Article: "Do Blind Listening Tests Work? My Sessions with the Colorado Audio Society"

I’ve been one designed by friends who are acoustic engineers and electrical engineers. Cured me of many things I held dear and found out I was stressing for no reason. It is scary for people cos we like to hold onto the mythos but it is definitely freeing and yes, it is hard to setup

This seems to be the article you intended to link to. https://pmamagazine.org/do-blind-listening-tests-work-my-sessions-with-the-colorado-audio-society/

@bruce19 Thanks for the assist!

This is a very interesting topic that touches on other issues that seem to evoke strong feelings, to say the least. I suspect there is no perfect way to compare two components with the same function. A properly conducted blind test seems to be "the purest form of subjective evaluation," but limited by the difficulty in setting up the exercise. Blind tests are imperfect, I'm sure, but what is better?

I'm not a "cable denier", I've invested a little money in better cables, and I'm not an ASR objectivist, although I don't completely dismiss that school of thought. It does give me a little pause that manufacturers/dealers/reviewers who have the means to conduct proper double blind tests rarely do it even though results that demonstrate the value of their products would be a marketing gift. Indeed, many seem very interested in denigrating the value of blind testing. The problem is that expectation bias is a real thing, grounded in science.

If we consider two products, one costing $500 and one costing $5,000 and they measure the same, and the results of blind testing doesn't demonstrate the ability to distinguish the products, it seems the differences between the two, in terms of sound quality, are approaching immaterial, if present at all. I know that many very experienced folks would disagree. Its an interesting question that merits serious discussion. 

@kerrybh Agree about finding the question interesting.

My approach to this hobby has been about learning the gear but also about the process of listening.

I know I have biases because I have managed to isolate and counteract some of them. I'm interested in counteracting additional ones.

There are several different biases I've noticed in myself:

Expectation bias leads me to hear what I anticipate, often influenced by price, brand reputation, or glowing reviews. 

Confirmation bias causes me to favor information that supports my existing beliefs, dismissing contradictory evidence. For instance, I was convinced that solid state sounds "colder" or "analytical." I have counteracted this bias with different experiments and combinations.

Placebo effect bias has led me (after effort or expenditure) to perceive an improvement solely due to belief, not actual sonic change. 

Visual cues, like a system's aesthetics, are much less a factor for me now that I've acquired some top-shelf DIY gear.

Loudness bias is now something I routinely avoid with level-matching.

Finally, cognitive dissonance bias (based on justifying an expense) has been largely counteracted by knowing I can buy used and sell again – and that accepting that this hobby (like many hobbies) costs money.

All of that makes sense, and useful to be mindful of our biases.

I love the music and I also enjoy the process of building a system that maximizes whatever investment I'm able and willing to make in equipment. Its interesting to see how people approach this aspect of the hobby differently and how dogmatic it becomes.

I'm well aware of my biases and built my system over many decades to conform with those biases. I don't understand why some feel the need to build some sort of reference system. Reference for whom?

Any double blind testing can only serve as a reference point for evaluating any one component within that particular system. As to how that one particular component will sound in my system, double blind testing doesn't tell me much.

I agree knowing there are objective criteria for biases is important, also knowing we are subject to those biases important. These are things that will make us better able to build a satisfying audio system. So the question remains, knowing I'm being influenced by my own biases, why is it important for me to conform to some objective determinant of bias?  Bottom line for me, my intention with audio has always been for self entertainment, nothing more or less.

+1 @sns 

@sns 

So the question remains, knowing I'm being influenced by my own biases, why is it important for me to conform to some objective determinant of bias?

Can't quite follow your point, here. Can you restate it for me?

FWIW, I distinguish between a "bias" and a "preference" where a "preference" is something I'm fully aware of and choose, and a "bias" is something that is not completely transparent to me and may be preventing me from fully grasping all that could be at play in my system. A "bias," in my way of contrasting these terms, is an obstacle.

