I see the issue with ABX blind testing

@tonywinga I have no anxiety at all. In fact, I have none.

I was just saying much of what audiophiles actually hear is this bias. I care less what people spend their money on. 

Are you sure?  Perhaps an ABX test is in order.

Bias is what it is all about.  Some people like the sound of speaker A and some speaker B.  They both sound the same to my wife.  She is all about looks.  Looks factor into the bias even if the lights do not need to be on to listen.  If the Nissan Cube were the only car available for sale I might just walk to the store.  

Just saw a video about the BIC ball point pen.  It revolutionized writing.  The video claims the BIC pen is responsible for increasing the world literacy rate from around 30% in 1950 when it became available to over 85% a couple of decades later.  Over 120 billion BIC pens have been sold, they said.  With such an appliance so sure and capable, why is any other style of ball point pen needed?

I was just saying much of what audiophiles actually hear is this bias.

@botrytis  And much of it is not.  So what?  Do you eat blindfolded?  In the end we buy what we like most all things considered, so who cares?  While biases may be at play to some extent (and probably varies greatly by person BTW) they don’t necessarily undermine or overwhelm what we hear and do not invalidate the purchasing decision process.  Saying people are biased seems pointless much like in the way those who say there are no differences between cables because they’re not proven with measurements, and both are useless and tiresome IMHO.

@soix I have eaten blindfolded before. My wife took me once to a restaurant that specialized in blindfolded dining. It was to say an eye-opening experience. I didn't appreciate it at the time, but on reflection should have appreciated the lesson taught there.

I have a friend in France, who knows a blind audiophile and HIS take on musicality and equipment is interesting to hear. People should be open to the idea of blind testing. It doesn't take away anything, but it might save people money and the charlatans in the audio field, wouldn't survive (and there are plenty of them out there).

The point being, sighted listening, IS BIASED listening. Say what you will, there is a reason it is the gold standard for testing w/o biases.

We can agree to disagree, but my point is valid and based on science.

botrytis: Don’t fear it, embrace it. We learn through failures and mistakes. If you get taken- lesson learned. But to miss opportunities because you fear it could be a ruse is a real shame. Audio is to be enjoyed- it’s all about the music. Either you like the sound of something or you don’t. It’s just like a song- you either like it or you don’t. And even then a song I didn’t like before I like now and sometimes a song I liked before I no longer like now. The same thing might happen with your stereo. You like how it sounds today but one day in the future you might want a different sound. That doesn’t mean you failed to do proper ABX testing. It means tastes change.

I can’t imagine how you can enjoy anything if you have to analyze and ABX test everything. I’d hate to go grocery shopping with you.

As for eating in a restaurant blindfolded- kudos for your bravery.  I wouldn‘t do it.  Strangers feeding me food I can‘t see?  No way.  I‘ve been in some countries where I would definitely not want to do that.

When properly carried out I can't imagine why anyone would be against blind testing. 

I remember a while back when Kevin Deal performed a blind tests on, too lazy to look it up, either integrateds or power amps.  As memory serves, all attending thought the exercise was excellent.

I know that the only real way to get to know a component is to live with it, but if someone else is willing to go thought the effort of performing the test why not consider it one more pertinent data point?

It seems that most people on both sides of the cable debate accept the fact that the placebo effect is real... if someone is in pain & a doctor gives you a placebo & tells you that it will cure your pain, you may find pain relief. If a sighted test of cables produces a wonderous ability to hear differences in those cables, the way it did earlier on this thread with the YT video showing 4 different power cables, would you want to pay for the more expensive cable  if you knew that it was merely a placebo, and that your inability to see the cables made that difference recognition disappear? IMO I don't  want to pay for the  placebo, whether we're talking about medicine or audio gear. With medicine the underlying  problem causing the  pain still exists & hasn't been treated. With my audio system I  don't  want to stitch my audio equipment together with very, very expensive bits of magic that my brain has been fooled into believing make a difference. 

So these discussions happen & will continue to happen because there is real medicine that actually solves problems and those that believe in the underlying science of medicine are trying to convince people not to spend thousands of $$$ on the placebo. 

