Why Do So Many Audiophiles Reject Blind Testing Of Audio Components?
Because it was scientifically proven to be useless more than 60 years ago.
A speech scientist by the name of Irwin Pollack have conducted an experiment in the early 1950s. In a blind ABX listening test, he asked people to distinguish minimal pairs of consonants (like “r” and “l”, or “t” and “p”).
He found out that listeners had no problem telling these consonants apart when they were played back immediately one after the other. But as he increased the pause between the playbacks, the listener’s ability to distinguish between them diminished. Once the time separating the sounds exceeded 10-15 milliseconds (approximately 1/100th of a second), people had a really hard time telling obviously different sounds apart. Their answers became statistically no better than a random guess.
If you are interested in the science of these things, here’s a nice summary:
So reliably recognizing the difference between similar sounds in an ABX environment is impossible. 15ms playback gap, and the listener’s guess becomes no better than random. This happens because humans don't have any meaningful waveform memory. We cannot exactly recall the sound itself, and rely on various mental models for comparison. It takes time and effort to develop these models, thus making us really bad at playing "spot the sonic difference right now and here" game.
Also, please note that the experimenters were using the sounds of speech. Human ears have significantly better resolution and discrimination in the speech spectrum. If a comparison method is not working well with speech, it would not work at all with music.
So the “double blind testing” crowd is worshiping an ABX protocol that was scientifically proven more than 60 years ago to be completely unsuitable for telling similar sounds apart. And they insist all the other methods are “unscientific.”
Blind tests don't work because the mental image of what a piece music sounds like can only be created over time. Unless there are really prominent differences, we are simply not capable of comparing two or more different components in a short period of time.
We need a fairly extended period of time to compare audio components. That is why many audio stores allow lengthy auditioning periods.
Of course, tin ears the "engineer" uses an oscilloscope which gives immediate measurements, and that's why he has a system that sounds like a 1980's Sony Walkman.
Which reality? Yours or mine? You have already stated that you are against conspicuous consumption so we cant possibly take anything you say as objective because we dont know your standard. Your entire stance on this issue is completely untenable.
My position is: if you are going to insist that I am incompetent or worse for refusing to spend thousands of dollars on wire even though I discern almost no improvement in sound at all, never mind an improvement that justifies the spending, you will have to prove it to me that I am that incompetent.
In the world that I live in, which when last checked is at least tangentially associated with reality, I’m going to insist that the proof be ascertained via blind testing.
You are TOTALLY right...
But you misunderstood me COMPLETELY...
I dont advocate to buy costly cables at all for example.... I will never buy one...
BUT i am interested by this problem of "directed wire" for scientific reason and philosophical one....
"objectivist" obsessed by the cult of measuring tools think that all is measurable by the tools they own or know...
"subjectivist" vouch for their costly branded name cables...
These debate anyway between these 2 crowds is a debate between children in a schoolyard...
But some credible people have listened and give their testimonies for this wire direction difference.... I trusted them...I dont want to bash them with some pseudo science reducing all human perceptions to measuring numbers, nor do i want to justify the pseudo science of cables sellers....Blindtest will not resolve this.... James Randy is not a scientist....
I am interested by audio experience testimonies from expert including those who speak about this difference, true INQUIRING science, and my own experiments....Not by cables marketing....
My position is: if you are going to insist that I am incompetent or worse for refusing to spend thousands of dollars on wire even though I discern almost no improvement in sound at all, never mind an improvement that justifies the spending, you will have to prove it to me that I am that incompetent.
In the world that I live in, which when last checked is at least tangentially associated with reality, I’m going to insist that the proof be ascertained via blind testing.
PSB speakers are still voiced at NRC. Paradigm used to be based on NRC, then strayed, and now that the founders have bought them again they are returning to that philosophy. Paradigm also has double-blind listening rooms. Ascend is one of the few manufacturers to release a full set of graphs on their speakers, and they strive for "flatness."
And this quote from John Dunlavy, "Oh, no. Listening comes later. Because if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures. It may sound worse, or it may sound sweeter, prettier, but if we’re talking about absolute accuracy—the ability of the speaker to reproduce as perfectly as possible whatever’s fed to it—such a system can never sound more accurate than it first measures. So we try to get the greatest accuracy we can achieve from measurements. Then we begin doing what some people might call "voicing," because the best set of measurements are still open to interpretation." -- Stereophile, John Atkinson 1996
Dunlavy goes on to explain that last sentence as still trying to achieve flatness in small increments as well as large ones. Dunlavy speakers were widely regarded as some of the best of their time.