For me. Virtually my entire audiophile life over fifty years was by myself. It’s hard to blindly go up to your system and randomly switch something. Occasionally I would have dealers switch stuff without me knowing… but good analysis requires a couple weeks for each audition not a five minute switch. Not that you can’t differentiate big differences consistently, but meaningful analysis takes time. I guess it would be great if a cable manufacturer would disguise several brands and send them to you to evaluate. 

Good topic.

Aren't we all automatically biased by what our system sounds like when we listen to other systems? Don't we automatically compare the two in our heads? I think enough of us have been to shows and gone into megabuck rooms and were very disappointed by the sound. And vice versa - low buck rooms with toe tapping going on. And if we were gifted either of those systems, we might have enough check marks of sound quality items in our heads to convince ourselves we might be able to push that system to what we really like. And what you like may not be what I like, and that's okay.

I've been to a few club members' systems and liked their gear very much but had a complete list of what improvements "should" be made to really get "better" sound. Great gear is only one of the long list of items that make great sound. Some folks cannot attack all of them and some don't care to.

Some of the blind listening sessions I have been in show me my biases and I'm okay with not being a perfect listening machine. I am as analytical as I can be and am fully guilty of listening to my own system 50% of the time. Last night I threw on some random albums and just listened to tunes. And today I'm gonna go back and repeat some of them because they were enjoyable. 

But from experience, I know that in an unfamiliar room and system where we may be comparing cables or components, I am sure I can hear a difference which may really be a preference (to me). If I can't hear a delta, then, okay, something to noodle on.

Blind testing wouldn't work for me as I don't like listening to music with my eyes closed, anymore. Used to in my younger hazy days..  I have to have a visual placement of instruments to really enjoy it. Like I would never go to a concert and listen with my eyes closed.

Interesting. Since my system/room improvement days i observed i prefered to listen music eyes open...

It is especially true with my headphone system... I like to see the music in front of me in my room ..

Blind testing wouldn't work for me as I don't like listening to music with my eyes closed, anymore. Used to in my younger hazy days..  I have to have a visual placement of instruments to really enjoy it. Like I would never go to a concert and listen with my eyes closed.

One factor affecting the results that was not accounted for in the test is the listening skills of the participants.  I have read, but I don't have a link, that when people receive some training in critical listening, they do better at distinguishing between different components in these kinds of tests.

@tomcy6

+1 Listening skills... absolutely. I occasionally get together with some folks that have excellent listening skills. There is no bias and preferences in the observations and conclusions. We exchange critical analysis of the sound... then add on whether we like it or not. 

Many folks seem to think that everyone is picking their preferences and not analyzing sound qualities. All of the audiophiles I know can easily discern the differences between personal preferences and sonic characteristics. Granted, beginners probably have a hard time unraveling personal preferences from sonic characteristics. 

@baylinor uhm the blind here refers to not knowing what is playing what. Has nothing to do with wearing a blindfold

I know, I realized it as soon as I posted it. The IPA and the blind word side tracked me.

Blind testing for me has always worked best when I don't have much skin in the game. Blind testing to hear differences can be easy. Blind testing to hear if one thing sounds better than another is another kettle of fish.

I recently did a thread here on blind testing two different CD sampling rates - 44.1 vs 176.4 with the latter being an upsampled rate offered by the same transport playing the Redbook CD's at 44.1. I could easily hear the difference between the two. What did surprise me though was that my previous preference for the higher sample rate changed to liking either rate for different applications - applications meaning different sorts of music recorded or mastered in different ways. The revelation was that one sample rate sounded better for some types of music and the other rate for other recorded music situations. It also opened me up to the notion that both rates could sound good on the same music - just different. It seems to me now that listening to the back and forth between the two modes was educative and delightfully so.

I fall asleep is that considered a blind test? Glad people experiment and report results.enjoy the search

When the self proclaimed experts maintained that an ethernet switch couldn’t possibly affect sound quality, I arranged a blind test to satisfy myself it can. It was something I only needed to do once to give me confidence in my own judgement.

If a hifi component is genuinely better in terms of reduced distortion, noise, etc, most people can easily hear the improvement. There is no need for blind testing, which is difficult to do rigorously.