@jetter Because people DON'T want to know the truth about what they spend. It seems much of this hobby is about ego, more than just music reproduction. That is all these systems do. The Deal blind test was a flawed one because he never left the room and could see people switching equipment. Hence, why I put up the video I did. I applaud Kevin for trying, though. That is more than I can say for the naysayers.

I care little about how much people spend or what equipment they have, to be honest. It is their money, and they can do with it as they see fit. 

@jetter I’m not against blind testing at all and would welcome it given the opportunity and would incorporate the results into my decision making. It’s just that some here think it’s impossible to overcome our biases or make good or valid judgements on equipment without blind testing and that bias overrides all listening impressions that aren’t blind, and that I don’t agree with at all. Especially for experienced audiophiles serious and knowledgeable about sound, biases can influential but are not determinative. As usual the reality probably resides in the middle where both what we hear and our inherent biases are involved, but I’m not in the camp where biases are necessarily determinative although I’m sure it’s true in some cases but certainly not all as some would have you think.

I am not against blind ABX testing- when done properly.  A single person doing an ABX blind test might give them comfort and security that they are making the right choice but those results are meaningless to me.  It still comes down to that person's personal preference.  So why look down on me or thumb your nose at me because I do not want to take the time and trouble to do my own personal blind ABX test?  From my viewpoint if a person cannot trust themselves to make a decision that they will be happy with, then don't do it.  

A real blind ABX test would be conducted by a panel of jurists and would be repeatable with a different panel of jurists on a different day and different locations.  

All the YouTuber did was validate his own preference with his own ABX blind test.  He didn't even mention his preference because it would be meaningless to us.  I also got a chuckle when he said that Danny guessed right 8 out of 10 times but he guess right 18 out of 20 times with his own test.  So he guessed right one more time than Danny but somehow Danny's results are insignificant while his results are valid.  Funny math.

@tonywinga If you ACTUALLY watched the video, what the YT person said was true about the Danny test. Since he was in the room when switching cables, that can be seen a even a slight biasing of the results. The other thing, if you look at DBT, they usually do more than 10, and even 20 tests, as the more one does, the mare statistically significant it is. What he said was NOT wrong. Hence why DBT’s are super hard to do.

Ever look the Boston Audio Society website? They used to do DBT testing all the time. Even in the magazines 1980’s, at the time, there was a great article called; ’Do amplifiers sound the same?’ It was a great read.

 

I ACTUALLY watched the video.  Yes, the more trials the more r will converge to one.  Any statistics quoted should have an r value listed as well.

DBT testing does not interest me any more than how a designer comes up with and tests his amplifier, speaker, etc.  What matters to me is how it sounds in my room with my system.  Either I like the sound or I don't.  Of course it is usually somewhere in between and it comes down to do I like it enough to buy it or not.  Other factors matter too like pedigree, reliability, resale...

How do you choose the best color of car using DBT methods?  Seems to be rather difficult to me.

@tonywinga Everyone knows Red cars are faster and sexier 🤣

Sorry - couldn't help it.

 

Everyone knows Red cars are faster and sexier
 

Actually that’s kinda funny.  @tonywinga I’m sure you know there’s no point in debating anyone who worships at the alter of blind testing or similarly are of the “belief” that cables make no difference — aka people who can’t or haven’t developed the ability to use/trust their own ears so must have their opinions justified/confirmed by some objective measure.  To them I say whatever and to each his own.  As a general rule I find it better to just disregard anything submitted by a fungal disease because nothing good or productive comes from it. 😝🙄

I concur with this soix opinion. When you learn acoustics with your "ears"/brain you smile at the faith of these two crowds. 😊 The cable worshiphers and the cables denyers...

I’m sure you know there’s no point in debating anyone who worships at the alter of blind testing or similarly are of the “belief” that cables make no difference — aka people who can’t or haven’t developed the ability to use/trust their own ears so must have their opinions justified/confirmed by some objective measure.

Everyone knows Red cars are faster and sexier- Oh yeah.

 

 

And the white one bigger than the black!☺

@soix Sorry you feel that way. I am a trained scientist and I know how skewed our internal system is. As I said, it is part and parcel of our survival mechanism. I do not trust ’golden ears’ because they are just as biased as the rest of us and as you age, hearing degrades, period.

