Why"double blind"tests don't work:brain?

Hi Elizabeth; good thread. I believe the typical aupiophile becomes intimately familiar with their own systems, in their own rooms, and with their own music. And in that environment they can easily detect pretty small changes/differences. I know that's the case with me. But if taken away from my own system or out of the environment that I created-- well, all bets are off.

Of course gross differences can be detected--but subtleties, no, IMHO. And as Elizabeth suggests, stresses can easily negatively influence the subject's test responses.

An in-store audition is not of much use to me for this reason-- the possible exception being speakers. But even with speakers, you can only get a general idea of their "character"-- they WILL sound different in your room. Cheers. Craig.

i'm skeptical of the left brain-right brain explanation for abx failure. eruliaf xba rof noitanalpxe niarb thgir-niarb tfel eht fo lacitpeks m'i.

The stress theory combined with the "it's not my system so I don't really know it" reality is a dangerous combination. Add the nuances that come with simply shifting cables, as reported in earlier threads, and it's not surprising that the double blind tests don't consistently reveal anything. Image and advertising aside, I wonder how many of the Coke drinkers who picked Pepsi in a blind taste test really switched drinks afterward? The two really are different. Under stress and in a strange environment, it's not easy to pick the one you love (at least not with regards to what we're talking about here). Cheers.

Cornfed, great post!!! I would give you +2/+2, but I don't vote.

I have always thought that the difficulty people, including myself, have with this has to do with expectations and perceptual sets.

I think, similar to Elizabeth's comments, that when we are expecting to hear a difference and are trying to be analytical our brain tries to force the information from our senses into our existing experience/thought structures and we end up denying our senses because of our tendency to force experiental information into existing perceptual sets. This is the same reason that camoflage(sp?) does not necessarily have to mimic the visual background it resides in to be effective. It just has to break up the image of an object and our brain will integrate the object into existing perceptual sets.

From my intro to psych class back at the cow college I seem to remember that this concept underlies the use of Rorsach(sp?)or inkblot tests. They attempt to make you divulge your perceptual sets in response to a picture.

On the other hand when we are just listening/viewing without a goal in mind, our perceptual sets are not as active. For instance, we would see the pictures in the inkblot test as inkblots and not pictures. In this mode we hear/see what is really there instead of trying to force predetermined structure on our senses.

While I agree that we listen differently based on our objectives in listening I do not think it is a "hardware" problem having to do with the structure or operation of the brain. I think its a "software" problem that prevents us from being accurate and objective

I would really like to hear from anyone with some training in this area.