It’s when we resort to obsessive tweaking that makes only small or imperceptible differences that we run into trouble and the craziness starts. 

I am with @ghdprentice, comparisons of anything, components, cables, etc., all require time. Some differences might be immediately obvious with quick switching, however it frequently takes time and listening to decide on the merits of those differences. And the subtleties take even more time. Nonetheless, it is an interesting study and useful, a good reminder to be aware of our biases. 

I have always allowed myself some amount of time to determine if changing out anything in my system is for the better/same/detrimental. 

  Any obvious and immediate changes are rarely for the better, but unless it is fatigueing, I will continue to listen for some period.

  Time, as others have stated, is the only way I have been able to better understand how the changes I have made are satisfying and to my mind worthy.

@ghdprentice Does a single objectively determined reference audio system even exist? The number of existent variables when it comes to determining some objective audio system boggles the mind. Now we are supposed to believe live music is the 'absolute sound', this is to be our reference as to how our systems should sound. The number of variables even without any amplification/sound reinforcement are far too numerous to mention. And then we have amplified/sound reinforced music, good luck with that. And then we have the recording itself, you'd have to have been at the recording venue on the day of the recording, and then so many issues with that. And then we have the playback of recordings, the gist of what we're talking about. Again, is there some objective reference system or component for that matter to which we can compare all other systems/components? My claim is there is inherent bias involved in the design, manufacturing of all audio components, there are specifically chosen topologies, parts in order to obtain a finished component that conforms to the biases of designer/listening panel, and furthermore this component tested within a unique audio system that was assembled by people with inherent biases.

Whether one call it preference or bias doesn't matter as they are two sides of the same coin, preference is favoring something, bias is a prejudice against. I don't believe humans are capable of assigning or designing an objective reference when it comes to audio systems/components so the whole idea of whether one is to call it bias or preference becomes moot.

So, now the above comes from an overarching subjective perspective, this if one believes there is no absolute reference for live sound when it comes to audio reproduction and playback. So, then we come to measurements which others claim should be our reference for this 'mythical' reference system/component, whole nother can of worms.

Blind testing is good to a point but it doesn't get one all the way. It is like a generality. Our physical makeup and experiences are all different. So what one may consider a important aspect is not as important for the other person. It can't be. We still have to cater to ourselves to find what we like the most. Unless we want to generalize everything. 

I have no intentions of giving up my eyesight just to be able to test a piece of equipment. No, sorry!

I concur with interesting observations of 

@sns Whether one call it preference or bias doesn't matter as they are two sides of the same coin, preference is favoring something, bias is a prejudice against. I don't believe humans are capable of assigning or designing an objective reference when it comes to audio systems/components so the whole idea of whether one is to call it bias or preference becomes moot.

I was trying to make an epistemic distinction but never mind.

Double blind test may be useful  and is very useful in the industrial process...

Simple blind test is enough for acoustics training experiments conducted in informal manner by someone tuning his room for himself as i did...

Training our ears/brain to perceive and isolate fragment of experience with clear acoustics concepts dont ask so much  for debunking methods as much as training time (for which simple blind test is enough especially because it is repeated numerous time, when you tune a resonator for example )

In psycho-acoustics research double blind tests are necessary tool to test many groups of people for example and differentiate them...

In audio marketing and in audio threads it is most of the times used as in a circus to debunk something, an idea or a claim, or to sell something, and idea or a claim ...

Anyway as i said i thank the OP once again  for this useful article and interesting site adress... It is very important to understand what is a double blind test... I never experience it myself because of my circumstances...

@sns 

I disagree with defining bias solely in terms of regarding something as unfavorable. 

As I understand it, bias is a habitual inclination to prejudge (whether favorably or unfavorably) according to unconscious beliefs. 

FWIW, the definitions I’ve googled have supported this.  

