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.”
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
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?).
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.
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....
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.
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.
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
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
Using a VPN doesn't make anyone tech savvy. My dad used one and he didn't know the difference been a laptop and a typewriter. I suspect his computer knowledge is about the same as his electronics knowledge ; none.
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.
Using a VPN doesn't make anyone tech savvy. My dad used one and he didn't know the difference been a laptop and a typewriter. I suspect his computer knowledge is about the same as his electronics knowledge ; none.
Well I have often wondered why people would want to belong to such a clearly defined group or any group for that matter. I wonder if the naysayers have diverse political opinions or if they lean predominately to the left or right. One would think that certain psychological tendencies would trickle down into other areas of their personal lives. What I do see is a paranoid attitude which at its core involves some sort of concern over being duped. What is audio without listening and how could you base any decision on anything but listening?
Sometimes listening is not feasible, or at least blind testing in one's own environment is not feasible, so we depend on recommendations of trusted influencers or other members who are known to have good listening skills and are not corrupted or paid by manufacturers. Once we use the product, we form our own opinions. If we don't like it, we sell it. That why Audiogon is in business - Audiophiles (and stores) selling their equipment. Other sites too that don't charge for their service - they exist on advertising on their sites.
Over the course of the last 30 years my thinking on this has changed and evolved considerably. From the beginning in the 70's my view was you absolutely must go and listen. Then in the 90's this evolved to you must audition in your home. Because the results I got back then seemed entirely based on being able to do home audition.
When it came time for a phono stage I took this to the max, doing home auditions on at least a dozen different phono stages. Whew! But it was all worth it in the end when I wound up with a ARC PH3SE that made me happy for a good 16 years.
All during those 16 years however my system continued to evolve. Everything got better. Including my review reading skills. When you get up into a very select range of components it simply is no longer practical to home audition.
Also at this point I came to realize it makes little sense to go and listen. Why? Because components at a certain level, the very best ones aren't really doing anything. The perfect component does absolutely zero to make the sound good. Instead what happens is you realize a crap component can make everything crap, but a good component can do nothing to make it good again. All it can do is add zero additional crap.
Therefore, if you find something really good and you go to listen it is only going to reveal all the other crap in the system. This is why I never bothered to go listen to Moabs even though I could have. If they are as good as I expect then I will only hear whatever they are connected to.
Now if you follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion you realize that going to hear something somewhere else is at best a two-edged sword. You may have a favorable impression, or not, but either way it can be just as easily based on everything else in the system and have little or nothing to do with what you think.
That is why for going on 15 years now I have not listened to or auditioned one single thing I have added to my system. Yet every single one of these additions has performed beyond expectations: Melody I880, Koetsu Black Goldline, Origin Live Conqueror, Teres Verus motor and controller, Herron VTPH2A phono stage, Townshend F1 cables, Pods, and Podiums, Tekton Moab, and a slew of others. Currently working on Raven Reflection MkIII.
So today my view has evolved to this: When you are new and starting out you absolutely must go and listen to as many different things as you can. Make the stores change components. Any component. They can switch power cords, interconnects, amps, speakers- does not matter. Just make them do it. Pay attention to how the sound changes when each component is changed. Compare this to as many reviews and user comments as possible.
When you gain experience try and do the same as much as you can in your own system. Bring a demo home, have friends bring stuff over, bring your stuff over to try in theirs. Try as many different things as you can.
Always with the goal of becoming so advanced and skilled you no longer have hardly any need for such things. Along the way you get good enough reading reviews, sifting through comments, and understanding what all the various components do and how they contribute to the overall sound, that you don't really even need to do this stuff any more.
Mahgister, thanks for the clarification. My bad. I’m just fed up with audiophiles who use our hobby to ... if I may be blunt ... bludgeon people into submission with their positions because their - - - - is too small.
Over 53 years, I have learned how to find components and parts that work for me and to improve upon them, that bring a smile to my face, and shock the crap out of people who hear it for the first time. What else is there in this short life, other than to try to make oneself happy despite neuroticisms, and to paste smiles on other people’s faces?
I really don’t care about the rest. enuf already. Jesus Mary and Joseph (Moses Abraham and David, Marx Lenin and Mao for our Jewish and communist friends ...)
i don’t wish to get involved in a discussion about wire directivity unless there is a pragmatic application that is outside of our cult of audiophilism.