The point being is that blind testing, if done right takes out all that bias out, however small it is.

I would say, it is the golden ears ones that are scared to find out all the massive expensive cables are just that, massive and expensive. When they say, ’aka people who can’t or haven’t developed the ability to use/trust their own ears’ I am done with the discussion as arrogance rules the day.

Hey, if you don’t like fungi, don’t eat mushrooms. drink Tokai or Sauternes, drink saki, eat blue cheese, use soy sauce/miso or many other naturally fermented products.

As I said, I am out of this discussion. Enjoy all.

botrytis

... When they say, ’aka people who can’t or haven’t developed the ability to use/trust their own ears’ I am done with the discussion as arrogance rules the day ...

You've proven your point admirably well.

Testing hearings ability in some conditions is not the same as testing cables in some others conditions...

Accusation of "golden ears" are stupid. Each ears /brain perceive differently in his own hearing environment with his own systems...This is a scientifically proven fact in musical and speech acoustics...

Denying the validity or the usefulness of blind testing is also stupid. But there is difference between using simple blind test in my home as i did in my acoustics experiments and training  and using ABX DBT on statistical chosen population and using it to demonstrate as in a circus run by techno cultists some audiophile claims...😁

All that is conflated as "science" ... This conflation is preposterous...

This is why most cables debates are useless, there is too much factors and parameters meaningful in many fields and those who discussed are biased as : cables dont make a difference and cables makes powerful differences. Which neither claim is true because it is related to very different possible factors at play...

The less useful discussion are about cables...

The more useful one are about acoustics concepts ( not mere room acoustic ) and in second only about gear design ... 😊

Well, to the 'Golden ears' how were you trained? When I think of training of the senses, I think of how Sommeliers are trained. They are trained on taste, smell, grape, terrior, etc. They are all trained the same way. No audiophile is trained that way, unless they are a musician. Otherwise, just listening to cables is like being home schooled. That is all ego, all it is, to think one is as good as say as sommelier.

Sorry, that is why blind testing is important it takes the ego out of it.

Why apologize for your beliefs? No one who knows better will take issue with your hubristic statement. Been there too many times to count. This is old news. They'll just move on, making improvements in their systems by using that which has served them so well all this time: their ears.

As for Somms, have you ever met one and did a fair amount of wine tasting with them? If so, you'd find your analogy a faulty construct. Their ability to discern is inherent in their DNA, like all of our senses. Some are "wired" for it, others not so much, with lots of grey area between the two. Out of a couple thousand DNA combinations, around 300 make up an individuals tasting abilities, making it almost (if not just like) fingerprints: no two are alike.

Same goes for ones hearing, eyesight, sense of smell, and touch. I've seen someone reading font of this size (about 15 for my purposes) from a chart a good 12 feet away, easily (he had 15/20 vision and was testing his son who was the same while bored in the DMV). Why would one think all hearing is alike and begrudge others who just have better hearing capabilities? That is ego.

All the best,
Nonoise

 

Are you a scientist?

😊

If yes how can you ignore that the main training of the ears/brain in audio is related to acoustics with an "s", a substantive then not mere room acoustic ( an adjective).

When you experiment with acoustics, you can for example modify the room reverberation time and you learn how to feel it by modifying the parameters at play...

You can modify the ratio between reflection and absortion...

Etc... You can play with the pressure distribution zones of the room with resonators specifically tuned...

Do you really think that all i have to train my ears is changing the cables?  Perhaps  this lack of imagination related to the way to modify the sound characteristic   reflect your own impotency more than mine... I dont use just  cables to control my own system/room  by far...

It seems you had never read a book about acoustics nor never experimenting with acoustics and you called ABX DBT "science" ? It is not science it is just a tool useful in the industry...

And you call me a "golden ears" as if it was an insult because i trained myself with acoustics basics .

What is "timbre" ? How do you think we can learn it ? Just listening real acoustic instrument is not enough, we must modify the acoustics parameters of the environment where these acoustics instrument will be played lived or in playback  or recorded ... This is science applied basic concepts... Timbre is defined by at least 5 characteristic parameters we must learn how to control...

ABX DBT test yourself...😁

In my room tuning i only needed simple blind tests to reinforce time to time my incremental path of improvement in the tuning process...thats all ...

