advertisement


Is blind testing suitable for audio use?

That's a very reasonable suggestion. Perhaps there are other factors that effect our senses and 'blind' us to the differences we wish to discern. I'm perfectly happy to consider that a possibility.

What I doubt is that there are things we cannot hear blind that we can hear when looking at the kit in question.
 
Just to clarify - sighted tests have no scientific validity. This does not prove that they are ineffective in choosing purchases.

Nic P
 
merlin said:
No Steven. 99.9995% or so of the population can happily look at two cables, disc player or stands and choose the one they like the look of best - or choose the one with the facilities they want at the lowest price.

It never crosses their mind that some fanatic might think they sound different.

You live in a world where you think you hear things that non audiophiles (and some audiophiles) don't. Are you convinced you have better hearing than these people? If you are , then you are out of luck because you would never be able to prove it due to "exam nerves".
Click to expand...

The first 2 assertions above are pure supposition and are not backed up with evidence (the hyperbole doesn't count). The third is pure man of straw - I do not have super-hearing and have never made such a claim.
 
Indeed a degree of supposition.

The hifi press in the UK is showing a circulation of 5,000. Let's say 80% of those buying the magazines would not entertain blind testing. That's 4,000. Out of a population of what? 65 million?

I think you will find it's closer to the truth than you might imagine. I have a lot of friends with no interest in audio whatsoever. They cannot hear differences where clear cut, scientific differences do not exist - even sighted. That's because they haven't been fed misinformation from magazines, retailers and manufacturers alike for thirty years or so.

They understand the scientific position entirely. More than one think audiofiles are absolute fruit cakes and you can, I'm sure imagine, what they say about them.

This Steven, is the overwhelming majority of the population. That is not fabrication nor open to question. If it were, the audio business would not be in the dire straights that it is in. They would be selling these improved products to more people than perhaps 0.0005% of the population.

That in no way is meant to demean those that choose to spend money on audio. I do it myself - much to the amusement of friends. I choose to do it because I always wanted a top stereo system. But I would not claim that science is wrong in what it knows about audio. I once would have, but you could say, I've lost my faith.
 
Part of the reason we see so much heat in these discussions is I believe down to exaggeration of audible differences.

If someone compares say two similar spec amps and feels one is a little softer, warmer, cooler, livelier, whatever than another, I doubt anyone would really care.
The problems arise when people state things such as 'well I swapped a Naim amp for a Cyrus and it tall became unlistenable' or (my favourite in recent years) 'Quad amplifiers made the singer sound like she's singing face down on the carpet. Or the guy who thinks he can improve the system bass response by changing his interconnect, and so it goes on.

Such things are demonstrably wrong using the simplest of blind tests - totally wrong, and their acceptance makes it near impossible to have reasoned, politics free discussions around the subtleties that can exist and truly deserve discussion.
 
merlin said:
Indeed a degree of supposition.

The hifi press in the UK is showing a circulation of 5,000. Let's say 80% of those buying the magazines would not entertain blind testing. That's 4,000. Out of a population of what? 65 million?

I think you will find it's closer to the truth than you might imagine. I have a lot of friends with no interest in audio whatsoever. They cannot hear differences where clear cut, scientific differences do not exist - even sighted. That's because they haven't been fed misinformation from magazines, retailers and manufacturers alike for thirty years or so.

They understand the scientific position entirely. More than one think audiofiles are absolute fruit cakes and you can, I'm sure imagine, what they say about them.

This Steven, is the overwhelming majority of the population. That is not fabrication nor open to question. If it were, the audio business would not be in the dire straights that it is in. They would be selling these improved products to more people than perhaps 0.0005% of the population.

That in no way is meant to demean those that choose to spend money on audio. I do it myself - much to the amusement of friends. I choose to do it because I always wanted a top stereo system. But I would not claim that science is wrong in what it knows about audio. I once would have, but you could say, I've lost my faith.
Click to expand...

For me it isn't a question of faith. I also set my bar much lower regarding burden of proof than you - I set mine at "balance of probabilities," I suspect you set yours at "beyond all reasonable doubt."

Regarding what the non-subscribers to audiophilia may be thinking, I suggest that you don't read minds. They may lean more towards scepticism with the likes of interconnects, mains leads and supports than they do with digital sources but on the whole my supposition is that they are agnostic.

