And Glubson, I am pretty sure you read my reply to you after you reported and it was deleted. Two words for you my dbag: tell him. Let him bring it on.
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:
Categorical and noncategorical modes of speech perception along the voicing continuum
Since then, the experiment was repeated many times (last major update in 2000, Reliability of a dichotic consonant-vowel pairs task using an ABX procedure.)
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.”
The irony seems to be lost on them.
Why do so many audiophiles reject blind testing of audio components? - Quora317 responses Add your response
I love blindtest sorry...Show me one i will study the results...I am curious.... But i cannot blindtest an INCREMENTAL day to day strings of change dealing with my listening experiments... I dont trust those who trust ONLY blindtest..... Is it not simple to understand? you recognize a zealot easily, it is one for which exist only black and white choices... I am not one.... sorry..... i will trust a great number of satisfied customers over any blindtest....I will trust a blindtest if the product is not well known or not well appreciated....If there is a debate i will listen to a blindtest....but day to day in audiolife no one need systematic blindtest to establish audible fact....In psychoacoustic research blindtest is a useful tool, but daily audiolife is not psychacoustic research nor marketing circus.... Then who is not reasonable? Why calling audiophile more unreasonnable than "scientism" zealot ? Because it is black or white? «All fact dont wait for a blindtest to be born»-Anonymus Smith |
@elapid Nice generalization- audiophiles are not reasonable men.....how can you lump us all together when we disagree on many things very often - that is the purpose of meaningful discussion. Audiophiles are passionate about listening to the best sounding stereo to them that they can afford or choose to buy/afford. Different people have different priorities. If you don’t have audiophiledom as a hobby or priority or passion, why are you here? I certainly wouldn’t read a stamp or coin hobbyist forum site, not that there is anything wrong with those hobbies; just not my cup of tea. Why would you want to troll a site frequented by what you consider unreasonable people? We don’t all take a staunch opinion on blind testing value- more like what Paul from PS Audio said. It has its place as a possible piece of the decision pie, depending on circumstances. |
So much revealed in one comment. Well done. |
Yep. I work in tech. Have more data that I can use. I have a data scientist working for me. The first thing you learn is to make decision whether you have enough data or not, and the second reject data that is no use. I use data more than most. I use data to make decisions at work overseeing close to two dozen people. Not an intellectual masturbator who found Google and thinks he has the key to the universe. |
More revelation. Thanks. |
jjss492,655 posts05-03-2021 9:27pmskypunk under new usernameIf you're referring to me, you would be so wrong. Probably not the first time. |
@elapid a reasonable man, shown data that destroys his beliefs will change his beliefs to fit the data. If audiophiles are not reasonable are you any more reasonable for being here? Your account can be easily erased since you are new w/ 3 posts so far. The rest of the dribble is just more psychological projection. If you want to blind test then do it right. But waste your own time not mine. |
@rlb61 Measurements often can be irrelevant because a component or cable that measures great can sound awful, whereas distortion may sound quite pleasing. In the final analysis, all that matters is what you hear and enjoy. One of my worst purchases was a piece which had great measurements. I couldn't wait to get rid of that piece. |
Blind tests would need to happen instantly. But not in a backhand forth manner. Rather, after having listened to something for days, it would need to be switched instantly to something else. If there was a difference, you would know it. That is if, you had the experience to listen critically. Thats why I live with things for a while, see what I like and what I don’t. Then I change back after a while. I make notes of what I hear. When tuning a speaker, I listen to multiple amps. Each will impart a different tone and will showcase different issues. I also listen with bass dialed all the way down, treble all the way up and vice versa. Bit of a stress test. And blind tests can not be done alone. They require someone else to be there obviously. If you were to listen to the same track over and over again, and listen carefully to particular instruments at particular times, if there is a difference, you will be able to hear it. I repeat, if there is a difference, you will be able to hear it if you know how to listen. Especially when there is no “forcing” one thing to sound better than another. It’s just about listening for differences and what works and what doesn’t. Spend some time tuning DIY speakers, and you will learn how to listen. And yes, you will listen to something for a while, like it, put it away, come back to it later and wonder what the hell did I like about it? So, measure why that happens? Being open minded to other possibilities does not negate science. |
Do you look for accuracy in a recording, or what pleases you, regardless of what the artist/producer/engineer is trying convey?I listened mostly non commercial music... Acoustic instrument mostly... A piano is a piano.... A voice is a voice.... A timbre is accurate or not "for the ears"....Well recorded or less well recorded... This is accuracy for the ears....Different of "accuracy" by the numbers.... I listen the piano playing, not the way the recording engineer decide what is the best way to do it.... I hear well all these choices in different recordings but cannot change them....I listen the Chopin piano nevermind the recording if the pianist is great.... Everybody listen what it please them, but many like electronical,commercial, and non acoustical, bass explosive or loud instrument and voices etc.... Nobody listen a piece of gear for his accuracy by the numbers save deaf engineer who do not test their own design with their own ears.... They are not numerous i guess.... 😁 In a word what please me must be the most accurate for my ears but sometimes it is not.... A bad recorded piano playing of Scriabin by Sofronitsky is pure music.... Nevermind the sound.... |
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. |
So...it sounds like you’re anti-engineeringNowadays people ask for simplistic divisions... Black or white.... No colors in between.... 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.... regards and best wishes for you.... |
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. |
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 🤓 |
five pages of meandering posts 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 |
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. |
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. |
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... |
| Post removed |
@perkri : A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR CHOOSING LOUDSPEAKERS AND HEADPHONES FOR RECORDING AND BROADCAST - Dr, Sean Olive, Harman 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. |
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 MeasurementsIt 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 .... |
@mahgister: Room/gear/ears synergy is another factors 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. |
But you can’t listen to everythingWhere i live i cannot listen to anything new... 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... Then blindtest disccusion are a comedy..... |
@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. |
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 ............. |
Why Do So Many Audiophiles Reject Blind Testing Of Audio Components? Set in their ways? I'd bet that's 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! |
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? |
| Post removed |
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. |
