would buy on the basis of such experiments.

To use Atkinson’s phrase, I am generally happy and don’t care if the objectivists think I am right. I suspect they have to have all of us say they are right before they can be happy. Well tough luck, guys. I cannot imagine anything more boring than consistent findings of no difference among wires and components, when I know that to be untrue. Oh, and I have ordered additional Intelligent Chips. My, I am a delusional fool!
tbg
rouvin
26 posts
 
Pableson, I find your posts interesting though not really responsive to the initial thread by TBG about the place of DBT in audio. Nor, have I felt that your posts have been responsive to my similar concerns and additional concerns about experimental validity (though I am sure that not all have been invalid), for instance, the very interesting and amusing 1984 BAS article where the Linn godfather not only failed to differentiate the analog from the digitally processed source, he identified more analog selections as digital. But... this was an atypical setup that would not be found in any home. We can’t really generalize from this, and this has nothing to do with advocacy of the "subjectivist" viewpoint. If you would be true to your objectivist bona fides, wouldn't you have to agree?

Then, there’s the issue, supported by your citations, that there have been DBT’s going back years that have demonstrated noticeable differences between individual components.

So, I think there is a background issue, and this was also mentioned in TBG’s initial post. Many adherents of DBT seem to be seeking the very "conformance" that you want to point out in others. That "conformance?" That until the very qualities claimed to exist can be proven to exist they must be assumed not to exist. Intoxicating argument, but ultimately revealing of a distinct bias, the invalidation of the experience of others as an a priori position until they can meet your standard. This "you ain't proved nothin'" approach is especially troublesome when one reads subjective reviews and realizes that the points they raise, creative writing they may well be, could never be addressed by DBT, ABX, or any other similar methodology. The majority of what we are able to perceive is not amenable to measurement that can be neatly, or even roughly, correlated with perception. To claim otherwise is an illusion. Enter the artists with some scientific and technical skill and we have high end audio. Sadly, with them come the charlatans and deluded along with average and "golden eared" folks who hope that they can hear their music sound a bit more like they think they remember it sounding somewhere in the past. Add something like cables and it seems the battle lines are drawn.

I’m a bit suspicious that you might not allow the person who can reliably detect a difference between two components to write whatever he wants in your forthcoming journal. You claim that once the DBT is passed, he can describe a component any way he wants. It doesn’t really make sense to me because a "just noticeable difference" is not the same as being able to notice all of the differences subjective reviewers claim, does it? If someone can tell the real Mona Lisa from a reproduction, even a well executed one, do you really care to hear about everything else he thinks about it? I don’t. I might want to see it myself, though.

I don’t think there will ever be anything like being able to recreate the exact sonic experience of a live musical performance in a home or studio. What we can hope for are various ways to recreate some reasonable semblance of some aspects of some performances. DBT probably has a place there.

In the meantime, I’d like to suggest a name for your journal, The Absolutely Absolute Sound. I think Gunbei has a supply blindfolds.
pabelson
344 posts
 
Rouvin: There really isn't much point in arguing with someone who assumes his conclusions, and then does nothing but repeat his assumptions. Here's what I mean:

The majority of what we are able to perceive is not amenable to measurement that can be neatly, or even roughly, correlated with perception.

How do you know what you are *able* to perceive (as distinct from what you *think* you perceive)? In the field of perceptual psychology, which is the relevant field here, there are standard, valid ways of answering that question. But it's a question you are afraid to address. Hence your refusal of my challenge to actually conduct a DBT of any sort. And the idea that you, an amateur audio hobbyist without even an undergraduate degree in psychology, has any standing to declare what is and is not valid as a test of hearing perception is pretty risible.

Finally, just to clear up your most obvious point of confusion: There is a difference between "what we are able to perceive" and "how we perceive it." You are conflating these two things, again because you don't want to face up to the issue. "What we are able to perceive" is, in fact, quite amenable to measurement. It's been studied extensively. There are whole textbooks on the subject.

Your harping on subjective reviewing, by contrast, is about "how we perceive it." We can't measure sound and make predictions about how it will sound to you, because how it will sound to you depends on too many factors besides the actual sound. That's why we need DBTs--to minimize the non-sonic factors. And when we minimize those non-sonic factors, we discover that much of what passes for audio reviewing is a lot of twaddle.
rouvin
26 posts
 
"We can't measure sound and make predictions about how it will sound to you, because how it will sound to you depends on too many factors besides the actual sound." This is what I have been saying in addition to less than favorable comments about many subjective reviews. This problem is one of many that equally hampers "objective" reviews.

A closer reading of what I have written would reveal that I am, at best, ambivalent about the whole process of audio reviewing, subjective or objective. Moreover, DBT has yet to produce much of significance beyond some people can sometimes tell under some conditions.