How do you think i tuned the damping load of my damped speakers near + or - 100 grams of load on 80 pound? by listening as a tuner tune a piano WITHOUT the need of an ABX DBT test for each notes...😁

How do you think i tuned my bundle of tubes size and length choices for my rear porthole speakers new design ? By ears...

 

Let me smile...at your science ABX DBT which reflect ignorance and the use of expression as "golden ears" as insults to top your ignorance as a flag ...

 

By the way learning acoustics basic with our ears has nothing to do with my "ego" . It was my hobby to create a system/room at low cost and be creative doing so instead of buying costlier gear pieces as false solution for an acoustic problem...

 

 

Well, to the ’Golden ears’ how were you trained? When I think of training of the senses, I think of how Sommeliers are trained. They are trained on taste, smell, grape, terrior, etc. They are all trained the same way. No audiophile is trained that way, unless they are a musician. Otherwise, just listening to cables is like being home schooled. That is all ego, all it is, to think one is as good as say as sommelier.

Sorry, that is why blind testing is important it takes the ego out of it.

 

@mahgister None of it is standardized. Even in Grad School there was some standardization. Same with working in a distillery - tasting panels are standardized and they basically look for certain things. There is NONE of that in audiophiledom, period.

That IS the point, isn’t it? If we all had one standard, then there can be differences based on personal taste, but good wines and whiskey have specific characters, then they add the unique characteristics above that.

Even your word salad, is just that. You seem to be the only one following your system.

You had not understood my point at all...

You dont even tried so enebriated by your techno-cult instead of science...

Acoustics as a science exist...your argument is pure ideology...

A small room acoustic cannot be standardized by the way guess why ?

Acoustic content of any room differ from another as well as size, geometry and topology...

my ears are biased in a way different than your own...Then i tuned my room for them... Better than ABX DBT pseudo circus , we may measure our inner ears canals and HTRF and determine our listening position better in the room etc ...

In small room acoustics all must be designed for the owner perception....

Your insults against audiophiles "golden ears" are not grounded in science but in the techno cultist ideology...

I dont need ABX DBT circus in my room ... 😊

 

You speak as an ASR ideologue..."audiophildom" as if all audiophiles were ignorant...

You are ignorant you have no idea of what is acoustics sorry...

Standardize your own  ears i will keep mine as they are, imperfect but trainable and truthfull for my needs ... 😊

 

By the way the concept of timbre is not a word salad nor the concept of listener envelopment and the source auditory width ratio LV/ASW... Inform yourself how to create it in small room acoustics... No, it is not in the ABX DBT manual ...

"audiophildom" "golden ears" , who use these words salad ?😊

You, poor little soul not me ...

You are a deluded soul unable to see your own biases...Then you come here and throw insult because people try cables not in your way on a theater with ABX DBT ...

Good luck....

But please give arguments not insults...

Especially in a site where there is many other people who think differently... They are not all idiots...

Cables matter way less than acoustics, even your electrical specs of design in some variable acceptable  boundary  matter less  guess why ? Acoustics parameters variations  had huge impact... No need to ABX DBT test to hear them ...

 

@mahgister None of it is standardized. Even in Grad School there was some standardization. Same with working in a distillery - tasting panels are standardized and they basically look for certain things. There is NONE of that in audiophiledom, period.

 

 

I wonder if botrytis realizes he has wandered into a blind alley.  He has mixed up the concept of ABX testing by a panel for commercial sales with a home user selecting components for his audio system.  

To put it in terms botrytis brought up- would he criticize a homebrew distiller for not using ABX testing on his product?  That would make no sense.  A homebrew distiller is making his product for his own personal consumption and so will of course brew it to his tastes.  Would botrytis accuse him of bias for making it taste the way he wants?  He added ingredients without blind testing to see which ingredients are the best?  How dare he.  Of course this is nonsense.  The brewer makes his elixir the way he likes it.  

An audiophile sets up his system to sound the way he wants it to sound.  He is not setting up a commercial adventure to sell copies of his system to others.  Therefore, to suggest that a person must do ABX testing of the components he selects or else he is just fooling himself is a ludicrous concept.  

