advertisement


Sorry it didn't work for me, same SQ

Ragaman said:
I suppose blind determines if there is a satisfactory improvement to cover the outlay, if we heard something blind for example a system costing 3,000 up against one costing £800 in a demo room (i have done this) you might prefer the sound of the cheaper system or at least think the improvement with the more expensive is not worth the extra £2,200, it can have it's uses. Sighted i imagine most would just plump for the 3,000 option, if funds are not an issue thinking it has to sound far superior, but not always in my experience.
Click to expand...

The psychology of buying is a whole different can of worms & should really be divorced from the discussion of blind testing as it very much differs from person to person based on their finances, what space they intend to us it in, WAF, etc.

I've seen some people use this as a way of resisting the upgrade itch - going out to a hifi dealer & just auditioning kit often relieves the itch
 
Ragaman said:
Then maybe there were no differencies
Click to expand...

Maybe there weren't & they have since fallen into a permanent state of self-delusion where they hear those differences every time they listen.

But you do realise what blind testing involves & how your statement is wrong?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Thanks, that's my point. I'm not advocating sighted over blind, just asking for a level playing field where the potential downsides to blind are better understood and recognised, and addressed, just as those for sighted should be.

As for auditioning blind, that is surely an irrelevance. We don't listen blind at home - even if we can't see the kit, we know what is in use. So any sighted biases will be 'in play' during normal operation. It therefore seems logical to audition kit while operating in a regime similar to how it will actually be used. What would blind auditioning tell us about how much we would enjoy the kit, under sighted conditions?
Click to expand...

Sorry that is nonsensical. You admit you are biased and are saying thats OK.

So when kit X is expensive and shiny with a known reputable (desirable) name is compared to a cheaper kit Y with no name or reputation , do you think people will err towards kit X even though they sound identical (within reason :))

Blind auditioning takes away the bias, however you seem quite happy to have your bias.

really Im agog:confused: You are admitting that you cannot objectively assess equipment.
 
jkeny said:
I know - that's the obvious conclusion when you follow the logic - if we are slaves to our sight/knowledge bias & that is how we will be using the audio device, what is the point in testing something blind? It's like asking us to taste our food with our nose pinched but we are going to eat the meal with our olfactory sense intact.

I'm also of the opinion that blind testing introduces so many new variables that it is mostly invalid unless organised by professionals who are experts in perceptual testing - it is of little use to hobbyists - in fact it is detrimental because they are trying to play big-boy science without the expertise necessary & produce false results
Click to expand...

erm.. the point is to remove the bias.

This is really some of the more nonsensical musings I have heard on this forum. So basicaly you are biased so I'm not sure I can trust any of the things you say.

For example you are clearly biased toward the efficacy of the Regen. You see no point in objectively testing it, so why should I take your biased word that is as effective as you claim?
 
jkeny said:
I believe you had a great example in this forum of just how hobbyist blind testing can be at fault for not hearing differences that are real - the four DBO group tests of various DACs organised by Vital run over the course of a year which any attended & most heard no differences sighted or blind until DBIV.

Vital said that he felt blind testing was somewhat responsible for masking these differences & here's the real clincher, the null blind test results biased them to the point that they heard no differences sighted.
Click to expand...
jk, be honest: with all the best will in the world, where would your market go if blind tests revealed there were no differences between DACs?

Clearly it is in the interests of all the manufacturers and resellers to continue to promote sighted tests.
 
Purite Audio said:
IME unsighted comparison, often removes 'differences' one thought existed 'sighted'
Keith.
Click to expand...

BE718 said:
Mine too.
Click to expand...

Mine too.

But I don't agree that sighted listening being "wrong" makes blind listening "right". That is overly simplistic and binary IMO. There are significant practical problems with blind listening at home (e.g. one listener fatigue will skew a statistical trial) and I even have some philosophical objections to well-organised sensory blind trials (though I admit they're the only way to gather scientific evidence).

The best practical way for us punters, IMO, is a mix of sighted and blind as far as possible.
 
darrenyeats said:
Mine too. But I don't agree that sighted listening being "wrong" makes blind listening "right". That is overly simplistic and binary IMO. There are significant practical problems with blind listening at home (e.g. one listener fatigue will skew a statistical trial) and I even have some philosophical objections to well-organised sensory blind trials in general (though I admit they're the only way to gather scientific evidence).

The best practical way for us punters, IMO, is a mix of sighted and blind as far as possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, & that's the point - sighted has flaws & blind has flaws - so a combination is worthwhile, as I said already.

Sue's logic holds when we realise that our auditory perception is multimodal & don't blindly & mistakenly think that it is just the ears delivering an accurate version of reality to the brain & if we could only get some of the pesky brain processes out of the way that we would be closer to an accurate version of auditory reality. This is point one.

The second point, is, if we are to believe our "bias slave" preachers, that we cannot avoid the influence of bias so when we knowledge of what we are listening to is returned in our normal listening, we will be biased by this & hear something different to what we heard when listening blind.

This is inescapable if the "bias slave preachers" have any sense of the logic of what they are saying.
 
avole said:
jk, be honest: with all the best will in the world, where would your market go if blind tests revealed there were no differences between DACs?

Clearly it is in the interests of all the manufacturers and resellers to continue to promote sighted tests.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think I would be interested in designing & improving my DAC designs if I thought they all sounded the same?

Anyway, I thought the new & revised stance was that DACs do sound different but the difference is small?

So now all that's left to argue about is that some people value this small difference more than others & actually consider it of much more importance to their auditory perception.
 
Purite Audio said:
IME unsighted comparison, often removes 'differences' one thought existed 'sighted'
Keith.
Click to expand...

I agree, that has been my experience too. Where we differ is in our conclusions. You conclude that there is therefore no difference. I maintain that that is not a valid conclusion, and that we have to eliminate the possibility that the blind test is itself masking real differences, before we can reach that conclusion.

You cannot argue, on the one hand, that hearing perception is a multi-sensory phenomenon, and yet on the other hand, that reducing the available sensory inputs does not materially affect that perception. This is also where BE and I are failing to find common ground. It may prompt the elimination of sighted bias, but it may also cause the reduction in the sensitivity and subtle discrimination of ones hearing. We don't know if it does or it doesn't, which is precisely the point. Until we do know, one way or the other, we can't simply accept the findings of a blind test, even if conducted with statistically significant rigour, without question.
 
To add: there have been proposals on here to test the sensitivity of blind tests, for example by blind-testing two components known to be measurably and audibly different. Those proposals have been vigorously decried. Not sure why.
 
jkeny said:
Do you honestly think I would be interested in designing & improving my DAC designs if I thought they all sounded the same?

Anyway, I thought the new & revised stance was that DACs do sound different but the difference is small?

So now all that's left to argue about is that some people value this small difference more than others & actually consider it of much more importance to their auditory perception.
Click to expand...
You haven't answered my question. Ah well.
 
avole said:
You haven't answered my question. Ah well.
Click to expand...

Well I, for one, took it to be a rhetorical question, the implicit answer being what Basil just said.

But if you do actually want an answer, I think you also need to address the question as to whether any such blind tests are sufficiently sensitive.
 
avole said:
You haven't answered my question. Ah well.
Click to expand...

Oh, you want me to answer a hypothetical question even though it's agreed DACs do not sound the same?

So you mean could you accuse me of having a commercial interest in tests where DACs sound different - sure you could!

You could similarly accuse the speaker manufacturers who post here of having a commercial interest in tests where DACs sound the same.

It comes down to how people judge one's motivation.
One factor that might play into this - this isn't my only source of income - so I'm not that reliant on it - I could stop selling DACs tomorrow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top