If we know we prefer something, that’s not a problem. If it’s in awareness,we can choose to embrace a habitual tendency or choose to suspend it/regard it as potentially unreliable while weighing options. On the hand, if we do not know we prefer or loathe something, that’s a much different story.  We make choices without being aware we’re doing so. This can lead to all sorts of cognitive distortions and decisions we may come to regret.

For my money, the most important distinction is between what’s unconscious and unconscious. 

Bias is more general than that. It’s not just about the person involved and could be due to any number of factors. Here is a definition from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme website.
 

“Bias in research refers to a systematic error that can occur during the design, conduct, or interpretation of a study, leading to inaccurate conclusions. It can occur at any stage of the research process and can have a significant impact on the reliability and validity of the findings. Some common types of bias include:

• design bias
• sample bias
• selection bias
• performance bias
• reporting bias
• confounding bias
• detection bias
• attrition bias
• language bias”

Indeed biases are extensive and multidimensional complex phenomena as claimed rightfully by newton_ john ...

It is why it is so preposterous, out of specific scientific or engineering context   which study mass phenomenon of perception, to decide to eliminate some biases arbitrarily for a marketing ideological purpose in some audio thread (ASR objectivists)  instead of training ourselves to integrate  them by training our hearing in a specific working acoustical context ...

It is important to learn what are our biases  even using double blind test if possible; but it is way more important to train our hearing around specific concepts and experiments...

I agree I was being a bit simplistic with my use of bias. No doubt one has to be aware of their own internal and external biases to properly ascertain what they find unfavorable.  Beyond this, as stated above, we then have the unconscious biases, very doubtful we can always be mindful and/or even aware of our own unconscious biases.

So we have all these earlier stated  issues with double blind testing and on top of that the bias issue .In returning to how this pertains to audio, if one disregards all the subjective aspects and variables  involved in this audio endeavor one could engage in scientific inquiry to arrive at some objectively determined reference system/component. As for myself and I suppose for most if not all, this audio endeavor is not like some pharmaceutical that could save my life. I don't need or care about some rigorous peer approved double blind study to provide evidence that my chosen audio system and/or components may or may not be objective references. My audio system/placebo makes me feel good, and I'm not going to suffer a single bit knowing its only a placebo.

@sns 

Does a single reference system exist? Well no,  but there are many that are really close. 

Some folks and companies are trying to reproduce the real thing and some are trying to make really great sounding audio systems. Very different goals. 

I personally, and a few high end audio companies are attempting to reproduce real music. I / they work to educate ourselves about what the real thing sounds like. That takes time and effort. But it is something that you can close in on. Not some unobtainable thing. Listening to you, we would never try to do anything... we are so flawed and biased at every level. Among my training and professional positions has been a scientist and engineer. I have learned how to get better and better at something. I am fascinated by complex questions like this. People learn to read chest X-rays and MRAs, they look like fuzz to the novice and instantly understandable to a the trained eye.

We learn by exposure to the real thing and many different systems that are trying to achieve the real thing. I can tell you my system and the components produced by companies attempting to achieve the real thing are leagues beyond where they were decades ago. That is the way progress.

I'm just not the type that throws up my hands and says, it's too hard... we are all biased, there is no reference. This is why I got season tickets to the symphony for over a decade, and sampled as many concerts and listened to individual instruments when I could. To build an internal reference. 

It's like our taste in partners - there's really no accounting for it.

@ghdprentice I'm in total agreement with you. I've played in bands and heard many non-amplified, non- sound reinforced concerts, From this I can recall the many qualities of what we refer to as 'natural' sound. So from this 'reference' I can ascertain and/or compare my audio system/components. And I agree audio systems/components should be designed and compared to this 'reference' or live sound as I previously stated. Thing is, assuming many of us, if not most of us likely use this same reference why is it that each of us likely have entirely unique systems/components in attempting to conform with that reference? It seems many are entirely happy with their chosen system/components, and this with systems so widely divergent. I cannot fathom how there could ever be an objective reference audio system or limited number of systems for such a widely divergent species.

