Have You Ever Put Your Golden Ears to the Test??

how exactly would you conduct a blind test? in my listening room? i have no problem detecting differences in any equipment i use, good or bad i'm not predisposed, but in an unfamilar environment there would be just too much new information to process, at least for me, and that is how i see most blind tests conducted and i consider those worthless.

Setting up a truly objective blind test (one that eliminates all of the biases that scientists claim are inherent in sighted comparisons) is not a trivial matter. Plus, you need at least a smattering of statistics training to properly interpret the results. That makes true blind testing a nonstarter for most audiophiles. And this being just a hobby, there's no need for that kind of rigor.

One important thing to remember is that blind tests can prove there's a difference, but they cannot prove that there isn't, or that you can't hear one. That's a basic law of statistics. (On the other hand, if you do a whole lot of blind tests that come up negative, the evidence does start to point in a certain direction...)

That said, if you're interested in the limits of what humans can and cannot hear, and why blind testing is essential in determining this, you should pick up a basic text in psychoacoustics. Used, older editions can be had cheaply, and it might save you some money on audio gear.

Good point Newbee. There has to be a "reference". You must be listening to equipment that you're familiar with in an environment with which you're also familiar. I would tend to agree that "double-blind" testing performed by people who don't even know what they're listening for (Twl pointed this out elsewhere) is flawed at best and completely worthless.

What I'm referring to is conducting your own "in-home" blind testing where there is a point of reference and, hopefully, some relatively skilled ears listening for the most subtle of contrasts.

I've listened pretty extensively to my friend's system (almost as much as my own!) so I'm comfortable with using it as a reference. Additionally, my friend doesn't make nearly as many changes to his system as I do, so it's been pretty constant for a long time.

P_mmk also raises a good point about people make hyperbolic claims such as "the best" or "blows you away". I have heard people say such things about SACD which was one of the reasons that I wanted to conduct our informal test. While there was certainly a difference, it was not as obvious as I would have hoped.

Imagine the reaction people had to color television when it came out. Cable vs rabbit ears. Digital cable/satellite vs analog. DVD vs VHS. HDTV vs conventional broadcast. In the visual medium the changes are more obvious.

Ours is a hobby of incrementalism. This is all the more reason that we should be training our ears. It's easy to say that I hear a difference, but harder to prove. I'm not suggesting that I need to prove it to somebody else. I want to prove it to myself.

Every time I make a change. Sometime during my mis-spent youth I suffered brain damage that affected my short term memory (you know like forgetting where you put your car keys). So every time I switch one cable for another or one component for another, by the time I get back to my couch I can't remember what it is I'm listening to.

Actually, I don't know anyone in my real life who would have any interest in doing the switching for me, nor am I sure I would be interested. I am perfectly happy deciding for myself that the new amp I bought sounds better than the old one. I trust myself to do this, because, for example, I have brought amps home to audition and determined on a sighted basis that if there was any difference, I couldnt tell or it was so subtle that I did not need to make the purchase. I have no interest in impressing anyone or any part of my ego invested in my hi fi equipment (I didn't design the stuff).

What I have said recently, and have heard privately from some real pros, some well known, is that properly designed inexpensive late model amps and cd players get the job done as well as expensive stuff, and no one has published a report of a rigorous blind test that shows otherwise. I wasnt really happy when one of my favorite reviewers told me that there isnt much of a difference between my expensive cd player (I paid a little more than 1/2 the retail) and a NAD. I dont even agree with him. But I wouldnt want to put any money on my belief.

The other thread to which you refer is hilarious. The author turns everything on its head. Scientists and professional engineers use double blind testing all the time, but he calls DBX "pseudo-science." The camps are usually divided into scientific objectivists (those who argue for DBX tests and say all cables and properly functioning amps sound the same) and subjective relativists (audiophiles who believe that everything sounds different), but the author of that thread calls people championing an objective scientific approach "subjective relativists." There is no way to begin to have an intelligent conversation on the subject

I am not one of them, but I respect the scientists and engineers I know who advocate DBX testing of audio components. I dont see how you could find fault with them. They're trying to save you money and redirect your attention to things that really matter - speakers and room interaction.

How could anyone clinging to an argument which is easily overturned by simple auditioning, be considered "scientific objectivist"? I would offer "dogmatic pragmatist" as a more accurate description. The term subjective relativist does apply to them because the testing used is subject to their subjective "statistical analysis" of their conclusions, which are, in fact, skewed by the attempt to make the analysis conform to their preconcieved notions.
I offer as a refutation, the vast bulk of the audiophile community, who have voted on this matter with their dollars to purchase equipment which does sound better than their previous gear. I cannot accept the (scientific objectivist) notion, that we are all in a state of mass-hypnosis, causing us to make expensive purchases for no gain. This is absurd to say the least. Should we not believe what we see because of "psycho-visual" implications, or disbelieve what we touch because of "psycho-tactile" ones? Why not? We are being asked to disbelieve our ears because of "psycho-acoustic" reasons. But some people are just more "informed" than you and me, don't you know?