Many of the top studio monitors, like Genelec and Neumann, are flat as a pancake. It just makes sense to not introduce any artificial coloring when you’re recording something.
this is a good post that provides excellent context and background for what this pursuit is about - music reproduction that pleases the listener
accuracy in and of itself as an end is besides the point, it is at best a pathway to obtaining beautiful sound
reason being that a recorded signal fed through a system is itself usually imperfect, often emasculated, so it typically needs 'help' to get back its glory at time of performance or recording
It makes sense when you're playing the recording as well. Probably why I like Genelec but I do add a house curve which is where IMO preference is introduced.
I think since the time they were conducted and now there are speaker manufacturers who are influenced by them at least in the pro market.
PSB speakers are still voiced at NRC. Paradigm used to be based on NRC, then strayed, and now that the founders have bought them again they are returning to that philosophy. Paradigm also has double-blind listening rooms. Ascend is one of the few manufacturers to release a full set of graphs on their speakers, and they strive for "flatness."
And this quote from John Dunlavy, "Oh, no. Listening comes later. Because if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures. It may sound worse, or it may sound sweeter, prettier, but if we're talking about absolute accuracy—the ability of the speaker to reproduce as perfectly as possible whatever's fed to it—such a system can never sound more accurate than it first measures.
So we try to get the greatest accuracy we can achieve from measurements. Then we begin doing what some people might call "voicing," because the best set of measurements are still open to interpretation." -- Stereophile, John Atkinson 1996
Dunlavy goes on to explain that last sentence as still trying to achieve flatness in small increments as well as large ones. Dunlavy speakers were widely regarded as some of the best of their time.
Many of the top studio monitors, like Genelec and Neumann, are flat as a pancake. It just makes sense to not introduce any artificial coloring when you're recording something.
No audiophile reject blindtest...Accusing audiophile to refusing them is a "strawman" strategy...
Anyway it is not simple to organize...tHose accusing audiophiles know this...
It is not practical to organize one for each one of ALL alleged audible perception of change...
The value of a blindtest is very limited to a borderline debatable improvement...
The placebo accusation is ridicule because out of this borderline zone of small audible debatable improvements, anyone could verify immediately the reality of some changes...The "bias" accusation made no sense for most improvement in the control of vibrations, and the decreasing of the electrical noise floor and for any acoustic changes... The cables? the fuses? I dont use these "tweaks"... I focus more on essential improvements...
I implemented many hundreds of changes in the last 2 years, many being perhaps placebos, yes, but the majority being not for sure....The proof is the end result...
I could not erganized a blindtest for all modifications one after the other it would be ridiculous... And anyway placebo is not a problem at all nor in medecine neither in audio....Save for companies selling "snake oil" which are a minority....
It seems those who inhabit audio thread contesting ALL audiophile experiences and experiments in listening are "crusader" of the skeptic sunday children club or "trolls" blinded by their technological idolatry....Instead of attacking consumers of "tweaks" they would made a better aiming of the target if they attacked the supposed culprit companies publicly and if they challenged them ...Not their "alleged "victims"....But trolls or zealots are not Robin Hood vigilante....They work for another agenda...
In general any sane individual dont need blindtest except to play and amuse himself.... In general it is marketing or industry that use the statistical tool of blindtest...
The perpetual proposal of blindtest then reveal more about those who propose it than about those supposedly refusing it...
It is a comical and pathetical situation that reflect the "religious" aspect of technological idolatry....
Very unfortunate indeed. And stupid. But it’s the reality. Unfortunate. And did I say stupid? Sophisticated or not. For some reason, when I hear about “subjective” and “objective”, I think about bunkers, trenches, and such.
What are subjectivists most scared of? Someone turning the lights off. The mere thought of just relying upon their ears causes untold palpitations. Graphs, charts, spinorama and other data are all equally taboo. Thus the high priests of subjectivism have decreed from time immemorial (circa 1976?).
Oh, he is not shy of creating multiple email addresses.
I don’t know whether Audiogon can block IP addresses from accessing the site, maybe they cannot, but knowing this dude is tech savvy, I am pretty sure he gets around that limitation too. And yes, there is something very wrong with “that boy”. It’s been for the past 1-2 years when he first started as AtDavid
Can’t they make members register under a unique email address and restrict that address to one user? Once they’re kicked off they can’t come back unless they have a new email address.
To make sure they’re not just creating more email addresses, link that to something that shows that email address has been around for a while. I think we have the technology to root out the sickies like dletch2 or elapid or whatever he goes by.