I suggest that the more resolved believers that things must sound the same until sufficient evidence proves the contrary beyond all reasonable doubt are not amongst the general population but amongst the ex-audiophiles, those whose fingers have been burnt playing the audiophile game, the disillusioned, perhaps those, for example, who subscribed to Beltism and have since lurched from one extreme to the other.

Ex-audiophiles are like ex-smokers and born-again god-botherers; there is a certain pattern at least.
 
AllyD said:
Someone should do a blind test of Booblar v B'Elanna.
Click to expand...

I'd probably get arrested and disqualified for bringing in the sense of touch....even though it would be purely in the interest of advancing science
 
There is certainly a parallel with ex-smokers.

Passion and determination running through their actions, having seen the implications of doing the wrong thing. We need more of that, not less.

I was always taught that we learn best by our mistakes.
 
Robert said:
There is certainly a parallel with ex-smokers.

Passion and determination running through their actions, having seen the implications of doing the wrong thing. We need more of that, not less.

I was always taught that we learn best by our mistakes.
Click to expand...

Indeed we do but lurching from one extreme to another may yet be another mistake.
 
Robert said:
It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to have a valid sighted test. Unless you are prepared to accept that all of the proven research into factors influencing human perception are wrong. Or you've found a unique human specimen completely immune to such influences.
Click to expand...

But incredibly easy to create an invalid blind test Robert. I believe you have in the past posted about the fallibility of long term auditory memory. With somewhere in the region of 10 amps in this blind group test I'm pretty sure you would be heading towards that long term. This therefore seriously compromises the validity of the test from the outset. Designing good tests is a lot more difficult than many people believe. I should know, of all the ones I've done for work over the years I've written some that were complete bollocks but thankfully picked them up before the test definition got out of the early draft stage.
 
I find that with evaluative listening (as opposed to music listening) fatigue sets in after about 2 to 3 hours or about 10 swaps.
 
Evaluative Listening Fatigue or ELF was discussed in last months British Medical Journal. It can be quite serious and anyone suffering from this condition should turn off their amplifier and seek immediate medical attention. Failure to treat ELF at an early stage can have dire consequences.
 
Robert said:
Part of the reason we see so much heat in these discussions is I believe down to exaggeration of audible differences.

If someone compares say two similar spec amps and feels one is a little softer, warmer, cooler, livelier, whatever than another, I doubt anyone would really care.
The problems arise when people state things such as 'well I swapped a Naim amp for a Cyrus and it tall became unlistenable' or (my favourite in recent years) 'Quad amplifiers made the singer sound like she's singing face down on the carpet. Or the guy who thinks he can improve the system bass response by changing his interconnect, and so it goes on.

Such things are demonstrably wrong using the simplest of blind tests - totally wrong, and their acceptance makes it near impossible to have reasoned, politics free discussions around the subtleties that can exist and truly deserve discussion.
Click to expand...
I agree. I would consider myself a perfectionist ... and I have considered myself so, until I came here. On these forums, people argue and exaggerate small differences just to generate discussion / flame and when someone is not sharing their opinion, they keep trying in convincing, almost endlessly. I mean - opposition/criticism is a good thing when it's constructive, but in here, it almost always ends up in ego battles and simple insults.

My connection to music is emotion. I play because I can express myself through music and I listen to music, because I can feel emotions of other people. For me, this community has every right to call itself "audiophile" (as "lovers of audio", all about the technology), but not "musicphile". Did those people ever care about the music itself, or is it just about the specific technical properties of the music?

Or perhaps I'm wrong and there's really nothing to discuss about music as it speaks for itself, so people slide to other (technical) topics (music forum versus audio forum activity).
 
Steven Toy said:
Indeed we do but lurching from one extreme to another may yet be another mistake.
Click to expand...
I think Mike has put his money where his mouth was regards his kit and still owns some serious hardware. It just seems like he's found a balance. I value his experience and conclusions.
 
Tigerjones said:
Evaluative Listening Fatigue or ELF was discussed in last months British Medical Journal. It can be quite serious and anyone suffering from this condition should turn off their amplifier and seek immediate medical attention. Failure to treat ELF at an early stage can have dire consequences.
Click to expand...

Is that an ELF warning?
 
The problem with this discussion, and many similar ones, is the extent to which people on both 'sides' believe they can read the minds and analyse the motives* of those whose views differ from their own.

*In my own case, my mind is like a deserted town in the Midwest, with tumbleweed rolling down Main Street, and my motives are unclear even to myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top