2. misc-audio
  3. 147670-20253

Blind Testing is Dead - Long live My Wallet testing.

Hi Everyone,

I was seeing some discussions around cables, and reading other discussions about A'gon members asking for opinions on different alternatives for hooking up a DAC, or TV sound, or whatever, and it made me think of this.


I want to tie a few things together:

  • Most technical measurements consumers read were defined by the 1970s. It is fair to describe them as stagnant.
  • The cost to benefit ratio of a lot of products can vary a great deal.
  • I hear things I can't yet measure in cables and crossover components.
  • I like measurements. 
  • Someday measurements commonly discussed among consumers will improve and better tie our values to technology.

A lot has been made about double blind testing, and a lot of readers rely on taste masters (web sites, magazines and social media) and whether in fact these taste masters can hear anything at all. Reminds me a lot of blind testing of wines, or an article I read recently about how much super rare whiskey is fake.


When deciding on a bit of kit, I could not care less about double blind testing. I care about :

  • What audible value can I perceive?
  • Is the price proportional to that value?
  • Is my money better spent on a vacation or liquor?

We should also note that I'm a bit of an iconoclast. Most consumers also care about:

  • Brand recognition
  • Style
  • Perception of modernity (is it cutting edge no one else has)
  • Perception of construction (how much does it weigh, how is it packaged)
  • Ability to create envy.
  • Price ( if it's too inexpensive, it can't be good! )


What is my message then? My message is that this is all cute, like reading about movies or books or music shows, but in the end, it's my wallet, no one else's. John Atkinson is not buying my speakers for me. I am. My hard work creates value which I use some of (sometimes too much) to buy audio related products. The more you detach yourself from brands, costs and worries about measurements the more frugal, and happier  you will be.


Best,

Erik


erik_squires

Showing 7 responses by geoffkait

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
prof
As for blind testing, as I’ve said many times before, no gastopo squad is breaking in to anyone’s home to force blind testing, and no one should bother with it if it doesn’t interest them. I don’t bother blind testing the majority of what I buy. At the same time, I can’t pretend our hobby is magically exempt from all the same variables in perceptual bias that humans suffer from in every other endeavour. I have no problem whatsoever admitting that my perceptions may be in error, for any number of reasons. But it’s damned fun to trade subjective impressions of gear.

>>>>>Why pick on perceptual variables? There are too many physical and electrical variables and potential errors in the test system or test procedure to be able to control. No one seems to even know what all the variables are. For that reason alone test results should be suspect. Besides not everyone is impressed by the cost or appearance or advance buzz of audio devices or components. Maybe newbies are, maybe not. Who knows? Did I already mention the ulterior motives some people might have in pushing for blind tests?

In addition, there is no comparison between audio and “other endeavors” - audio is infinitely more complex than say, wine tasting or medical trials. Thus, many more things can go wrong in the test. Audio test results have little or no significance.

Note to self: Blind test proponents apparently can’t help pushing blind tests even while pretending to be nonchalant about it. Must be a new strategy. 😄
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I choose to believe just because someone says something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
It’s FAA humor. 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I don’t recall. The Office of Safety at that time was located at Kitty Hawk, NC. 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
@asvjerry My point was that the Government ordinarily requires third party testing. The Boeing case is unusual because apparently FAA allowed Boeing to perform the testing for the software in question. If that’s true then it’s like letting the fox protect the chicken coop. My last job was senior engineer in FAA Office of Safety.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
mr_m1,107 posts03-26-2019 5:57pm "sometimes people have ulterior motives, you know, like Boeing"

Geoffkait,

No Geoff, more like NASA...

>>>>>Really? NASA does their own testing? I doubt it. The problem with Boeing is the FAA alledgedly allowed Boeing to do its own testing in the context of the software package related to the recent 737 crashes. But more to point someone who had it in for product X could publish “test results” that would be unfavorable to product X. Follow?
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Like results of any kind of testing, blind test results should always be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes people have ulterior motives, you know, like Boeing, for example. Or, say, Harmon Kardon.
More to discover