advertisement


Is blind testing suitable for audio use?

Steven Toy said:
Fair enough.

There is still one iddy widdle question I would like someone to answer if they didn't mind awfully. I don't wish to badger or nag anyone and please accept my apologies if I've already asked it.

What are the objections to allowing sighted tests first?

I know that Ultrawomble has sort of answered it with his link to an article about blind testing loudspeakers but this particular test was about exploring preconceived preferences where there are known audible differences.
Click to expand...
Suppose you were told you were going to to audition 3 amps, but the psych wanted to put in a control, so you got to listen to two amps. One was used twice, firstly with the volume turned up just a smidge and again, but this time with the volume on the same amp carefully balanced with the other.

This could (no expectation) demonstrate that in the end we think louder is better, and it this we mistake for differences.

A sighted test wouldn't allow you to do this.
 
sq225917 said:
I'm in agreement also. If I see a product and have an experience of it then I have a 'little box' in my memory for it where I can store anything I associate with it. If all I have is a sound with no physicality attached to it then I find myself slightly more removed from it.

Imagine you have a friend you have only spoken to on the telephone, once someone shows you a picture of them do they become easier to recognise and remember? I know that for me the greater the number of sensory experience types that I associate with a person or an item the easier it for me to 'process' something/anything related to them/it.

Enough with the squabbling guys, please, this isn't a trade thread. (In fact I started this just so Item didn't feel aggrieved).
Click to expand...

Brilliant. That nails it. :)
 
Steven Toy said:
What are the objections to allowing sighted tests first?
Click to expand...

If you are trying to establish whether a difference is audible, I'd encourage it.

If you are trying to remove expectation bias say for speakers, where differences are easily audible, it would be a mistake. Because you would know which was which in the blind test so would still be influenced by memory of the beautiful rosewood finish etc.

Tim
 
avole said:
Suppose you were told you were going to to audition 3 amps, but the psych wanted to put in a control, so you got to listen to two amps. One was used twice, firstly with the volume turned up just a smidge and again, but this time with the volume on the same amp carefully balanced with the other.

This could (no expectation) demonstrate that in the end we think louder is better, and it this we mistake for differences.

A sighted test wouldn't allow you to do this.
Click to expand...

It would if you followed the sighted test with a blind test and didn't mention the volume thing during the sighted pre-test. You would have 3 amps during the sighted test and only two during the blind test with one being used at two slightly different volume levels.
 
Personally I find it intriguing that this should be such an issue!

I can only guess that some are scared of the possibility that under DBT conditions it is proved that they can't tell the difference between a NAD and a Krell....

On another subject now... but I think this feud between Steven and Darryl is getting rather tiresome and is doing neither of them any favours.... Nor is it doing the forum itself any good. Go for a few beers together and shake hands fer ****s sake!
 
merlin said:
Not only that but I would have thought loudspeaker blind testing is best left to the likes of Harman who have the capability to perform it properly.

I like Paul Messenger though.
Click to expand...

I like him too, but I'm of the view that magazines shouldn't conduct real blind tests since the results would put them out of business, as it did for a couple of examples.

They are the preserve of individuals, forums, academics and manufacturers.
The modern hi-fi magazine is the equivalent of the red top tabloid. Fun and entertaining when done well.
Be a shame to spoil the fun with blind testing ;)
 
onlyconnect said:
If you are trying to establish whether a difference is audible, I'd encourage it.

If you are trying to remove expectation bias say for speakers, where differences are easily audible, it would be a mistake. Because you would know which was which in the blind test so would still be influenced by memory of the beautiful rosewood finish etc.

Tim
Click to expand...

Agreed. Ultrawomble's link alluded to this.
 
Steven Toy said:
It would if you followed the sighted test with a blind test and didn't mention the volume thing during the sighted pre-test. You would have 3 amps during the sighted test and only two during the blind test with one being used at two slightly different volume levels.
Click to expand...
That would raise expectation considerably, though.
 
Arkless Repairs said:
Personally I find it intriguing that this should be such an issue!

I can only guess that some are scared of the possibility that under DBT conditions it is proved that they can't tell the difference between a NAD and a Krell....

On another subject now... but I think this feud between Steven and Darryl is getting rather tiresome and is doing neither of them any favours.... Nor is it doing the forum itself any good. Go for a few beers together and shake hands fer ****s sake!
Click to expand...

i would be happy to do that jez, i'd ask him what day and where... but he wouldn't ever give an answer....
 
Robert said:
None that I can see.
In fact its wholly beneficial IME since it demonstrates the inadequacies of sighted testing.

Are people objecting, or just saying it isn't necessary?
Click to expand...

The repetition and vociferousness suggests objecting.
 
Steven Toy said:
The repetition and vociferousness suggests objecting.
Click to expand...

Ah I see.

I never go back past the current page or two these days on these long circular threads so missed it all.
If it ain't on the current page it's history and nobody is interested :)
 
i very much doubt it steven..... can you point out the vociferous and repetitive objections from people as i can't see any at all....
 
Brian said:
Good.

Q. Does anybody asking Steven to explain why he would like a sighted listening session before a blind test have an objection to this as a concept? If so, please explain the reason behind the objection.
Click to expand...

Steve is free to conduct his own tests as he sees fit. If he wants to avoid a direct answer fine. The fun starts with his findings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top