During a blind fold review conducted by a high profile member of ASR with many 1000s of likes below his handle tripped and fell out of a open window yesterday,.luckily it was a ground floor apartment,...
Sometimes I hear a difference when swapping components, and sometimes I do not. Sometimes the difference is obvious, sometimes it is subtle. The most difficult part is deciding if the difference is better, worse or just different, and if deemed better then deciding what I'm willing to pay for it.
The one difference that blew my mind was going from a middle-tier power cord, to a upper-tier cord. It was the biggest and best difference I have heard in a long time. Who’da thunk it?
"Also at this point I came to realize it makes little sense to go and listen.
Why?
Because components at a certain level, the very best ones aren’t really doing anything.
The perfect component does absolutely zero to make the sound good.
----
Therefore, if you find something really good and you go to listen it is only going to reveal all the other crap in the system.
This is why I never bothered to go listen to Moabs even though I could have. If they are as good as I expect then I will only hear whatever they are connected to.
----
That is why for going on 15 years now I have not listened to or auditioned one single thing I have added to my system.
Yet every single one of these additions has performed beyond expectations:
-------
Compare this to as many reviews and user comments as possible.
Along the way you get good enough reading reviews, sifting through comments, and understanding what all the various components do and how they contribute to the overall sound, that you don’t really even need to do this stuff any more."
Marvelous!
A fine example of self contained subjectivism, and not to mention self confessed expectancy bias, as you could ever hope to find.
Outside those select reviews you agree with there’s not a single external reference point anywhere!
Are you seriously recommending this ’method’ in preference to blind listening tests??
You do realise the enormous resources in time and money that you may end up in consuming in what may eventually account to little more than chasing your own tail?
If it actually sounds better or it doesn't but you think it does, all that matters is someone is happy with their purchase. Also, of course everyone's hearing and listening capabilities and appreciation is a big variable.
I have found some things don't do what I was told they would, and others did WAY more than I thought possible. By making these types of changes, you learn what can impact the sound the way you want.
What listening in stores CAN do is if you compare one component to another while keeping everything else (and I mean everything) the same. Optimally playing a few records you know. Stores may not be so willing to do this....
Otherwise, I've had a salesman say that he was so sure of the improvement, I could take it home and if I wasn't amazed (not happy or satisfied), I could return it for a refund (not the BS store credit nonsense).
It was an arm, and it made more of a difference than upgrading the table separately keeping the new arm. He's never made that guarantee on anything else I was considering. He would say something like "I'd expect it or I am sure but I've never directly compared". Also, not willing to do the cash refund guarantee. That tells you something.
Because components at a certain level, the very best ones aren’t really doing anything.
The perfect component does absolutely zero to make the sound good.
----
Therefore, if you find something really good and you go to listen it is only going to reveal all the other crap in the system.
This is why I never bothered to go listen to Moabs even though I could have. If they are as good as I expect then I will only hear whatever they are connected to.
Your post reveal a general misunderstanding in audio customers community...
There is a fact in audio: What we listen to is not the "component" sound first and last...
For sure the quality of dac,turntable,amplifier and speakers is an UNAVOIDABLE fact also with which we must compose when buying what we can afford ONLY.... Then never the best for most of us.....
BUT what we listen to FIRST is the acoustical cues collected and filtered by the recording engineer, and what we listened to is delivered to ours ears by the gear but LAST TRANSLATED by the acoustical controls or lack of it in our room.... The acoustical cues of the recorded event being conveyed by the gear are RECREATED by the acoustical dimensions of our room.... We never listen to speakers, we listen to speakers/room....No piece of gear at any cost can replace acoustic laws playing between speakers/room/ears....
Ignoring that you claimed that you dont need to listen to the speakers, being Moab or anything, because " I will only hear whatever they are connected to." You are not completely right here....The speakers are not only connected to an audio system but to a room....
Then i think myself that the fundamental fact of audiophile life is acoustic treatment and more than that acoustic controls....
And anyway there is no " perfect component", contrary to what you just said, and any component add something of his own, this something added or substracted from an alleged "perfection" or imperfection can be corrected in a relative way by upgrading the system or part of it .... I chose to use acoustic controls and treatment because it is powerful and cost me peanuts....I dont need to upgrade my 500 bucks system at all and no system at any cost, most better than mine, can induce now the urge to do so for me, so powerful is Helmholtz mechanical equalization of the speakers/room (acoustic controls) ...
