2. tech-talk
  3. 983207388

Blind Listening Tests?

I would like help locating any articles or studies on the subject of blind listening tests as it relates to high end audio equipment. I realize this is akin to blasphemy for many who are into this hobby, however, the more times I read of people claiming to hear audible differences between certain components and system set-ups, the more skeptical I become.(e.g. equipment racks ,interconnects,etc.)The fact that virtually every major audio publication is so adamently against the idea only adds to my skepticism.

Before I invoke the wrath of this site's faithful, let me clarify that I am not doubting the sincerity of those who claim to hear sonic differences between certain components. However, believing that an audible difference exists when one knows that he is listening to a piece of equipment that is generally well regarded or made by a well respected manufacturer is entirely different from being able to detect the difference in a blind listening scenario. Given the undisputed connection between the mind and our perceptions, why is there so much sentiment against such tests? Couldn't the results of such testing be simply another piece of information that we could factor in to our purchasing decisions. It seems to me that those who are so sure of ther critical listening ability (i.e. all stereophile reviewers) should not hesitate to prove their skills.

I look forward to any help in directing me to more information on the subject.Thanks, Don.
dtittle

Showing 6 responses by dudleydog63

dudleydog63's avatar
dudleydog63
105 posts
 
Don: First of all, there is a difference between a "blind test" and an "objective test." All objective tests are blind (double-blind, actually), but not all blind tests are objective. It's still possible to be fooled into thinking a difference exists when you're listening blind. As for references, check out the "official" ABX page:

http://oeonline.com/~dcarlst/abx.htm

It contains background info, plus a list of articles that discuss or use ABX testing.

Your skepticism is quite justified. The primary reason magazines do not do objective testing is that it would leave them with too little to write about. Besides, it would really tick off a whole bunch of advertisers. The exception, of course, is The Audio Critic, which you should also check out.
dudleydog63's avatar
dudleydog63
105 posts
 
Couldn't agree more, J.D.--this is about belief, not science. Just click your heels together, and your system will sound great!
dudleydog63's avatar
dudleydog63
105 posts
 
Detlof: Dont' know about studies of the hearing-impaired. I can think of a number of plausible explanations, but I'd be speculating (as opposed to listening) blindly. For example, could they not hear those frequencies at all, or was it just at a lower level? (In other words, how steep was their low-pass filter?!) Could be they heard enough to detect something, but that's just a wild guess.

As for your mathematical model, it would run counter to experimental evidence. I know of one test of cables where listeners could distinguish between two cables using pink noise, but not using a piece of choral music. That probably won't surprise too many audiophiles.
dudleydog63's avatar
dudleydog63
105 posts
 
Detlof: Absolutely, for something like soundstage/imaging you need a complex stereo signal. (What would stereo pink noise soound like??) But I'm from the school that says soundstage is primarily a function of the source material and speaker/room interaction. The sorts of things you would do blind tests on aren't much of a factor (unless there's a channel imbalance somewhere). When people claim that a cable gives them a wider soundstage, I get skeptical.
dudleydog63's avatar
dudleydog63
105 posts
 
Detlof: 1) The power of a trained ear depends on how it was trained, and for what. If it was trained by years of imagining differences that one couldn't really detect, then it's not much use to anyone else. The refusal of many subjective reviewers to submit to objective testing speaks volumes about the quality of their "training." 2) Scientists who study hearing will tell you that they can measure differences far smaller than the human ear can pick out. 3) I've no interest in getting into an argument with you about your blind tests of cones under preamps. But I'm very skeptical. It would not be a trivial exercise.
dudleydog63's avatar
dudleydog63
105 posts
 
Detlof: Psychoacoustics is about a century old now, which is pretty long in the tooth for an infant. And it's not about music. It's about perception of sound, of which music is a complex example. (How music moves us emotionally is another field entirely, but if you can't hear it--or feel it, in the case of that pipe organ--it isn't going to move you.) Also, the complexity of musical sounds actually makes it harder to hear subtle differences, not easier. People generally score higher on blind tests using test tones. So those "limited parameters" actually give us an upper bound for what is audible using a musical source.
More to discover