"And the idea that you, an amateur audio hobbyist without even an undergraduate degree in psychology, has any standing to declare what is and is not valid..." You have constructed a total absence of "valid" credentials for me, an exercise in "creative writing." "Lack of standing" is the problematic judgment invoked that leads you to invalidate experience, a source of needless angry conflict. It might be somewhat accurate to characterize me as "an amateur audio hobbyist," but you have taken quite a leap to decide that I am "without even an undergraduate degree in psychology," a leap that could not be more inaccurate. At least, you didn’t mention my lack of teeth and eviction from the trailer park.

There are subjective reviews in just about every field. Anyone that takes them for hard fact is not understanding what they are. I’d also suggest an advanced readings in sensation and perception to better understand the distinction between "what we are able to perceive" and "how we perceive it."

So, I’ll leave you with two thoughts apropos of this discussion. Einstein said, "Not everything that can be counted counts; and not everything that counts can be counted." In Alice in Wonderland, the Dodo said, "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." Where's Rodney King, anyhow?
qualia8
49 posts
 
This Rouvin-Pableson exchange is fascinating. I agree with Pableson on just about everything. Perhaps that is because I'm an academic (I'm a philosopher, but I'm also part of the cognitive science faculty b/c of my courses on color and epistemology). Anyway, I'm no psychologist, but I am aware of the powerful external forces shaping perceptual evaluation. So I am especially leery of those extra-acoustical mechanisms, which are, by their very nature hidden from us.

SOME RELEVANT PSYCHOLGOICAL MECHANISMS TO BEAR IN MIND.

To start with, there's the endowment effect. The experiment takes place at a three-day conference. At the beginning of the conference, everyone is given a mug. At the end of the conference, the organizers offer to buy the mugs back for a certain price. Turns out, people want something like $8 (can't remember the exact number) to give their mug back. But other groups at different conferences are not given the mug; it is sold to them. Turns out, the price they are willing to *pay* for the mug is, like $1. Conclusion: people very quickly come to think the things they have are worth more than things they don't have, but could acquire.

This may seem to run counter to our constant desire to swap out and upgrade in search of perfect sound, but it explains the superlatives that people use -- "best system I've ever heard," "sounds better than most systems costing triple"-- when describing mediocre systems they happen to own. (Other explanations for this are also possible, of course.)

Our audiophiliac tendencies are also in part explained by the "choice" phenomenon: when you are faced with a wide variety of options, you're not as happy with any of them as you otherwise would be. When subjects are offered three kinds of chocolate on a platter, they're pretty happy with their choice. But when they're offered twenty kinds, they're less happy even when they pick the identical chocolate. That's us!

Another endowment-like effect, though, and this is what got me to write this post, is one that happens after making a purchasing or hiring decision. After making the decision say, to hire person A over person B, a committee will rate person A *much* higher than prior to the hiring decision, when person B was still an option. In other words, we affirm our choices after making them.

This phenomenon is more pronounced the more sacrifices you make in the course of the decision-making process. In other words, if you went all out to get candidate A, you'll think he's even better. Women know this intuitively. It's called playing hard to get.

In the audio realm, when you spend a couple grand on cables, your listening-evaluation mechanisms will *make* the sound better, because you have sacrificed for it.

So *this* made me wonder whether really expensive cables *do* sound better, to those who know what they cost and who made the sacrifice of buying them. If so, then those cables are worth every penny to those who value that listening experience. DBT cannot measure this difference, because it's not a physical difference in the sound. But it is still a *real* difference in the perceptual experiences of the listener. In the one case (expensive cables), your perceptual system is all primed and ready to hear clarity, depth, soundstage, air, presence, and so on. In the other case (cheap cables), you perceptual system is primed to hear grain, edge, sibilance, and so on. And hear them you do!

Best of all would be forgeries, *faked* expensive cables your wife could buy, knowing they were fakes, and stashing the unspent thousands in a bank account. You'd get to "hear" all of this wonderful detail, thinking you were broke, but years later, you'd have a couple hundred grand in your retirement fund!

Sorry for the rambling post, but I am interested to hear what Pableson has to say. You are missing out, Pableson. Knowing about the extra-acoustical mechanisms, you cannot "hear" the benefits of expensive cables. It's all ruined for you, as if you discovered your "wonderful" antidepressants were just pricey sugar pills.
seandtaylor99
1,262 posts
 
Double blind testing is the ONLY way to test something fairly to remove human preconception, expectation, and visual prejudice. That is why it is used for drug trials, and that is why it should be used for hifi.

Any audiophile who questions whether DBT can produce the most accurate results within the other constraints (time/partnering equipment) of a shootout is not helping advance audio. But then I think most of us here would secretly agree that audio is a hobby with more than its share of snake-oil salesmen.
More to discover