Anyway all systems at any cost, unbeknownst to most, are acoustically limited by the room where they are and the lack of control....
I will not speak here about the 2 others embeddings controls (mechanical and electrical) because so powerful they are, they are less impactful than acoustic....Anyway they are all important....
This is a fact.....And my experience....
By the way acousticians NEVER blindfold themselves and use their ears whatever their age after cleaning it for sure ....I imitate them... 😊
A fine example of self contained subjectivism, and not to mention self confessed expectancy bias, as you could ever hope to find.
Outside those select reviews you agree with there’s not a single external reference point anywhere!
Are you seriously recommending this ’method’ in preference to blind listening tests??
Yes. And I am seriously recommending you work on your reading skills. For starters, when you see the words, "at this point" like were used above that is a clue to consider what came prior to "at this point". Next I would suggest you consider anyone can make an airtight counter-argument easy as pie provided only they are willing to disregard the actual argument in favor of one made up out of thin air. The people who study logic call this the fallacy of the straw man.
You built a great big straw man. Congratulations! Now watch what happens the first little breeze comes along:
"That was the best the Who album has ever sounded and I’ve heard it on a lot of different systems... I mean a lot!
That spot, the listening chair is a very special place that went beyond just listening to music. Great job creating a near religious experience."
"you’re a better man than me - sharing your work and discoveries and opening yourself up to ignorant comments. But thank you! I’ve learned much from you."
"Suffice it to say, it was the biggest, most powerful musical experience I’ve ever experienced in a home setting."
"WOW ! Is all I have to say. I don’t see anything out of place, in this system . Well thought out."
"The imaging was so good that I felt like the vocalist was performing right in front of me and that I could reach out and touch them."
Does that sound like "chasing my own tail"? Are all these people suffering from "expectancy bias" too?
It’s hard to pick a favorite but for some reason right now it would probably be this one:
"you’re a better man than me - sharing your work and discoveries and opening yourself up to ignorant comments. But thank you! I’ve learned much from you."
Make what use you want of it. Blind A-B testing can tell you if you prefer A to B. For whatever reason. Can it make you an expert on differentiating a 2db drop at 11kHz from a 5db spike at 19kHz? Not likely. Can it help you, combined with observing measurements, using great tools, to decide if that $10k set of cables and power conditioner is worth it? Probably. Hopefully. Can it make you wise to the tendency to fool yourself in quantifying the 'differences' you think you might have heard? Most definitely. So, without slicing and dicing, ad infinitum, I just keep it simple, and recognize the usefulness and efficacy of the 'science' involved, make my decisions, and get on with the enjoyment of the music I love, with the best system I can afford.
This is the same old BS I have been hearing about blind testing, double blind testing, etc for the past 50+ years. Nothing new here and what I did read was quite boring.
Blind listening tests are not the ultimate, definitive final answer to which products are better.
They're just the best and the most scientific means we have of comparing the sound signatures of different products.
It has been long established that the human mind is subject to a great number of biases and preconceptions when it comes to forming judgements.
Sometimes these biases and preconceptions can be helpful eg if you see a growling dog approach you with its fangs bared, you don't need to think very hard before taking evasive action etc.
Other times they may not be so useful, eg a 50k amp MUST be better than a 1k one.
Therefore since most of these biases are closely linked to sight, it makes good sense to break that link in the first instance when you are looking solely at sound quality, does it not?
Blind listening tests are not perfect, nor were they ever claimed as such.
However, in comparison to sighted listening tests, there is simply no comparison if you what you want is a judgement based primarily upon sound quality.
For me, even the simplest blind listening test is vastly superior to any sighted one. Most of the times I've done one, I've been surprised at the results.
the longer a question exists, the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The lack of reconciliation here, and the general kindness of the group that supports the difference in cables, as expressed toward the naysayers..
... vs the general violence expressed by the naysayers, speaks to the understanding that the naysayer group is missing understanding, or data.... within their ideas on the totality of the data required - for the formulation of the question.
Ie, that the naysayers are, generally, not in good enough psychological shape and reach to be asking the question, and the known path of substitute activity for people in such condition where questions ill formed turn to being demands, is to project and possibly act out violence.
This situation of general kindness vs general violence is what we consistently see here, in these areas of clashing.
