2. misc-audio
  3. 1030465862

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

First let me say that I'm not one of the naysayers that Twl refers to in his thread about "Sonic Relativism", so please no attacks. I have no agenda.

I'm just curious if any of you have (or would be willing to) put your ears to the test in the way of a blind comparison. If so, what were the results? It can be quite rewarding to know that you can discern differences between things such as cables, DACs, etc.

I was at a good friend's house this weekend and we decided to do some blind comparisons of CD vs. SACD. We had three discs of various types of music (Friday Night in San Francisco, Keb' Mo and Harry Connick Jr.). I sat in the sweet spot and my friend switched discs playing one cut from each disc CD/SACD at random.

I could discern the CD from the SACD every time, but I have to say that the differences were more subtle than I expected. Of course, I'm no scientist so my methods may be open for scrutiny. I'm just curious how many of you try similar tests?

I always find it interesting when people say that they "heard" a cd player (or other component) and it was really great or really crappy or not very exciting. This almost always refers to having heard it at a dealer. How do they know they didn't "hear" the other components? What's the point of reference? The only way to really listen to components or accessories is within the confines of a "reference" system. For most of us that simply means our own system. And even then, the only way to confirm that we're hearing what we "think" we're hearing is to do some sort of blind test.

So...How many of you have put your ears to the test? If you haven't...Would you? If not...Why not?
danheather
newbee
4,093 posts
 
paulwp, i'm highly suspicious of anyone trying to save me money when i don't hire them to do so - i really think their pushing their own agenda. while i respect engineers and scientists, as well as physicists, doctors, whatever, remember that science itself is a moving target, that it is constantly changing depending on the developement of new facts, laws of nature, theory, etc. a closed minded professional is much more dangerous that the most sujective idiot as people will take the professional seriously - what he sez can seem to make so much sense(!)especially if thats what you are predisposed to hear.
danheather & p_mmk, couldn't agree with you more re hyperbolic comments regarding equipment differences - when i see this i quickly turn the page - it just ell me that the write has something to sell (philosophically or actually).
bday00006957
1 posts
 
I have been able to tell differences in equipment before. But, like most said, sometimes I can't. Some differences grab your attention and some just pass you by, I suppose.

Off topic but interesting: My friends and I were drinking beer a few weeks ago (not my favorite drink, but I am familiar with it) and we noticed that we had several different brands of which we thought we knew their characteristics. Some were imports, some were domestics, and some were microbrews; both cheap and expensive. We began pouring each other glasses and not revealing the brand. On many occasions we had no idea what we were drinking. And, oddly, some of us said that we liked the test beer and found out that it was a brand we previously stated we disliked.

I don't know...Maybe all that beer made it seem more interesting at the time.

Brad Day
Atlanta, GA
danner
202 posts
 
Doing a double blind test with statistics is quite difficult with audio gear. The double protion of the title is that the presenter also doesn't know which stimulus is being given to the subject (non-verbal clues are not allowed). However, it's much easier with water. After buying bottled water for years, my wife suggested that I subject myself to a double blind test with three different types of bottled water and a fourth choice, tap water. I was confident that I could tell the difference between each of the four choices and that I would have no dificulty identifying my favorite. The results were statistically significant (overwhelmingly so) with my clear choice in the experiment being the tap water (not my 'favorite'). -- Now, having said that, I don't mean to suggest that I or anyone else would have similar results for high end audio. I personally believe that the system I have today, that I very much enjoy, is a direct result of successive improvements made by subjective comparison of alternatives. I only mention it to indicate that the results one gets from such tests can be surprizing and that you too can give it a try with other subjective choices that are easier to conduct as a double blind test.
newbee
4,093 posts
 
brad and danner, love the beer and water analogies. what is clear to me from your posts was that you could tell the differences, just that your preference were not what you expected. just shows that one could be pre-disposed to a certain taste, and for this subject a certain sound. the objective advocates would have you believe all water, beer and my favorite, wine, tastes the same if you can't see a label. by the way, all white wine tastes the pretty much the same to me because i don't like white wine that much and rarely drink it often enuf to recall the taste of the last one consumed.
cwlondon
1,198 posts
 
This question strikes fear in the hearts of audiophiles, perhaps because it takes some of the fun away or suggests that we have all spent way too much money on audio gear.

I have been interested in this hobby for many many years and consider myself very keen and reasonably experienced.

So I was horrifed several years ago when I found it very very difficult to hear the addition of a Linn Numeric DAC to a Linn Karik in a friends CD setup, even when played through Mark Levinson amps and Watt/Puppies -- and this wasn't even blind. Perhaps this is a bad example, but this was an expensive, Stereophile Class A/B product that supposedly changed the world of CD playback.

Still, I think I can hear a lot and I know what I like. Having agonized over the double blind question, my conclusion is that there is nothing to be ashamed of in placebo effect.

If we perceive that tweaky voodoo mods and/or esoteric gear makes the music sound better, than it does! And if the pleasure that we derive from that experience exceeds the expense and effort that we invest in creating it, than it's a good and worthwhile thing. I suppose that's why we are all here.

But I would guess that far more golden eared audiophiles would fail double blind tests than they would care to admit.
More to discover