Anyways… all its posts appear to be now deleted. As usual, a barrage of them in one day, maliciously targeting his “focus areas”. Give it a day or two, and he will resurface with another username. Guaranteed. Sick human being
Hmm well I agree nobody has to prove anything to anyone.
But if one is going to make a claim about x sounding better than y, then it sure helps to be able to test that hypothesis in an unbiased manner.
Not required though. Reputation alone can go a long way to help convince others of something. Personally, I'd rather just listen to and enjoy whatever I think sounds good. It's not a competition. OR is it?
The reason "so many audiophiles reject blind testing" is because blind testing is not for audiophiles. Blind testing is for designers, developers, and researchers.
The only reason for an audiophile to be interested in blind testing is to prove something to some other audiophile. But there is nothing to prove! It would be like trying to "prove" that flour makes better gravy than corn starch. Do you need a double-blind test to "prove" that red wine is better after it has time to breathe? Why? If you disagree, simply swill it down. Right out of the bottle. Be my guest.
Here is a little secret I will let you double-blind people in on: we all know you can't hear- and we don't care!
Last night I switched my speaker wires from 16 AWG copper to 14 AWG copper. I hear a subtle widening and deepening of the soundstage together with slightly improved rhythm and pacing. I KNOW WHAT I HEAR. And this is what I hear. Or at least I think I do. I'm pretty sure I do. There's no doubt about it. It's night and day. Or maybe it's night and dusk. Or night and twilight. Or .............
Can we please just put this discussion to bed? Obviously there is some benefit to blind testing, which takes some effort to set up properly, but it is not the be all and end all, especially for the situations where a test is not possible.
I don't own any Harman products either but I recognize the importance of those tests. I think since the time they were conducted and now there are speaker manufacturers who are influenced by them at least in the pro market.
@perkri: I've read Harman uses both trained employees and trained and untrained civilians. I remember reading that they also did sighted and blind tests with their own engineers and, as expected, the sighted tests had completely different results.
Here is a short blog post by Sean Olive saying that four speakers were tested by hundreds of untrained listeners.
Most of the information about their procedures and results can be found in his blog posts. And some by reading Toole's book.
I don't own any Harman products except a $180 pair of studio monitors for my computer that I only use to play guitar through, just in case anyone might think I'm a Harman zealot.
@jssmith Doesn’t surprise me to hear that was their findings.
Would think that the most familiar “sounds” coming from speakers would be the ones people would connect to. Wonder if they were “civilians” in the tests?
I choose my pieces of gear after studying many hundred reviews for some years...
It was a complete success...I like all my gear....
And that environment isn’t like your own either. So you need a filter to narrow down the selection. And that’s where Harman’s research comes in. And if you have a goofy room,
I cannot build a room after Harman and few people could.... It is NOT an affordable solution for most people and it is not even necessary...
And if you have a goofy room, you need to understand how acoustics works to consider things like directivity, diffusion and absorption. Otherwise, most speakers will likely not sound very good.
There is a more economical and very powerful better solution...
I used material passive homemade treatment in my 13 feet square not ideal room at all, with speakers on a desk and one speaker almost between the walls corner... A balance between absorbtion, reflection and diffusive surfaces is needed...
But it is never ENOUGH anyway in almost all cases, not only for my case...
I created then a "mechanical equalizer" with a grid of 32 tubes and pipes with various volume/ neck lenght ratios orientable and adjustable at will, by cutting different type of straws in section of different diameters...
I distributed all that around reflection points in my room beginning with one speaker and ending with the other speaker... Asymmetrical volumes for each tubes and pipes near the direct wavefront of each speaker is very important...I use for the "head" speaker tubes near the tweeter only and for the other near the bass driver only...All other tubes and pipes of different volumes located at my right and left on reflection point and behind me....
Contrary to an electronic equalizer that modify the frequency response of the speakers to the room, mechanical equalizer modify the room in relation to the speakers and act by their continuous action, buoying and marking out for each ear the reflections of each speaker differently, making the brain able to create a better localization of the sound...I dont use precise frequency response of the speaker with a mic. but my ears listening to different instrumental timbre for the tuning...
Contrary to an electronic equalizer that work ONLY for a precise unique location in millimeter out of which all fine tuning run amok, the mechanical equalizer work with a relatively large bandwith (voice timbre) then for ALL the room....i listen at the end in near-listening and regular position without being able to choose which one is better...Contrary to an erroneous affirmation in audio thread near listening is greatly affected by room controls in a small room...