@ghdprentice 

Two days ago,  I witnessed a demonstration of the new version of the Linn Klimax Solo 500 power amplifiers against the original model using exactly the same ancillary components both a digital source and a top spec LP12.

To the fifty or so people present, the new amplifier clearly sounded better in almost every way possible, more musical. There was absolutely no doubt about it. Bias doesn't come into it. It didn't matter what genre of music was played. 

Curiously, one man who didn't like the funky guitar on the theme from Shaft, liked it even less when it was even funkier with the better amplifier. 

The Linn CEO said his job wasn't to change what is on the record, but to better reveal it by reducing interference, noise and distortion. 

​​​​​​

​​​​

https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_bored_panda_979/e713376ecf9ab9bcfd3a016ce23d0ea6

DeKay

@sns

It may well that some equipment designers use live acoustic music as their reference. However, recreating the sound of live acoustic music is not the primary function of equipment. That is to accurately reproduce the sound that was captured on the record regardless of whether it’s from an acoustic or electric/electronic instrument. 

It’s quite hard to successfully capture the sound of an acoustic instrument. I speak as someone who’s spent half a lifetime trying to coax a half decent tone out of an acoustic guitar. Rarely will you hear a recording of an acoustic instrument without some sort of electronic processing. Just the choice and positioning of microphones has a significant effect. 

@sns 

As for myself and I suppose for most if not all, this audio endeavor is not like some pharmaceutical that could save my life. I don't need or care about some rigorous peer approved double blind study to provide evidence that my chosen audio system and/or components may or may not be objective references. My audio system/placebo makes me feel good, and I'm not going to suffer a single bit knowing its only a placebo.

I agree. The kind of "bias" I am looking to eliminate is the one where I *think* I like something the best and someone helps me see I'm missing something else that I like better.

For example, when I first listened to some B&W bookshelf speakers at a store, I thought they sounded the best. A friend was with me and pointed out that they were rather on the "bright" side and that they could become fatiguing. He pointed out that I should pay more attention to the midrange, where the voices were, and to consider that as important. So, my "bias in favor of bright shiny highs" was eliminated and a different, more justifiable, preference (for my taste) took its place.

As you've pointed out, one doesn't need a double-blind study to mature one's appreciation of what's important.

@newton_john You bring up the very thing I was going to speak to next. Thus far we've mostly been speaking to the playback side of the equation, think about all the variables that go into the recording side of the equation. And then we have the instruments themselves, many require amplification, another relatively unknown variable, and how about synths, and even acoustic instruments have their own individual sound signature. And don't forgett about the media, streaming. Bias and massive amounts of variables are inherent to the entire undertaking of recorded music and playback of those recordings.

Still, for those who insist on applying or attempting to apply an objective reference to these endeavors one could develop this theoretical reference listening bot with no biases, and with every variable accounted for. This bot would develop reference instruments, recording chain and playback chain components/system, you would then be assured of having an objectively determined reference audio experience. Nah, me thinks I'd rather attend to my biases, and I actually find the nearly endless variables fascinating. Isn't tweaking the sound the very essence of being an audiophile, I be entirely bored with the bot making all the choice for me.

From my perspective double blind testing is an attempt at making us into that theoretical listening bot, this a delusion that we humans can be these objective arbiters for determining reference components. I do believe we can become more discerning listeners and double blind testing may serve a purpose here, but us as objective listeners/arbiters, that is a whole other can of worms.

I cannot add something better to say over ghdprentice  and sns 
Thanks

@sns 

Responding to your comment up a few posts on why so many different sounding systems... Well, I think most folks don't start off with the big picture. I certainly did not. I had a system... I loved the sound of a kick drum, and loved to crank it up to "concert levels" (young and stupid era). So, I went out listening to equipment and bought stuff that sounded good. I continued this for a couple decades as I learned the lingo and became enamored with soundstaging, micro details, air, etc. I had no reference... I was not wealthy, I didn't hear acoustic music and only occasional rock concerts... a source of some of the worst (but loud) sound quality... drugs help. The best system I had heard was a Rowland / Wilson ($500+K) perfectly set up. Holographic... but sounding nothing like real music. I loved listening to it... but I did not want to own it. Many people love this sound and want it in their home. I get it. Sonic spectacular. 