Here‘s a thought.  Go into a high end restaurant and tell the head Chef that if he didn‘t ABX blind test all of his ingredients then he is biased and wasting money on expensive foods and spices for his meals.  See how that goes.

The common ground here is that we pretty much all recognize that we as humans have biases, and I’d venture to guess most of us aren’t opposed to ABX testing.  The difference here is that the @botrytis believes we are completely incapable of overcoming our biases or listening objectively, and thus the only valid way to judge audio equipment is ABX because we as humans are incompetent and are just fooling ourselves.  So if I hear a silver interconnect and a copper interconnect and find the former brighter and hyper detailed and the latter warmer and more natural sounding and prefer that latter I’m just hearing my biases and need ABX to confirm my impressions.  Especially audiophiles who’ve listened to lots of gear and have identified what sounds good to them know what they hear and ultimately vote with their hard-earned dollars accordingly.  The fungal disease doesn’t believe people who have long experience listening to a wide variety of gear constitutes valid training or expertise in being able to judge audio equipment but that somehow scientists and musicians have a more valid form of training for this purpose.  Ha!  When it comes to choosing audio equipment nothing is better or more valuable than broad listening experience, and you can’t get that by reading books, understanding scientific method, or playing an instrument.  I’d much sooner trust a seasoned audiophile’s recommendations with years of listening experience over a scientist, engineer, or musician with less listening experience and perspective any day.  Hell, I know lots of musicians and all but one have crap audio systems and are completely clueless and incapable of assessing audio equipment or systems because they have no experience or perspective to be able to do so.  So how does all that musical training translate to audio?  It doesn’t much like you wouldn’t want a foot doctor to do brain surgery — they’re completely different disciplines and while I’d certainly like a violinist to help me choose a violin or a scientist to help conduct an experiment I’ve no interest in their opinions on audio equipment if they have little experience in listening to home audio.  So yeah, it’s possible to gain valuable experience and perspective and to train your ears to hear salient differences between audio equipment and systems, and if you don’t have that experience I don’t care what your other training may be because it doesn’t make you a better or even a useful listener or evaluator of audio equipment.  Or you can just bury your head in the sand and believe we are complete slaves to our biases and that listening experience counts for nothing.  If that’s what you believe then it begs the question why even be here at all because it’s nothing but a collection of biases and so are obviously then meaningless to you.  Maybe you just get off on being a troll here, and that’s just a sad existence and absolutely pointless and useless here.

These same techno cultists will soon advocate for A.I. system knowledge connection with the brain as the only one having value then, scientists would be connected on the machine without which "purely human science " will have no  value anymore. You dont need To ABX DBT a machine and all knowledge is "standardized" and sanitized as the propagandist Popper anticipated it. Rationalism conflated with Reason .( read Michael Polanyi instead he is deeper but less known and was himself a working scientist, which Popper never was)

For these techno cultists the concept of meaning is reducible to bits.

Goethe is an idiot and their A.I. a God...

The next mankind division will be political no more , no more stupid left-right superficial debates arranged by Corporations masters as WWF wrestling matches, which only idiots only takes as serious but division between those who are connected to A.I. and those who are not for the sake of the hive.

All anticipated by the Calvinist Mandeville in 1714. Stupendous.

I think @botrytis is mixing up spirit competition where a panel of judges is used to taste and score a product with what takes place in a distillery, where only one person, a master distiller , is responsible for taste and consistency of the final product. If there was a panel blind tasting whiskey at a distillery it would resemble this thread.

When it comes to my system, I’m that master distiller.
 

Why are we still entertaining this endless flow of skeptics?

It‘s simple.  We have trolls with no real interest in audio that make comments to the contrary apparently out of boredom.  To call someone arrogant or foolish for building a stereo system based on their hearing is nuts.  Blind testing has a purpose and a place.  If a person is unsure of their own hearing to build a stereo, that‘s ok.  It doesn‘t have to be a DYI hobby.  Many people just want a turnkey stereo system so they can enjoy their music.  A dealer can set up a system that sounds good to them or they can hire someone to set up their system.  Many of us enjoy the journey almost as much as the destination.  

