Have You Ever Put Your Golden Ears to the Test??

Brad,
As someone in the wine trade I have to say that blind tasting is one of the hardest and most humbling things to do. I think beer would be a bit easier than wine but still hard. As far as prefering a beer you previously disliked, I'd say you had one beer too many.
On the subject of blind listening, who has the time! I barely get enought time just listening too my system, much less scientifically evaluating components or, God help me, cables. As long as I enjoy the way my system sounds, I'm happy. At least until I see another shiny toy I must have!

Newbie, the objective advocates would like you to understand that if all beers, water and wine tested the same (which they don't), they would taste the same. Of course one can tell the difference (to a point) when products are different i.e. more acid, less sodium and these differences can be detected.

ABX tests aren't to determine your good taste. People claim to hear differences and I believe them. What I don't believe is that there is a difference just because they hear one. Example, the same wire is compared to itself and one hears a difference. Of course that wasn't fair, I tricked him/her! Of course there are different sounding wires (and amplifiers), but these are designed in to please a certain segment (customers) and I am not sure that I want products that are not flat in frequency response or that possess other distortion products.

There is are limits to how much a human ear/brain can resolve differences in perceived sound and ABX tests tell one what those limits are. This is essentially the fear of those criticising these objective tests - that it will be revealed that their hearing isn't any better than anybody elses when it comes to detecting differences, although it (the hearing) might be better educated enabling the person to describe the difference, if any exists.

Salut

I think that the comparison to wine is appropriate. Just like wine, one's ability to discern differences in audio increases with ones experience. I can't tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and the best wine because I don't drink much. When I was in high school, my stereo sounded great compared to my clock radio. Over time, however, as I developed more experience with audio, I found that I needed more. I can now easily tell the difference between equipment and will pay for what I think is better. I won't, however, pay $200 for a bottle of wine because I can't tell the difference.

salut, i'm an easy sale for the proposition that people hear the same sound differenty. people can be predisposed to hear, or ignore, certain sounds. physically, the hearing apparatus of each individual is different and the brains interpertations of the electrical impulses from the ear will certainly differ from person to person. however, where i begin to be sales resistant is when i am told that there is no scientific basis for a difference which people claim to hear, ergo there can be no difference in fact. science is nothing more than a body of extant knowledge and that body grows larger each day. what science can not explain to day they may be able to explain tomorrow. objectivists only see what it to be reaidy seen and do not consider what may be discovered tomorrow which will challenge their opinions. look no further than the various theories and facts regarding evolution - its obvious that the more we know the more we realize how little we knew before, and how little we know about what we will discover in the future. i'm still on the fence regarding evolution as well as audio. all good food for though.

Pick up any Introductory Psychology book. Turn to the chapter on sensation and perception (usually ch. 3 or 4). You will find dozens, if not hundreds, of example of how expectations influence perception, whether visually or auditorially, ranging from the classic of hearing 'Satan rules' or 'Kill your parents' when playing AC/DC Lp's backwards, to the 25 year old study where the sound of the letter 'g' was removed from the word 'legislature' and replaced with the sound of a cough, and nobody could hear the difference. This is one reason why many people WANT to have objective tests of audio equipment; if we expect to hear a difference we will. People who 'hear' the cough as a G aren't lying; it's the way perception works. You can't help it.
There are a number of good comments above about the difficulties inherent in objective double-blind testing. One that I didn't see mentioned (maybe I missed it) was that you shouldn't do it with only one listener. You need a large group of listeners, with each person randomly assigned to one of (at least) two experimental conditions--one group hears component A before component B, the other group hears B before A. Of course, before you can even be in the experiment, you need a hearing test, ESPECIALLY if you are a male above age 40 or so, like (I believe) many of us here are. Not much point in comparing the treble response of two speakers if you can't hear anything above 10K (or whatever)!. You also need standardized source CD's or LP's, volume checks with decibel meters to make sure both components are equaly loud, signal detection theory when analyzing your data to correct for guessing......
Ok, I'm being (somewhat) sarcastic here. My point is that while we could do this, it's TOO MUCH HASSLE AND NO DAMNED FUN AT ALL!! Where's the music in all of this, man?