I slowly realized that there were dead ends and that my system could loose the music. That is when I stepped back and realized I needed an empirical ruler. I started listening to real music. I realized what my system was missing and I headed down the path to construct a musical system. 

So, there are many other paths to take. Nothing wrong with them... they just are not attempts to recreate the real thing. 

@newton_john 

Good to hear about your Linn experience. I have noticed a trend (I think) in more equipment getting better rhythm and pace. I noticed it in the most recent generations of Pass x and integrated amps. I am happy to hear Linn amps are getting better. Maybe this is the new thing that designers are figuring out how to get better rhythm and pace in solid state amps... more tube like. 

Nothing wrong with them... they just are not attempts to recreate the real thing. 

This is a common standard. It assumes that what is "real" is:

• live music
• un-amplified (I assume)
• in some kind of venue (hall, church, club)
• from a certain distance
• in the center
• using certain microphones
• using certain mixing and mastering techniques

Many of the above factors involve interpretative choices. Are there "more and less real" microphones or placements of microphones? Are there more and less real mixing techniques? 

You see the point. Even in cases of live music reproduction, there are so many choices that the idea of a convergence on "real" begins to look like a hopeless quest.

What’s being sought is something interesting or stimulating or pleasing -- with perhaps the illusion that one is "there, at the concert." But even that goal can be accomplished in so many ways, that one cannot converge on a single (objective) solution.(After all, the person at the concert in the distant balcony, with lots of reverberation and an unbalanced frequency mixture is having a "real" experience at the concert. But is it less "real" than 7th row center?) As you said, there are many paths, even to the standard which you take as "real."

And if that’s true, then there’s nothing more real about live music than about electronic, mixed, multi-track, or live-with-reinforced sound (PA’s) music. The goal is always some kind of experience in the listener, whether it’s about the experience of "being there" or some other experience. 

Get rid of the word "real" and a lot of these issues just melt away.

There exist a "real" sum  of acoustics objective information any stereo playback system loose by definition of being a stereo system...(information about timbre and spatial localizations and attribute of sounds as holography,volume,listener envelopment versus sound source width etc)

When people speaks about recreating the real objective collective event of a concert, which is impossible for many reasons , what in fact is possible and what they refer to is the retrieval of the original acoustics information coming from the recordings  many trade-off "designed" and picked choices kept by the recording engineer but lost in the regular stereo "translation" process of these  acoustics parameters values in our own stereo playback system/room because of the cross-talk between two sources of sound (the speakers)  instead of one localized  source of sound as in real life  if i hear a bird for example or in the concert case.

The only one explaining this very clearly is the acoustician Edgar Choueiri in his many articles...

Then we must not get rid of the real but understood what real means from the  acoustics concepts and parameters at play in  the recording process to the playback process in our room.

Get rid of the word "real" and a lot of these issues just melt away.

Unless double blind testing includes long-term listening, my take is that while it can be useful to determine IF there is a difference, it is not useful in determining which is "better" to us.

Analogy: many times I have eaten at a restaurant and the first few bites of something taste very good. Then I realize it's actually very salty or has some other overly emphasized characteristic that doesn't withstand repetition in taste. It doesn't taste as good on the 5th or whatever bite.

I have found audio to be similar. What sounds detailed or something else at first can be fatiguing. 

So it's a useful tool, but far from the last word.

I agree with the point that all stereo playback systems inherently lose a significant amount of objective acoustic information present in a "real" sound event. (This lost information includes details about timbre, spatial localization, sound holography, volume, and listener envelopment—elements that define the characteristics of a sound source.)

I also agree that it is best to talk about "real" in connection with the retrieval of original acoustic information from recordings. 

What I think is misleading (carefully avoided by mahgister's post) is the constant reference to the original, live musical performance event as the standard of what "real" means. As was pointed out, this is impossible to capture and so is a misleading standard. That’s why I would prefer to get away from the world "real."