Now with my experience here, give me any relatively good speakers and any small room, and i can make them a wedding in heaven...It will cost only time a month of listening experiments and no money...
The secret is simple, controlling the timing of the early and late reflections and the back reflections to create a 3-d holography ....
Also using the Helmholtz tubes and pipes to fine tune the instrumental timbre experience in a more natural one because we modufy the pressure zones of the room when we place the H.R. tubes all along the room......
For sure it is not possible to create such a grid in a living room...
For me the most important luxury in audio are not the gear at all...Any relatively good gear can do what i wanted to...
It is a dedicated room which is the only necessary luxury....
Acoustic physical law are not enough and material passive treatment tell only HALF of the story.... Psychoacoustical law are necessary for the most important half , with the Helmholtz mechanical equalization ....I can control, imaging, timbre, soundstage, listener envelopment and source width at will...No electronic preocessing is needed at all contrary to what most people think even specialist...
By the way all that was made with discarded materials from my basement and cost me nothing at all....
Acoustic give audiophile experience more efficiently than costly gear only.... My audio system cost used under 500 bucks but it is a well choosen one ....I will never feel the urge to upgrade anymore.... Too busy immersed in music...I never read reviews of gear anymore....So powerful is acoustic control in ANY room even in a non Harman one...
Understand me right here: i am not like those who boast to have the better gear in the world.... My system is NOT the best by far, but the ratio S.Q. /price is over the roof....
Then i smile when people boast about gear without knowing acoustic....The audio market condition our mind to BUY it is simple....The audio market dont educate people about acoustic and some other basic control like vibrations and electrical noise floor...
Fine tuning a room is exactly like fine tuning a piano: it is the SAME THING....
No piano tuner need to be blind tested....And no piano tuner ask for it because they doubt what they listen to...
Room/gear/ears synergy is another factors ...
This is the reason why we choose gear by listening it for practical reason
But you can't listen to everything. Heck, there's very little you can listen to in a comparative environment nowadays. And that environment isn't like your own either. So you need a filter to narrow down the selection. And that's where Harman's research comes in. And if you have a goofy room, you need to understand how acoustics works to consider things like directivity, diffusion and absorption. Otherwise, most speakers will likely not sound very good.
As for room, you could always duplicate Harman's room. I inadvertently designed my new media room to almost the exact same proportions. Here's Harman's.
Length 9.14 m
Width 6.58 m
Height 2.59 m
The AES and IEC also has standards for domestic listening rooms. Also, I found this paper to be informational when designing a listening room.
There is no debate, measures and standards are technological fundamental knowledge....
But all this means different things for each specific consciousness...
Is it not simple? And we cannot reduce one to the other....
Predicting Loudspeaker Sound Quality From Objective Measurements
The accuracy of the predictions range from 86% (based on 70 different loudspeakers) to 99% with bookshelf loudspeakers with restricted low frequency output.
It is comnmon sense that measures will say something right about speakers for example...
But the use of this speaker and their choice cannot be predicted by measurements.... We can only eliminated less well designed speakers...
Room/gear/ears synergy is another factors...it is possible to measure this factor in theory also but not practical...The technology behind the smyth realizer headphone is precisely that....
This is the reason why we choose gear by listening it for practical reason ....
These measurements are specifications that tell you how well the components will get along, but very little about how good something will sound. That can not be measured. Period.
In the 1980’s, Dr. Floyd Toole [2,3,4] at the National Research
Council of Canada conducted controlled, double blind listening tests on loudspeakers. Listeners gave
the highest fidelity ratings to loudspeakers having the flattest, smoothest frequency response
measured over a wide range of angles. This was perhaps the first documented evidence that listeners
recognize accurate sound and prefer it.
...
2. Predicting Loudspeaker Sound Quality From Objective Measurements
The accuracy of
the predictions range from 86% (based on 70 different loudspeakers) to 99% with bookshelf
loudspeakers with restricted low frequency output.
Measurements have real value, of that there is no doubt. I want to know how much power my speakers can handle, so I don’t destroy them. I want to know the sensitivity of my speaker to get an idea of how much power I’m going to need to drive them to a volume I would like to listen to them at. I like to know what the impedance curves are like, so I know the amp isn’t going to be too stressed by the load. I want to know what the input impedance is of my preamp or amp so I know they will get along. I want to know the damping factor so I can understand how well the amp can control the speaker. Lots of measurements matter. These measurements are specifications that tell you how well the components will get along, but very little about how good something will sound. That can not be measured. Period.
Sonic bliss, is in the ear of the beholder.
