2. tech-talk
  3. 983207388

Blind Listening Tests?

I would like help locating any articles or studies on the subject of blind listening tests as it relates to high end audio equipment. I realize this is akin to blasphemy for many who are into this hobby, however, the more times I read of people claiming to hear audible differences between certain components and system set-ups, the more skeptical I become.(e.g. equipment racks ,interconnects,etc.)The fact that virtually every major audio publication is so adamently against the idea only adds to my skepticism.

Before I invoke the wrath of this site's faithful, let me clarify that I am not doubting the sincerity of those who claim to hear sonic differences between certain components. However, believing that an audible difference exists when one knows that he is listening to a piece of equipment that is generally well regarded or made by a well respected manufacturer is entirely different from being able to detect the difference in a blind listening scenario. Given the undisputed connection between the mind and our perceptions, why is there so much sentiment against such tests? Couldn't the results of such testing be simply another piece of information that we could factor in to our purchasing decisions. It seems to me that those who are so sure of ther critical listening ability (i.e. all stereophile reviewers) should not hesitate to prove their skills.

I look forward to any help in directing me to more information on the subject.Thanks, Don.
dtittle
70242241e18c
81 posts
 
Jostler3, the ABX page is no longer on the URL you cited. It's here: http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx.htm

It's got very good documentation of the double-blind test process and explanations of the statistical analysis involved in evaluating the results.

Also, in a white paper by Dr. Floyd Toole there's a description of tests where the listeners were allowed to see the speakers they were evaluating and tests where they were not; not surprisingly, in the "non-blind" tests they gave higher marks to the speaker systems that looked more attractive. The white paper is at http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf.

I like double blind tests. It's fun to take them and to witness others taking them. Especially when there's an "everybody knows a Goldbrick M9000 sounds better than a Conethumper Gizmotron" type of comparison being made. Well, after the test, maybe everybody doesn't know that now. Or maybe a listener will hear audible differences between A and B and find that the one that sounds better actually isn't the one they assumed was superior.

I believe in getting value for what I spend on audio gear. If something commands a premium price, it ought to offer comparable audible benefits. And I stress again, audible. If not, keep it, because I'm not interested in impressing people with how much I can spend. I just want great sound.
mborner
34 posts
 
FACT! If you were to take all of the major audio magazine editors and reviewers, you know, the ones you trust your thousands of dollars with, and had them BLIND test every component (excluding speakers)From the cheapest to the most insanely expensive, and then had them write a full review on each one the results would be shocking!! The reason they don't do this is because (1) they would certainly lose business from the big players and (2) they would emberrass the sh** out of themselves. Personaly, I think that a professional reviewer that claims he can hear the difference after installing cones on the underside of his amp is full of crap! What's even funnier is that this same reviewer claims to hear suttle differences after he turns the cones up-side-down!!! Please, folks, get real. If modern technology cannot detect a sonic difference, neither can you. If you want to save yourself thousands of dollars on audio equipment, try LISTENING without knowing the brand name, model, or price. You may feel like a fool but believe me, the salesman will respect you for it.
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Mike, I think you make a very good point here, namely that we are all prone to be taken in by clever marketing and gushing reviewers, however I think you underestimate the power of a trained ear. I think that well trained hearing acuity beats "modern technology" any day in hearing subtle differences. On the other hand, I'll grant you the case of Vladimir Sushurin, the designer of the LAMM gear. He seems not to listen at all, only to "measure", but then measure according to his very special theory of human hearing, which, if I am informed correctly, runs very much diverse from mainstream thinking on this topic. I myself can hear the difference cones make, not under all and every gear, but under some, CD players especially and some preamps, yes even in blind testing. I think its difficult to generalise in this our topic. There are lots of opinions floating around, but no hard and fast rules, except for those basic ones, which however do not necessarily indicate exactly how a given unit will perform. Not that it matters, on the contrary, it makes life more interesting for all of us.
479058's avatar
479058
105 posts
 
Detlof: 1) The power of a trained ear depends on how it was trained, and for what. If it was trained by years of imagining differences that one couldn't really detect, then it's not much use to anyone else. The refusal of many subjective reviewers to submit to objective testing speaks volumes about the quality of their "training." 2) Scientists who study hearing will tell you that they can measure differences far smaller than the human ear can pick out. 3) I've no interest in getting into an argument with you about your blind tests of cones under preamps. But I'm very skeptical. It would not be a trivial exercise.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6
1,071 posts
 
Well Detlof, I can not begin to thank-you for your insites. I had to finally ask the six 24 year old women to leave. We sure learned alot. Oh and we listened to the system too, the verdict, there are those who believe and those who don't. Of the ones who believe a group of them have amazing sounding systems and are not concerned with the viewpoint of those who don't believe. If those who don't believe want to stand on there "scientific" belief great, too bad for them for there lose. If you've followed the threads of the na-sayers above I think you'll find there experiences are few and there view points limited. It's clearly not worth the energy to try to help these people find great sound, they are not here for that. They only want to prove there great knowledge and little practical experience. The best test, six women, mid twenties, thanks buddy! J.D.
More to discover