2. speakers
  3. 1412457273

Why blind listening tests are flawed

This may sound like pure flame war bait - but here it is anyway. Since rebuilding my system from scratch, and auditioning everything from preamps to amps to dacs to interconnects to speaker cable etc, it seems clearer than ever.

I notice that I get easily fooled between bad and great sounding gear during blind auditions. Most would say "That should tell you that the quality of the gear is closer than you thought. Trust it".

But it's the process of blind listening tests that's causing the confusion, not a case of what I prefer to believe or justify to myself. And I think I know why it happens.

Understanding the sound of audio gear is process of accumulated memories. You can listen to say new speakers for weeks and love them until you start hearing something that bothers you until you can't stand them anymore.

Subconsciously you're building a library of impressions that continues to fill in the blanks of the overall sound. When all the holes are filled - you finally have a very clear grasp of the sonic signature. But we know that doesn't happen overnight.

This explains why many times you'll love how something sounds until you don't anymore? Anyone experience that? I have - with all 3 B&W speakers upgrades I've made in my life just to name a few.

Swapping out gear short term for blind listening tests is therefore counter productive for accurately understanding the characteristics of any particular piece or system because it causes discontinuity with impression accumulation and becomes subtractive rather than additive. Confusion becomes the guaranteed outcome instead of clarity. In fact it's a systematic unlearning of the sound characteristics as the impression accumulation is randomized. Wish I could think of a simpler way of saying that..

Ok this is getting even further out there but: Also I believe that when you're listening while looking at equipment there are certain anchors that also accumulate. You may hear a high hat that sounds shimmering and subconsciously that impression is associated with some metallic color or other visual aspect of the equipment you happen to be watching or remember.

By looking at (or even mentally picturing) your equipment over time you have an immediate association with its' sound. Sounds strange, but I've noticed this happening myself - and I have no doubt it speeds up the process of getting a peg on the overall sound character.

Obviously blind tests would void that aspect too resulting in less information rather than more for comparison.

Anyone agree with this, because I don't remember hearing this POV before. But I'm sure many others that have stated this because, of course, it happens to be true. ;
larrybou

Showing 1 response by electroslacker

electroslacker
375 posts
 
I've experienced a sighted test that was more informative than the blind test, but I was watching the listeners instead of the equipment. I was evaluating the Aleph 0's in my home system and had different friends over to experience them. In previous sessions there would be an extended silence as they listened. But with the Aleph 0's each visitor would talk instead of listen, ofter jabbering about how they liked the amps. This behavior reinforced my own uneasiness about them, and I "Pass'ed."

To me, this was a measurement of the system capturing the attention of the listener through music. When the mind is captured, it shuts down other activity, such as jabbering and comparing.

I can't prove it, but always felt like the A/B blind test was the antithesis of having the mind captured by music. It seems like the testing/straining/comparing parts of the brain would be lit up, and the fascinated/delighted/captured part of the brain would fade out, which misses the main point of the whole shebang.
More to discover