Blind testing is quite useful for determining if something is plainly audible to most people. It can also be used to determine if some difference that’s been shown to be audible is preferable or not to most people.
Proving that something is inaudible under all conditions to all listeners is trying to prove a negative and that’s always a tough thing. A naysayer can naysay forever. I watched a flat earther group reject the visible sinking of a marker on a boat below the horizon line even though it was being demonstrated directly for them. It’s just a heat effect, they said.
So which side does the burden of proof land on?
If 999 out of 1000 people reliably detect a difference in a blind test someone who felt strongly from their personal experience that it wasn’t true could argue that they were all just lucky or there must have been something wrong with the test and that people really generally can’t hear the difference. If 999 out of 1000 people can’t reliably detect a difference during the test, someone who felt strongly from their personal experience that it was audible could say that the test was somehow fundamentally different than real listening situations so most people who care to pay attention can really hear that difference.
I have listening experiences that seem to line up really well with the technical and scientific consensus that I read about everywhere except some audiophile literature. If double blind tests indicate that something is inaudible, it is inaudible to me. If I try to achieve the measurements that are specified, I find I really, really like the results. The closer I get, the better I like it. High end systems that don’t meet those specs don’t sound as good to me, and ones that exceed the specs in certain areas - like extended frequency response or ultra low distortion don’t sound any better to me than those that just meet the specs. So I have to admit here that my personal experience is what motivates me to go with the science and currently known measurement criteria. It doesn’t contradict my subjective experience and it gets me where I want to go.
Those who find measurements and testing don’t line up with their perceptions have a different journey. I have noticed that many of those who feel there is an audible difference beyond what the scientific literature has established seem to have little interest in coming to a better, more scientific understanding of it so that can be reliably and perhaps affordably reproduced. Maybe they feel it’s just too complicated. Why argue and get all technical when they know they perceive better sound and all they have to do is buy it and set it up.
Proving that something is inaudible under all conditions to all listeners is trying to prove a negative and that’s always a tough thing. A naysayer can naysay forever. I watched a flat earther group reject the visible sinking of a marker on a boat below the horizon line even though it was being demonstrated directly for them. It’s just a heat effect, they said.
So which side does the burden of proof land on?
If 999 out of 1000 people reliably detect a difference in a blind test someone who felt strongly from their personal experience that it wasn’t true could argue that they were all just lucky or there must have been something wrong with the test and that people really generally can’t hear the difference. If 999 out of 1000 people can’t reliably detect a difference during the test, someone who felt strongly from their personal experience that it was audible could say that the test was somehow fundamentally different than real listening situations so most people who care to pay attention can really hear that difference.
I have listening experiences that seem to line up really well with the technical and scientific consensus that I read about everywhere except some audiophile literature. If double blind tests indicate that something is inaudible, it is inaudible to me. If I try to achieve the measurements that are specified, I find I really, really like the results. The closer I get, the better I like it. High end systems that don’t meet those specs don’t sound as good to me, and ones that exceed the specs in certain areas - like extended frequency response or ultra low distortion don’t sound any better to me than those that just meet the specs. So I have to admit here that my personal experience is what motivates me to go with the science and currently known measurement criteria. It doesn’t contradict my subjective experience and it gets me where I want to go.
Those who find measurements and testing don’t line up with their perceptions have a different journey. I have noticed that many of those who feel there is an audible difference beyond what the scientific literature has established seem to have little interest in coming to a better, more scientific understanding of it so that can be reliably and perhaps affordably reproduced. Maybe they feel it’s just too complicated. Why argue and get all technical when they know they perceive better sound and all they have to do is buy it and set it up.