FWIW, the term "fidelity" (as in "high fidelity") is a better word, because one can be faithful (have fidelity) without being bound to perfectly reproducing an event which, in its totality, is gone forever.

Arriving at one's reference system should probably take many years of trial and error, listening to live music of all kinds, listening to a wide variety of systems in a wide variety of settings/listening rooms. I too often focused on a particular area of presentation, for instance at one time I became totally enamored with mid range timbre to the detriment of pretty much every thing else. I set up a system with that  'golden glow' tube sound, god how I loved the romance of that system. But over time I began to notice I was pretty much only listening to acoustic folk, anything with rhythm, energy, denseness was rather incoherent. Also overly resonant, one note type bass, highs rolled, this all became too apparent in time. So next I go in completely the opposite direction, soon enough analytical presentation becomes unsustainable. So, then the goal becomes a happy mean.

And so I always knew how 'real' music should sound via attending concerts, singling in choirs, choruses, bands. Why I went off in these two opposite directions remains a puzzle, just a part of the learning process I suppose. The other thing that greatly impinges on the ability of many of us to reproduce our 'reference' sound is the funds required to reach this goal, no doubt lack of 'reference' level equipment had a great bearing on my audio travails.

So now the one thing I've begun to notice over these past few years is how my choices in listening material has changed. I've found myself listening to far more acoustic instrument recordings, way more 50's into early 60's jazz, pop, instrumental, baroque classical, folk music than I previously listened to. In making this rather unconscious choice I've come to understand I now prefer listening to music that presents a more 'natural', less processed sound. Since I now have a far better balanced and/or 'natural' audio setup I desire to hear that same 'natural' acoustic in the music I play. Amplified and synthetic instruments and/or highly processed recordings don't have this 'natural' presentation or reference to live music. Hearing this more 'lifelike' presentation from both the recordings and system is engrossing to the point I simply don't get around to playing the 'other' stuff. The other salient point with the recordings I most enjoy listening to, is vast majority are from the era when tube equipment dominated in the studio, I can easily discern the early solid state recordings from the tube which started mid 60's. One other thing is how much more natural mono recordings have become in recent years, far more spacious sound stages vs when I had lesser equipment. Stereo very often sounds more processed in the sense it presents a tailored vs natural sound stage. 

And so in thinking about how all this relates to double blind testing. I'd suggest I'd have great difficulty in arriving at valid conclusions listening to a system I have very little exposure to. Certainly its possible I'd be able to differentiate between the component or components under study, but how does that hold any validity in the case I'm determining whether I want to purchase said component for my system. And then there is the question of sympathetic matches, this not some objective system this component being placed in. So, for me I don't understand the whole point of blind testing for audio, sure it can exercise one's analytical skills, but I'd suggest going to wide variety of live musical events will go much further in developing those skills.

Every time there's a discussion about double blind testing I go back to my early days in audio. Many establishments had  these switching boards where they could switch out components on the fly. The thing I most recall was being stressed out by trying to prove I had good listening skills, performance anxiety big time. Only recall inner confusion, this in spite of what I might have been saying. Never purchased a single item using this method, in home demo's were my primary way of purchasing back in the day. So my question is, why is present day blind testing still existent? Sales or some nebulous argument for improving analytical listening skills?

@sns 

+1

Same journey for me, different paths. 

Yes also to the switching. It isn't as if you are switching the reproduction of one tone. It is a constant changing barrage of different sounds. Even focusing on a drumstick hitting a drum, each is different in small ways and is accompanied by all sorts of other sounds. There is no really valid A/B. Even if you can capture one sound... the attack of the drum stick sound... you are now missing dozens of others, the flow, gestalt, it goes on and on. So, while you can A/B big differences in say "treble presentation"... there are dozens or hundreds of other things to listen to. So you basically must spend hours and hours to understand appreciate the sound you are listening to and to identify the places where it varies from the norm (your internal reference... we've talked about developing this). Then you must do the same for the alternative.