My approach to audio these days really helps me to stay out of these arguments.
it’s simple: I like the way my audio sounds. Until I don’t. And then I fix it. And I have zero expectations of persuading anyone to like what I did to make it sound they way it does. The only audience member that matters is me.
it is so much less stressful. You audiogon folks should try it: the Don’t Worry Be Happy approach to fine listening
My approach to audio these days really helps me to stay out of these arguments.
it’s simple: I like the way my audio sounds. Until I don’t. And then I fix it. And I have zero expectations of persuading anyone to like what I did to make it sound they way it does. The only audience member that matters is me.
it is so much less stressful. You audiogon folks should try it: the Don’t Worry Be Happy approach to fine listening
while there is wisdom in this approach, i have a bit of a different take as to what i try to do here on the a-gon discussion forum
i feel this is a community of hobbyists, and as an experienced member of this community, i am happy to share my experiences if it can help others who need info or are just newer to the hobby and are not on the same point of the learning curve - and of course to continue learning more myself from other well regarded well spoken folks here as well
i think the major pitfall for all those who try to contribute here is to take different views personally and take it as offensive regarding one’s own findings and beliefs... this hobby at its best brings a lot of enjoyment to those who make the effort to build nice systems, and there are so many successful approaches to doing so, not to mention so many differing tastes in what is enjoyed... trick is not to put oneself and oneself’s ego into it...
I agree with that approach. However, helping and learning is the reason i and most are here. As @jjss49had pointed out
i think the major pitfall for all those who try to contribute here is to take different views personally and take it as offensive regarding one’s own findings and beliefs...trick is not to put oneself and oneself’s ego into it...
We seem to be in a time where differing views are not well tolerated. Some take it as an offense against their ego. Then they spend more time defending their ego than their position or POV. This often happens when someone Can't defend their statements or POV. But rather than admit their error, they try to defend their honor. At that point the discussion goes sideways and no one gains anything
@unreceivedogma - the Don’t Worry Be Happy approach to fine listening
Ha! Do a search of AudiogoN for "Don’t Worry, Be Happy".You’ll see, it’s also been my philosophy for years. It’s simple, but liberating...
Yes, tweaking your system might also include tweaking your audio/psychological apparatus.
[Just exactly how this is successfully done is, I fear, not something that might be easily found on any psychiatrist couch or in any self-help book].
------------
The Role of Psychological Factors in the Evaluation of Audio Products By: Laurence A. Borden | July 2004
"Psychologists posit that evaluation is a comparison process in which consumers:
1) hold pre-consumption expectations,
2) observe product performance and compare the performance to their expectations,
3) form confirmation or disconfirmation perceptions (did the equipment perform as expected?), and then 4) form summary judgments.
Translating this into English, and relating it to audiophilia, this means that when listeners audition a piece of gear, they: compare the sound to what they expected, decide whether the gear fails to meet, meets, or exceeds those expectations, and then arrive at conclusions about the gear."
I am a clinical research scientist as well and have a deep appreciation of biased ascertainment of endpoints. Nevertheless, it is fairly easy for me to hear differences in amps, preamps, dacs and CD transports that blinding won’t help cause I am impressed with how my brain tells me that my pre-listening biases are in the wrong direction. Great example, I put in an ASI Teknology modded Black Ice hybrid preamp in my reference system and was blown away by the spacious, clear, crystalline sound that had spot on tonality and tone colors. It replaced an Audiogon cult preamp and despite my clear expectation that the cult preamp would be better, it wasn’t.
If you are trying to discern very modest differences then blind testing is best. However, I can make a cogent case that if I am struggling to hear modest differences then it is probably not worth my time to try and figure out that puzzle - and certainly not worth much incremental money.
I doubt seriously if my preamp is the best around even to my ears and brain. However, I can guarantee u that I won’t be spending 20k to test the waters and find out. I have though been convinced that the modest bucks for Grover Huffmans Pharoah speaker cable and the nearly 2k per pair cost of the Zavfino Silver Dart interconnects is audible and worth opening up the purse strings - at least a bit.
I reject the claim that it is ALWAYS a good thing to eliminate biases, i reject the claim that all biases must be eliminated in audio experience for the sake of measuring numbers specs instead...
It is the correlation PROCESS between subjective and objective, the backbone of acoustic/ psycho-acoustic science...
I accept blind test to be a necessity in the industry and sometimes a self inflicted tool and discipline...Thats all... Never a universal remedy replacing listenings experiments...
In learning listening acoustic/psycho-acoustic experiments, the biases accumulation and orientation is the WAY, blindtest is only used sparsely here as a tool....
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.
