advertisement


Anyone tried blind testing DACs?

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Actually, I think the poster was suggesting, somewhat obliquely and not entirely free of snark, that measurement was the only reliable way to determine the height of the tree, and subjective impressions are variable and thus unreliable.


I broadly agree with most of this, but not the conclusion underlined in bold. That isn't the only possibility; a second possibility is that the blind test itself has introduced factors which have effectively dulled its sensitivity. I'll probably get more snark for this, but one such factor is possible (and possibly subliminal) added stress. There's a shift in what is under test, it's quite subtle but it moves away from the device and towards the listener's ability to discriminate. A second possible factor is that you also listen differently under blind conditions. If, when sighted, you listen to the music and whether you enjoy it more with device A or B, that is one type of listening. Blind test listening, however, has people listening for differences, which is a quite different sort of listening.

So the conclusion you draw needs to be highly caveated. Which, to my mind, renders a blind test rather less helpful.
Click to expand...
I have sympathy for this line of argument. But I'm still convinced biases are a big problem with sighted listening.

This is why I use a mix of sighted and blind when practical.

I reject the idea that there must be one correct approach that has no significant problems. Who says there must?
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest what are these biases? Are we talking about someone who is so frail in the brain that they are determined to spend x £’s of their hard earned on a product even though it sounds worse than their own? If that’s the case this argument is going down the wrong road....how to get these people off the streets would be a much more constructive discussion....;)
 
Furthermore. If a dealer sets you up a system to dem that sounds so similar (after swapping products) that it’s hard to hear a difference...you should run away very quickly....
 
Keith,

Why carry it in the first place if that's how you feel?

Joe
 
We stocked Molas first time around some eight/nine years ago, I knew Bruno he said they would be technically excellent, which they are.
The dac wasn’t ready it took years to complete because Bruno had left to form Kii, but I was keen to try it, it is a perfectly good dac, measures superbly has some interesting features but it physically can’t sound better than any of the other technically excellent dacs I have here.
Keith
 
“Competently designed DACs sound the same”

“Here are two DACs that I believe to be competently designed”.

“I have closed my eyes and listened to them and right enough they sound the same”.

Is it only me that isn’t convinced?
 
I tend to agree that differences between digital products tend to get vanishingly small when you blind test them. On the other hand, audio isn't only about measured performance. We all have sighted preferences, and they matter. If when I play a CD through setup A and prefer it to setup B, and that preference is largely because setup A has a really cool looking dac and setup B doesn't, well, who cares. It's a valid preference, albeit not necessarily one based entirely on sound.
 
Thetiminator said:
Just out of interest what are these biases? Are we talking about someone who is so frail in the brain that they are determined to spend x £’s of their hard earned on a product even though it sounds worse than their own? If that’s the case this argument is going down the wrong road....how to get these people off the streets would be a much more constructive discussion....;)
Click to expand...

It is nothing to do with intelligence or gullibility. Nothing at all to do with that. This is a common misunderstanding (which some seemingly want to hang onto because it suits them).

Rather, it is because sound is not just heard but also processed by our brains. This is a good thing. It enables us to pick out what interests us from a noisy background - like focusing on what someone is saying in a crowded room. The case of speech is an interesting one, because it is easier to hear what someone is saying if you can also see their lips moving, expression on their face etc.

However it can work against you in certain scenarios ... like deciding whether an expensive interconnect is worth the money, or whether 24-bit/192 kHz sounds better than 16/44. Our brain knows that something is different and therefore we might hear a difference ... that disappears if we no longer have that information.

This is why blind testing is helpful, ensuring that all our brain has to go on is the actual sound.

Tim
 
Veblen theory (which I only read because someone else on here posted it) . That's why people perceive all manner of expensive goods as being 'better', despite evidence to the country. But each to their own.
 
darrenyeats said:
I have sympathy for this line of argument. But I'm still convinced biases are a big problem with sighted listening.

This is why I use a mix of sighted and blind when practical.

I reject the idea that there is the one correct approach that has no significant problems. Who says it must be so?
Click to expand...
I agree. A blend of blind and sighted would seem reasonable, with due regard to the potential pitfalls of the blind, so less slavish devotion to its methodology and more attention to the possible flaws. It works in drug trials, etc, because the methodology is rigorous, also because they do statistically significant numbers of tests, but also because the nature of the item under test is less susceptible to externalities such as those I mentioned upthread. This doesn’t automatically make it suitable for audio.
 
“This is why blind testing is helpful, ensuring that all our brain has to go on is the actual sound”

That presumes that the cognitive processing of the brain when making a comparison gives the complete picture. From my experience, and a certain amount of research over the years, I wonder if this is the case.

The problem is that some are using blind testing as a weapon against those who don’t worship at the altar of Objectivism.

The brain, or should I say the mind, is a complex thing. There is only a proportion of the minds capacity that can be given to cognitive processes. Basing an argument on the here and now cognitive processes might reveal obvious differences but the jury is out on the whole picture.
 
Cav said:
Blind testing has no part to play in H-Fi. Ears are the most sensitive organs but need the eyes reassurance that what is heard is compatible with the name on the equipment being auditioned.
Click to expand...
Yes, I put my fingers in my ears and choose the one with the best LEDs. I actually bought this one most recently and you can guess why.

wVlMmxs.jpg


actually sounds beautiful too
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I agree. A blend of blind and sighted would seem reasonable, with due regard to the potential pitfalls of the blind, so less slavish devotion to its methodology and more attention to the possible flaws.
Click to expand...
What are those pitfalls and flaws? So far you have not presented any evidence of those.
 
Octavian said:
What are those pitfalls and flaws? So far you have not presented any evidence of those.
Click to expand...
Difficult to prove a negative. I've given some examples of where it would be straightforward to control against reasonably forseeable issues. They may be non-issues, but until it is shown that they are, I remain sceptical that the blind test is the be-all and end-all it is presented as by some on here. I suspect camverton may have a point in that they are used as a weapon against those who are not dyed in the wool objectivists. This is obvious. And it would be such a potent weapon if those same people could show that their methodology was rigorous, effective and sensitive. I'm rather surprised nobody does this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top