1. Home
  2. speakers
  3. 1412457273

Why blind listening tests are flawed

This may sound like pure flame war bait - but here it is anyway. Since rebuilding my system from scratch, and auditioning everything from preamps to amps to dacs to interconnects to speaker cable etc, it seems clearer than ever.

I notice that I get easily fooled between bad and great sounding gear during blind auditions. Most would say "That should tell you that the quality of the gear is closer than you thought. Trust it".

But it's the process of blind listening tests that's causing the confusion, not a case of what I prefer to believe or justify to myself. And I think I know why it happens.

Understanding the sound of audio gear is process of accumulated memories. You can listen to say new speakers for weeks and love them until you start hearing something that bothers you until you can't stand them anymore.

Subconsciously you're building a library of impressions that continues to fill in the blanks of the overall sound. When all the holes are filled - you finally have a very clear grasp of the sonic signature. But we know that doesn't happen overnight.

This explains why many times you'll love how something sounds until you don't anymore? Anyone experience that? I have - with all 3 B&W speakers upgrades I've made in my life just to name a few.

Swapping out gear short term for blind listening tests is therefore counter productive for accurately understanding the characteristics of any particular piece or system because it causes discontinuity with impression accumulation and becomes subtractive rather than additive. Confusion becomes the guaranteed outcome instead of clarity. In fact it's a systematic unlearning of the sound characteristics as the impression accumulation is randomized. Wish I could think of a simpler way of saying that..

Ok this is getting even further out there but: Also I believe that when you're listening while looking at equipment there are certain anchors that also accumulate. You may hear a high hat that sounds shimmering and subconsciously that impression is associated with some metallic color or other visual aspect of the equipment you happen to be watching or remember.

By looking at (or even mentally picturing) your equipment over time you have an immediate association with its' sound. Sounds strange, but I've noticed this happening myself - and I have no doubt it speeds up the process of getting a peg on the overall sound character.

Obviously blind tests would void that aspect too resulting in less information rather than more for comparison.

Anyone agree with this, because I don't remember hearing this POV before. But I'm sure many others that have stated this because, of course, it happens to be true. ;
larrybou
mceljo
983 posts
 
Learsfool - Science may not have a full understanding of human hearing, but it isn't too difficult to perform test of the limits of human hearing. The limits vary among individuals, but not significantly among healthy people. I can't understand why people dispute this.

Science has also proved that placebo is strong with all of us and impacts every area of our lives.

It is absolutely possible to train your ear to hear certain things, but you can't ever hear frequencies outside your physical limits.
learsfool
1,206 posts
 
Hi Mceljo - what some studies have suggested is that although the ear has limits to "hearing" certain frequencies, the brain DOES somehow perceive them anyway. As far as I know, this has not been proven yet, but it is strongly suggested in different experiments that have been done, and certainly many musicians believe it to be true. Don't have any links, but it seems as though this was discussed pretty extensively here on these forums several years ago...

Hi Wolf - all I meant is that musicians learn by using their ears - by listening to as many different people/groups as possible, both live and recorded, and deciding what we like and what we don't like about a specific sound. Also, we hear ourselves every single time we play, which may seem obvious, even silly, to state, but the important point is - this type of listening is quite obviously NOT done blindly. One needs to know WHY a certain physical action results in a better sound, by essentially doing ABA type comparisons in the practice room. We learn something every time we hear ANYONE play - even if it is one more way not to do it.
psag
450 posts
 
When doing A/B comparisons, its not necessary to do it blinded. What's important is to make the switches rapidly, because audible memory fades quickly. Multiple switches may be needed. If the results are not immediately obvious, it means that the differences are not great. The ability to do this improves with practice. It also helps to know what one is aiming for (sonic preferences), as what sounds better for one person may not for another. My two cents.
sciencecop
79 posts
 
The amount of nonsense audiophiles come up with...
Read Floyd Toole work. In a long blind testing environment (you need to distinguish between short quick comparative tests and long one) , people preferences were very similar, and correlated with better measured/design loudspeakers. It is that simple. Keep your "personal taste" i.e. ego, out of the equation, and suddenly, there is a consensus on what actually sounds good.
zkzpb8
208 posts
 
'When doing A/B comparisons, its not necessary to do it blinded. What's important is to make the switches rapidly, because audible memory fades quickly.’

That’s really the heart of the matter. Listeners would be surprised at how short our sensory memory actually is... It can be surprising how two things might sound the same, but when put right next to each other, obvious differences emerge. I do this everyday at work, you really do learn to listen better, and trust your hearing more and more...
More to discover