I go listen to someone‘s stereo and maybe I like it or maybe I don‘t.  It‘s all about my bias vs. the owner‘s.  Maybe I like a song someone else doesn‘t.  Most of the time we benefit hearing other systems and gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of our own.  I personally do not need to be blindfolded to do that.

Imagine if car magazines tried to do double blind drive tests of cars.  Now that could get interesting.

@audphile1 I was the lab manager and fermentation expert at a distillery. We had to be trained for tasting. The American Distillers Institute has classes on it. They use base flavors and fragrances to train with. This way, one can use the same descriptors etc, for the products.

Ever see a wine wheel or whiskey wheel, probably not. Or you wouldnt be so dismissive and arrogant. Whiskey taste wheel Wine aroma wheel

Y'all really don't get it.

There are rigorous classes for Somms as well and most just can't cut it. With wine I've learned a few things but could never reach the heights of perception as my Somm friends no matter how much I try. 

One could memorize all the different cues on those wheels and still not be able to match them to what one's tasting on a consistent basis.  There's way too many factors at play. I've even seen Somms blow it on blind tastings while I got it right (only on two occasions).  Everyone does. What I taste is rarely what others do and vice versa. Sure, there's overlap in some broad areas but the nuances are always different. 

Here's a study on single malts and blends that the author disputes but the comments section leaves open the possibility that most simply cannot tell the difference between the two unless they know beforehand what they're drinking, like the study concluded. Not everyone can do it.

All the best,
Nonoise

@botrytis that’s awesome! Have a nice day!

The irony is that after the first drink the taste no longer matters. 

@nonoise …

Four single malts Scotches:

1. Cardhu 12 
2. Mortlach (Flora & Fauna 16 yo)
3. Glenlivet 18
4. Glenmorangie (10 - although erroneously stated as 12)

Four blended Scotches:

1. Chivas Gold 18
2. Ballantine's 17
3. Johnnie Walker Black 12
4. Johnnie Walker Platinum 18

They really picked the cream of the crop here. This comparison is equivalent of comparing Mogami, BlueJeans, Benchmark StarQuad, bottom of the line Audioquest and some other garbage on that level. 

Like all these blind test aficionados, they only select and include all similarly bad quality garbage that no one can pick apart. Balantine’s 17. Johnnie Walker Black. 

Once again this is why all these blind tests are 🐂 💩. 
Compare Glenlivet 18 to Macallan 18. Then we can have a conversation. 

Throw a Lagavulin in there and I'm pretty sure they would figure it out.

Lol that’s 100%. 

In the early 1990s I was working with automaker teams to reduce fuel system noise inside the cabin.  They would do DBX testing of fuel systems with 4 jurors sitting in the car inside a hemianechoic chamber.  The procedure was to run the system with engine off first and then with engine on.  Back in the day automakers had warranty costs related to noise so they were taking it pretty seriously.  Then the Lexus brand showed up.  Their new car reset the paradigm for interior comfort.  The body used doubled panels with tar sandwiched inbetween and double laminated glass.  The Ford team evaluated the new Lexus.  Suddenly, the 0-10 subjective rating system that they used dropped a couple of points on average.  Everything is relative.  

First rule of audio:  Your system sounds great, until you hear a better system.

First rule of acoustics applied for audiophiles : Your system sound great, the price does not matter here, if all acoustics parameters in the system/room are balanced then no one lacking or in excess relatively to the others parameters ...

Learning what are these parameters in acoustics matter...Learning how To act on them and with them matter...

For sure the best design in the world will cost more than any relatively low cost system... But if you are in a race to create the best system in the world by only upgrading the gear pieces the probability are high that you will stay ignorant with the essential in audio : acoustics...

People who are ignorant use a common place evident fact as " the costlier the better the design" to describe my recommendation as self delusion...😁

They ignore the power of acoustics...

How did they now my lost cost modified speakers using Helmholtz principle are trash ? And not a super deal way better than many relatively costlier one with no apparent defect taking into account his design limitations, ( i cannot go under 50 hertz with these speakers marked 85 hertz in the non modified specs)  how did they know that ?

They are the deluded one ...

😊

 

 

In every discussion about cables the question is always asked, why don’t you do an ABX blind test? So I was figuring out how I’d do that. I know the reason few do it. It’s not easy to accomplish. I have no problem having a friend come over & swap cables without telling me what he’s done, whether he swapped any at all etc. But from what I can see the benefit, if there is one, will be most noticeable system wide. In other words, just switching one po

 

This is extremely simple.

