Blind Testing is Dead - Long live My Wallet testing.

@mikexxyz, "IMO DB testing is too difficult for consumers and is suicidal for reviewers."

Thanks for that, I needed some cheering up after today's sad news of Scott Walker's death.

Your one sentence sums things up brilliantly. It is the elephant in the room as far as audio reviewing is concerning. They could and should do it, but know only too well the consequences.

Therefore they avoid it like the plague and squirm around making all manner of excuses.

@clearthink, if these esteemed reviewers with all of their years and years of listening and critically evaluating equipment cannot reach a clear evaluation through blind testing then we are forced to conclude that either the differences are so subliminal as to hardly be worth the bother or there aren't any. 

Let's face it, subliminal differences are of little use to most of us audiophiles, but blind evaluation must always reveal major ones, ones that we can hear 365 days a year, ones we are all interested in. I can't speak for others but I have no interest in pursuing subtle subliminal improvements when I am looking to upgrade. Many years ago I started with a Rega 3 and later upgraded to an LP12. Was it an upgrade? Yes. Was it worth the expense and trouble? No, but that's another story.

I agree that their opinion of reviewers is far from being the final word but its beginning to look as if that opinion is almost entirely worthless. Little more than subjective rambling in most cases. Unfortunately many still rely upon reviews even in 2019 instead of regarding them as no more than light, but frivolous entertainment.

HiVyNyws channel is one of the very few left that doesn't pull his punches. But then he's reviewing vinyl where real (as distinct from imagined) differences are easy to demonstrate.
https://youtu.be/E4G7hSUQoO

In cases where home auditioning is impossible perhaps we need to go back to evaluating and buying gear on specifications once more? If you know how to read them they can tell you at a glance a lot more than some lilly livered critic ever will.

@blindjim, "but there is only one way to note the influence or input of any device within an audio system and that is to know the system itself prior to exchanging ANY facet within it.

otherwise, the only known value of any outfit which can be remarked upon sanely will be the system’s loud speakers."

Many already believe that loudspeakers are where virtually all sound quality differences can be easily found. Easy to hear differences 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by anyone with an interest in audio or not. No golden ears required whatsoever.

Hence there's little interest in blind testing for amplifiers, CD players, cables, DACs etc because they are practically undetectable by the acutest scientific measuring devices, let alone a human ear.

Other mechanical transducers such as turntables, arms, cartridges, and headphones on the other hand do still have easily demonstrable differences in sound quality whether tested blind or sighted.

In time these too will diminish no doubt. Already a good $300 headphone is awfully close to $3000 one. 

There should be no need to be afraid of blind testing unless of course it's true that high end audio all too often likes to dress up in the emperors new clothes.

@asvjerry, thanks for your post.
Reminded me, a nervous flyer whose fear grew worse with each flight, of reading about the meticulous no nonsense approach adopted by the aviation industry today. 

Despite years of training, numerous health and psychological surveillance checks the main risk to passengers  comes from the pilots themselves. Not terrorists, weather conditions or mechanical failure.

According to Boeing up to 80% of accidents are caused by human error! And yet, year after year audiophiles remain convinced that their judgement remains infallible.

Blind testing is not without flaws, but it's easily the best test available to us when comparing products. Easily.

When testing, the weakest link in the entire chain from the recording to our enjoyment of it, the one most subject to variability, is inevitably ourselves.

In an ideal sound test we would not be involved in any of the actual assessment because our impressions are simply too subject to change. Mainly because they all too often depend heavily upon our moods. Heck, on a bad day we might even start believing that the Beatles 2009 remasters were any good. Or one day we prefer Presley's version of Blue Suede Shoes, the next day Perkins etc.

When listening blind some may find that not knowing the make, the price, the technology behind the sound can act as a wonderfully liberating experience. Wonderful because there's only the sound to think about. Ultimately even a blind test will still depend upon the current mood and frame of mind.

Therefore a better way to evaluate tech is by comparing side by side, preferably without sight of it. This at least ensures that our mood preferences will apply equally to the equipment we listen to. [Unless of course we are afflicted with some kind of disorder whereby our moods (preferences/biases) are changing from moment to moment.]

I have rarely had the chance to do an unsighted comparison test but they do tend to be eye opening - sorry. One favourite is comparing different masterings of favourite albums - level matched of course. It's amazing how your mind can desperately scramble around for any data it can find in order to form an impression. Even displayed album artwork can contribute towards the impression formed.

A lesser kind of unsighted test is encountered when you walk into a place where there is music playing but you have no idea what it is being played on. So far I have never walked into a store and found the sound there to be superior to what I enjoy at home. Often it's almost unbearable, but just one of these days, who knows?