advertisement


Is blind testing suitable for audio use?

Ok, I'll turn it around: what do you have against pre-sighting?

Avole, am I therefore not being generous in presuming that the hypothesis in all cases is for there to be a difference?

I am certain that my 100% success in the only blind test I undertook 12 years ago was due to being already familiar with the components in question during a hands-on/sighted session.
 
At the end of the day,all that matters is that you enjoy the music.
I would also argue that some folk don't trust their own ears,many years ago,a customer came in for a dem and wanted to listen too/buy the system the comic (WHF) stated was best,after listening i offered a dem of a Superior similar priced system,although he agreed it was better he still bought the recommended system because thats what the magazine said!!!!
As for sighted or blind tests,both can be flawed,again many years ago i could easily pick out blind what various cables were being used in a system simply due to the fact of using/knowing their sonic signature for so long,have systems/cables really changed that much over the years that we are now unable to do just that?
Over to you gentlemen!!!!!
 
Steven Toy said:
If you think a blind test is a foregone conclusion (a null result) you will want to test the subjects of course for the purposes of your own entertainment and will be asking these whywhywhywhy questions. Is a sighted/hands-on session before the blind session likely to spoil your fun?
Click to expand...

Why do you always assume that that blind testers want to prove a "foregone conclusion"? Why should they not just want to gather data from which conclusions might be drawn.

You still have not explained why sighted followed by blind is in anyway preferable to blind only. If you have 5 amps to test, what earthly difference could it make that people hear them sighted first, if they then have to listen blind?
 
May I confirm one important aspect of the 'pre-sighting' concept?

Does pre-sighting involve merely listening first to "equipment A" then to "equipment B" (as many or as few times as the test owner permits) or is it necessary to know exactly what A and B are?
 
This all depends on what your question is. If you are asking: can people tell the difference between amplifiers A and B then a blind or double blind test is just the thing you need, but you need a decent number of participants so that your stats are sufficiently powered (ie so you can be sure of your results). If you are asking: do people prefer amplifier A or B then that is much more tricky and you have to think about what is admissable ( how it looks? Matched to the music specific people like? and so on and so on).
You can argue forever about the second question but not the first which is quite straightforward from a scientific point of view.
Best wishes
Andy
 
Cav said:
Why do you always assume that that blind testers want to prove a "foregone conclusion"? Why should they not just want to gather data from which conclusions might be drawn.

You still have not explained why sighted followed by blind is in anyway prefferable to blind only. If you have 5 amps to test, what earthly difference could it make that people hear them sighted first, if they then have to listen blind?
Click to expand...

Only on way to find out:

Have two groups testing 2 components where there is a measurable but subtle audible difference between them.

The control group does blind only and the experimental group is allowed a pre-blind hands-on and sighted session.

Compare the results of the two groups. My hypothesis is that the experimental group will score higher in the test, i.e. identify A and B correctly more times.
 
basically steven absolutely does not want to take part in an unsighted test.... he has his reasons.

fair enough.... not sure why he is trying to debate that unsighted tests are in some way bad though.... the science does not back it up.
 
Try blind tests
Try blind tests
See how they run
See how they run
If they don’t give the results your wife
Should hear (tho’ she’s deaf), say the stress, which is rife
Negates the results, cling to that for dear life
Deny blind tests
 
Steven Toy said:
Only on way to find out:

Have two groups testing 2 components where there is a measurable but subtle audible difference between them.

The control group do blind only and the experimental group is allowed a pre-blind hands-on and sighted session.

Compare the results of the two groups. My hypothesis is that the experimental group will score higher in the test, i.e. identify A and B correctly more times.
Click to expand...

why is that your hypothesis?
 
Plutox said:
May I confirm one important aspect of the 'pre-sighting' concept?

Does pre-sighting involve merely listening first to "equipment A" then to "equipment B" (as many or as few times as the test owner permits) or is it necessary to know exactly what A and B are?
Click to expand...

If the subjects didn't know what A and B were it wouldn't be pre-sighting :rolleyes:
 
Post #28 is an obtuse straw man.

I shall therefore retreat again from arguing with a block of wood (that's how it feels.)
 
The question seeks to pull itself up by its own bootstraps .

The purpose of any hifi component is strictly and solely to please to purchaser .So what is the bloody point of blind testing a product . It matters not why a person likes a product over another , all the matters is it is preferred by them and preference is best achieved by utilising all five senses .[ best not to taste it however ]

Anything else is willy waiving and has no purpose beyond that. Much of this talk can be summarised as :My hifi is better than yours and this is the bloody reason why .
 
And the reason why is usually:-
"because I know more than you".

To which the answer is:-
"prove it"
 
Steven Toy said:
My hypothesis is that the experimental group will score higher in the test, i.e. identify A and B correctly more times.
Click to expand...

So you are no different from the blind testers who you accuse of having an "agenda". Your agenda clearly is that you want any test designed such that the outcome you want is more likely to occur?
 
Steven Toy said:
Post #28 is an obtuse straw man.

I shall therefore retreat again from arguing with a block of wood (that's how it feels.)
Click to expand...

why be rude and spiteful....???

i asked a simple question as did a few other members and you failed to answer.... why do you come here?
 
darrylfunk said:
basically steven absolutely does not want to take part in an unsighted test.... he has his reasons.

fair enough.... not sure why he is trying to debate that unsighted tests are in some way bad though.... the science does not back it up.
Click to expand...

Steven Toy said:
Post #28 is an obtuse straw man.

I shall therefore retreat again from arguing with a block of wood (that's how it feels.)
Click to expand...

And you, in a blind test of never having met you except on here,come over as a pompous oaf on his high horse.

So.. blind tests are bad. ? .
 
Cav said:
So you are no different from the blind testers who you accuse of having an "agenda". Your agenda clearly is that you want any test designed such that the outcome you want is more likely to occur?
Click to expand...

I want to eliminate as many variables as possible. It does not matter what you say, what accusations you wish to make about my intentions or any agendas, the fact remains that it does not matter what occurs before the blind testing commences. If there are no audible differences (we'll call this a negative), the blind tests will show this. There can be no false positive (statistically unlikely if the test is conducted thoroughly and repeated enough times).

For some in explicable reason you seem resistant to eliminating a false negative.
 
Agree with Alan B in post #6.

Q. Can anybody asking Steven why he would like a sighted session before a blind test answer the question of why not? It's a fair question.

Regarding the OP. SQ hit it on the head in post #15.

For an individual looking for an absolute where "A" = "B", or "A" is not the same as "B", and where that individual is easily influenced by magazines (post #22 by Stevie A), gushing comment or by so-called "dodgy" dealers, blind tests are probably helpful to help prevent expensive mistakes. However, as S-Man showed in post #11 and I have many personal experiences of, it is entirely possible in a sighted test to reject a component despite the opposite result being assumed a formality due to expectation bias.

If the point of blind testing is to remove expectation bias then it's clear blind testing is not needed for everyone. Enough people are not taken in by foo. Like S-Man, and despite "accepted wisdom", I use my speakers without spikes, nor does my stuff sit on a dedicated equipment rack though I've had one for the convenience of storing a number of components. Now I have less stuff it's returned to the wooden cabinet and sounds the same as before.

So, to reply to the original question - no, of course not.

Back to painting the hoose.... :)
 
Joe said:
And you, in a blind test of never having met you except on here,come over as a pompous oaf on his high horse.

So.. blind tests are bad. ? .
Click to expand...

Hello Mr Brave Keyboard warrior! I bet you wouldn't say that to my face although no doubt you will insist that you would from behind your keyboard.

Blind tests are fine. They just need to be conducted thoroughly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top