Does the system resonate with you emotionally, or not. Measure me that...
audition__audio798 posts05-05-2021 10:20amPassion driven undertakings are no more or less prone to real answers than purely intellectual undertakings. You are making a meaningless comparison because no "best" exists when it comes to most of the pursuits driven by our senses. There are no real answers, just opinions as there is no standard of correct/real. Further, measurements get you part of the way, but certain devices have attributes that cant be measured but sound better in many instances. Vacuum tubes would be a perfect example or tube amps if you like. Take it one step further and determine if it actually is some of the things that make it measure poorly that actually make it sound better.
There is a reason vacuum tubes sound better in many instances. One has to do with superior linearity in a well designed hifi amp/preamp. Same could be said for powering subwoofers with a solid state amp of good design.
So....you being the arbiter of "meaningless comparisons" is simply absurd.
Guidelines in engineering standards by an organization like AES means that a manufacturer just can't make up stuff that can't be proven through tests.
Passion driven undertakings are no more or less prone to real answers than purely intellectual undertakings. You are making a meaningless comparison because no "best" exists when it comes to most of the pursuits driven by our senses. There are no real answers, just opinions as there is no standard of correct/real. Further, measurements get you part of the way, but certain devices have attributes that cant be measured but sound better in many instances. Vacuum tubes would be a perfect example or tube amps if you like. Take it one step further and determine if it actually is some of the things that make it measure poorly that actually make it sound better.
in my view, the simple and honest answer to the op’s titled question is
1, it takes alot of effort (and involvement of more than one person) to run a proper blind test
2. many don’t want to know the real answers that such a test would likely reveal, or would reject them with some baseless rationale anyway
subjective, passion-driven undertakings are usually not prone to intellectual honesty - takes the fun out of the proceedings and the romantic sensibilities that go with it
You have to admit, in audio blind testing is way more effective than deaf testing...just sayin’...
You are not completely right here.... 😊
Conforming their hearing to their tools and conditioning their own ears by designing habits to obey the measuring gear tools is worst than being deaf, because "deaf testing" could be right by the law of chance more often then listening systematically only the end results of pure design numbers with no real supervision by "non professional ears"...
Happily, like i said most engineers are also artists hearing really for the music and not only to the "corrected" sound, wearing very precise clothing in imperial habits and measures....Pass labs designer for example, or the crowds of Sansui Engineers and many others one look for a sound quality very audible and not explainable by the numbers only...They had discovered the right measuring numbers to fit them, they dont conform their creativity and ears to numbers...
«Numbers contains reality they are not reality»-Anonymus Smith
«Numbers obey something else and we must called it love»-Anonymus Smith
«Like love encompassing everything, prime numbers distribution contains everything and no one knows why and even how it is possible»-Anonymus Smith
«Prime numbers are the deepest mystery completely wrapped in the more simplest way and plain for all to see»-Anonymus Smith
«Prime numbers distribution is so powerful that it give sleepness night to all mathematicians from the beginning of time.»-Anonymus Smith
«You think too much, f... yourself less and f... some others more»-Groucho Marx 🤓
It's not possible to look for accuracy in a recording when reproducing what was created in the studio.
Who knows how they wanted a voice to sound, a piano, a saxophone or guitar etc.
The room is going to color the sound matter what you do.
Sure, you can aim for a base line using tones, sweeps and measurements, Who knows how good the pressing of the record is.
Too many unknowns to be able to perfectly reproduce what was recorded.
My system has an audience of one. My senses are different than others, it would be silly to think that we all hear and perceive frequencies the same.No more than we taste, smell, see or register touch the same. What is pleasant to me, may be annoying to someone else. Have a friend who likes bright speakers. I don't.
War between objectivist or subjectivist, war between analog or digital , etc...
That make no sense at all save for those who like dividing themselves instead of thinking...
How do you pick that i am anti-engineering?
Is it because the only engineer you ever know is deaf and never correlated accuracy by the numbers with accuracy for his ears, in an increasing improvement process , where the ears is the last judge?
Most engineers are audiophiles and music lovers...
The exception is few pseudo scientists or fanatics who inhabit here....
I apologize to you anyway i dont want to sound rude....
So...it sounds like you're anti-engineering to get a baseline of what driver parameters are suitable for a specific design.
Ears are different. So are driver parameters, and you gotta start somewhere.
The reason why audio is so interesting, especially with speaker systems, is because multiple systems can measure similarly, yet sound quite a bit different. That's why measurement systems have become so sophisticated. It's not just a single line anymore.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
