1. Home
  2. tech-talk
  3. 990623239

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

In Kubla's poop post realized why double blind testing doesn't work. The parts of the brain used for "enjoyment" and "critical listening" are different and only cooperate under certain conditions (except in a few highly trained individuals)
So at home in normal listening we can evaluate things as we switch from enjoying to thinking about what we are listening to. But in a "test" or controlled environment, the brain's enjoyment cells are too stressed or??? to get in and take part. The Ego is demanding the utmost from the evaluation and the most needed parts of the brain (the enjoying parts) do not cooperate. (read this in context of my post in the Kubla's "poop" post) So the testee fails to notice the real difference under the test conditions that they Do notice at home...(though a few exceptional individuals can do this)
This is TOTALLY speculative and I just throw it out for our mutual amusement... But please feel free to take part in this thread
elizabeth
dbw1
161 posts
 
Thanks Ignatz. Good example. Now that you explain it again, it does remind me of certain cognitive models, although there are many models that blend the "software" and "hardware" components such that they're not really separate. I wonder if we'll ever know...

Anyway, the real reason I'm resposting is that I wanted to comment that I actually agree with Sugarbrie. I've done A-B testing (and other variants: a-b-a-b, etc.), and it's worked pretty well for me. My wife and I use it to select components, and we've found good test-retest reliability doing it. It does make me curious about why so many of us have this experience and so many experts (Dunlavy, Kurt from Velodyne, etc.) report the opposite, which is I guess why Elizabeth started the post! And I do enjoy theorizing about our brains...
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
I've read the John Dunlavy article on his website. Despite all the statements and claims he makes, there is one thing missing. He offers no proof or backup what-so-ever to any one of his statements. It is just a bunch of Clinton-speak. He claims to have fooled people who have golden ears, but does not name them, or offer them as a reference or endorsement, or even tell us how he knows that these people even have golden ears in the first place. He fools people by never switching cables, but telling them he has. This to him is proof that people cannot tell the difference between cables, however, never switching cables does not prove people cannot tell the difference between two different cables; you would have to actually switch cables and not tell them you switched to prove that.
The Dunlavy article comes across to me as only a marketing ploy to impress the reader and sell his gear.
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
Read the white papers Mike Vansever wrote on his website. www.vansevers.com -- Mike is a pro-audio electrical engineer, the kind of person who ususally claims there is no difference. Mike not only sais there is a difference, he explains why, including diagrams, and lots of explanations, and scientific stuff that is a little over my head. I think one white paper is titled something like: "Why do things that should not have a sound, actually do."
liguy
228 posts
 
Sugarbie, there is nothing scientific about either one of these gentleman's papers. Dunlavy offers no proof and Vansever's proof is pure bunk. Please be very weary of people who profess their beliefs as gospel and start trusting your own ears. Your own auditory system system will shed light on what is truth to you and only you. Good luck
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
I do trust my ears. I was just thinking that Mike Vansevers by offering backup to his ideas is trying to use a proper scientific approach. By showing his data, he opens himself to examination by others. Mike was once a total unbeliever like many pro-audio engineers. He bought into that gospel that cables and power conditioning does not matter. A lot of unbelievers will refuse to sit down and listen and have their beliefs challenged. He did sit down and after hearing a difference was man enough to admit he was wrong. His research was done not to sell you and me, it was to prove to himself why there is a difference. By making a statement that Mike's work is bunk, do you offer proof?? It might be; but its over my head to tell. I've just tried some of his stuff and it all does exactly what he sais it will do, so I tend to believe him.
More to discover