Step a)

Put blindfold on friend outside the music room (so he has no idea what is inside).

 

Step b)

When blindfold is on, hold his hand and waltz him to the seat, sit him down.

 

Step c)

Start swapping cables 25 times.

 

Step d)

- He's gonna hear the swapping sounds (as he sits blindfolded) while you swap away behind the gear. So, you can also "pretend swap" at times, i.e., unplug cables (give him the 'sound of swapping') and not swap, by plugging em back into the same sockets (tricky tricky 😑). 

 

If he gets it right, 23 out of 25 times it is a pass.

Otherwise, it's a fail.

How is this so complicated? It is very, very straightforward.

How is this so complicated? It is very, very straightforward.

You quoted my post and ended the quote before the reason it's difficult was stated...

But from what I can see the benefit, if there is one, will be most noticeable system wide. In other words, just switching one power cable the way I did before won’t be sufficient for you to tell a difference... again, assuming there is one. So I need my friend to swap power cables for my amp/preamp & streamer, XLR cables from my streamer to my preamp, preamp to amp & speakers cables. That takes a good 5-10 minutes. There is no way my brain is retaining what I previously heard and then comparing it to what I currently hear.

The human brain can retain & compare audio for about a fraction of a second. If it takes 5-10 minutes, or even 1 minute to swap cables, your ability to remember what you heard and compare it with what you're hearing now is effectively zero. 

Don't believe me? Take this test... 

 

Compare the sounds and see if you can tell the difference. But when you're comparing, wait about 5 minutes between listening to each test. 

So, someone needs to achieve a 92% rate of success in your test before you consider it a pass? 

You're a hard grader.  People are bombed based on "Confident" as there's no way to be absolutely certain unless you can see the person you want to bomb. 

By the way, Paul McGowan went through something similar when a friend came over and asked him if he could hear a difference, not knowing what was being changed and when it actually was changed, he was correct in all of his assessments. His friend was swapping out a fuse away from Paul as he sat and he couldn't see what was going on, let alone what his friend was doing. 

That really pissed off the measurement crowd. So much for parlor tricks.

All the best,
Nonoise

The human brain can retain & compare audio for about a fraction of a second. If it takes 5-10 minutes, or even 1 minute to swap cables, your ability to remember what you heard and compare it with what you're hearing now is effectively zero. 

I remember the Pink Floyd concert I saw in Raleigh, NC back in 1988 perfectly.  They sounded great.  I don‘t remember what I had for dinner last week.

The human brain can retain & compare audio for about a fraction of a second. If it takes 5-10 minutes, or even 1 minute to swap cables, your ability to remember what you heard and compare it with what you're hearing now is effectively zero. 

Don't believe me? Take this test... 

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

 

 

First :i could not pass this test at all because i never listen and will never listen seriously this pop song studio mixing soup to begin with...😁

Second : we must use a music we know perfectly well to do any test and do it in our own room system...😊

Third :the brain conscious memory of a couples of bit of sound is short in milliseconds yes...

But the unconscious emotional body who had memory engrams of the music we love and know is very powerful and i use it all along my tuning of my room ...it is not a conscious act but a feeling of the body...A reaction about what is good for me or what is bad... this memory endure and is related to long pieces of music we learned deeply in our known acoustic environment ... A change in sound here will be detected.

Reality is more complex than any techno-cultist ideology ...😊

 

 

But from what I can see the benefit, if there is one, will be most noticeable system wide. In other words, just switching one power cable the way I did before won’t be sufficient for you to tell a difference... again, assuming there is one. So I need my friend to swap power cables for my amp/preamp & streamer, XLR cables from my streamer to my preamp, preamp to amp & speakers cables. That takes a good 5-10 minutes. There is no way my brain is retaining what I previously heard and then comparing it to what I currently hear.

 

@dwcda

Why the hell would i pain someone to swap every cable in the rig?? We do one cable at a time. For example, i passed the swaps 25/25 times between a SVS speaker cable and the AQ Thunderbird (not too long ago), both of which i own, etc.

@nonoise

You’re a hard grader. People are bombed based on "Confident" as there’s no way to be absolutely certain unless you can see the person you want to bomb.

Who said passing blindtests was easy? I only run blindtests on specific material i know very well. I subject to being the guinea pig with a couple of violin pieces i know very well. I am a hobbyist violin player of 40+ years and I don’t attempt blind tests on other material.

My friend’s a sax player (professional musician). I test him on his material that’s embedded all inside of him! The third guy’s an African artist (golden ear bat/professional musician) and there’s specific material he goes with, when he’s the subject. It’s only the 3 of us, we live close to each other and I don’t do it with others. These 2 cats have passed their respective tests with flying colors.

Having said that, I am fairly certain that the 3 of us might be pulling teeth on some tests, if the treatments in my room were taken away. Having a high resolution room is critical. The rigor and training a test subject may have went through in life (a specific instrument/sound) can matter a lot because these can be very subtle changes.

The cable denying hardliners (ASR types) may dismiss these 2 guys and myself as anomalies (treat us as datapoints that can be discarded), if we are 3 out of 50 test subjects, i suppose. If that’s the case, so be it...I don’t need to convince anyone of anything. All is well in the world.

 

@deep_333 Good to hear you only use material you're intimately familiar with.  Most other ABXers I've encountered on this site, online and in mags don't feel that way.  

I, too, primarily use music I know inside and out from repeated listening when swapping cables, listening for the cues I know to exist. Only on unfamiliar or casually listened to music can I be tempted to like something when trying out some of my lessor cables. I'll leave them in for a while only to have that sense of missing something and swap back in my references cables and presto, change-o, everything is right with the world. What I viewed as romantic and full was smeared and undefined. 

For me, the patently obvious changes are not to be dismissed, discarded, or passed off as some fancy of my imagination. Yes, all is well in the world. 

All the best,
Nonoise

When we consider whether audiophiles have analytical ears and/or can remember sound qualities for lengthy periods of time (i.e. much more than a few seconds), let's consider two professions whose skill with sound is undeniable: (1) musicians, and (2) instrument makers.

Musicians will tell you that producing a good sound is primarily about having a good ear. There's a misconception that producing a good sound is primarily about muscle control or something like that. But it's the ear that guides the production of sound. 

I used to work for NASA in the spacecraft navigation section, as a programmer of software tools. Our job was to get the robotic spacecraft to the right place on the right planet (say a particular crater on Mars). The biggest, most important part of the job was figuring out "where is this spacecraft right now?" We used Doppler shift and range, inferred from the radio signal, to get a handle on that. If you don't know where you are, you can't go where you want.

Likewise a musician has to perceive what their sound is like in *this moment*. Furthermore, they have to perceive how it varies from prior moments. It requires a good memory for sound, and in particular for small changes in sound. That's because to get where you want to go, you get there by small changes. To navigate you must have a good sense of where you are, today, and how that compares to yesterday.

Same with instrument builders who are prized for the sound of their instruments.

I regard the fact that we have great musicians and great instruments, going back centuries (before the days of recordings) as proof that aural memory is long-lasting in a trained person.

You are perfectly right in my book...

The feeling emotional (unconscious) memory is very powerful too...

Those who think otherwise that auditory memory is very poor and short lived confuse exact sound memory conscious retrieval with feeling/body memory which is long and guide musicians and maestro gestures.

I regard the fact that we have great musicians and great instruments, going back centuries (before the days of recordings) as proof that aural memory is long-lasting in a trained person.

I am a believer in listening for an extended period of time (for me two weeks minimum) so the sound of the change is somewhat "baked" into your brain and then switch back to the previous item. And it minimizes the frailty of auditory memory. There was an early post about system sound changing because of your mood, etc. and that is consistent with my personal experience over the last four decades. And you should listen to different music types. You will have a more informed perspective in deciding if you prefer the "new" versus the "previous" item under consideration. Never been a fan of one and done. Too many variables involved. You may initially like the new but may find it flawed once you listen to it long term. Do the one month audition. You won’t regret the extra time spent in determining your preference.

Regarding the best method the OP should use. Many options but it is pretty simple. The one that allows you to make the best "informed" decision with no long term regrets.