"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

I got banned at AudioAsylum among other things because I voiced support for blind testing as a means to detect differences between equipment. Unfortunately, there is a group of hard-core zealots who think that blind testing is the worst kind of heresy. Their arguments are in my opinion blatantly flawed. Naturally many manufacturers side with them since blind testing in most cases shows that differences between equipment are a lot subtler than most manufacturers want to you to know. Likewise reviewers are scared to death that the industry and consumers may require them to write reviews without knowing what it is they are reviewing. This would expose a lot of them as charlatans and could threaten many of the cozy relationships between publishers and manufacturers. In fact, with double blind testing frequently no differences are detected. However, double blind testing in my opinion is objectionable because it's effect is to "dazzle" the mind of the reviewer, making it difficult to detect differences. Sort of like testing perfumes in a department store: at some point you can barely tell them apart. However, testing procedures can be adapted to the audio world and provide insightful results. In spite of the above, I believe TAC goes too far in its attack of almost every well-established audiophile mantra. A magazine that is in the complete opposite side of the spectrum, The Absolute Sound (TAS), is paradoxically much more entertaining and insightful. Although TAS rarely does blind testing they subscribe to an interesting philosophy: namely that in order to assess equipment you need to train yourself to hear the right things. Reason #2 I was kicked-out of AudioAsylum is that I subscribe to this view! Again, the same group of hard core zealots decries this as heresy #2. In their view the only, and ultimate, test, is your own pair of ears, whether "educated" or not. What they don't seem to understand is that while your ears (actually your brain) may think they know what they like, over time they will invariably go through this learning process and end up changing their view of what constitutes good sound. The same is often the case with wine lovers: they start unable to distinguish wine quality but over time their palate trains itself and they are able to distinguish true quality. What is the conclusion of all this? That it is indeed a requirement to educate your "ears" to be able to accurately evaluate equipment. And the best education is to listen to live music. But also, no matter how educated your ears are, unless you use a blind test, it is very likely that your judgement will be colored by the knowledge of what you are testing. For instance, if you are reviewing the $80,000 Nearfield Acoustic Pipedreams you won't stop until you find a set-up that makes them rock. Don't read me wrong, I own $15,000 worth of audiophile equipment (each piece considered high bang for the buck, which is my real mantra) and I do believe there are sonic differences even between cables. Just that the differences are not as big as some people would want you to believe. Read TAS all the same and have fun -most reviews are delightful.

Just to expand on the above (and excuse the length of the post), I believe measurements are very useful, but not sufficient in themselves to evaluate equipment. Ideally you would have blind testing (not double blind testing) by someone with the right musical/audio training, and once that person writes his/her review you would use measurements to try to explain what that person was hearing in technical terms. The science of audio measurements is very far from the point in which measurements are sufficient to understand the performance of a piece of gear. That is, for instance, the mistake that other magazines like Stero Review have fallen into.

You are so dim witted that you can't read my post properly. Blind testing is not the same as double blind testing. And I suggest you go see a shrink about that anger.

Crispianus, in double-blind testing the reviewer does not know even whether a swich of equipment has been made (i.e. he is not told whether he is listening to A or B). I believe that is too extreme. It should be sufficient for the reviewer to know whether he is listening to the A or B equipment at each point in time if he doesn't know which is which. By the way, "blind" testing has nothing to do with being blindfolded. Whether or not the reviewer has his eyes open is, in my opinion, irrelevant (obviously so long as he doesn't look at the equipment, which can be coverred). I agree with your points on wine and beer tasting, and I agree the analogy is good. Finally, I don't take eber's opinions seriously for one second.

Someone above wrote: "Nonetheless, I vigorously defend every free person's right to stick weird dots on their equipment, color the edges of their CDS, reposition AC cords in astral shapes, perch their components on exotic materials even when -- in fact ESPECIALLY when under the influence of drugs or alcohol." That post summarizes the view of "If I like it it's OK". Of course it is. No one is seeking to limit your rights to act foolishly, even if you act like eber, David-Diva99, or anyone else. But most of us are trying to learn more absolute, objectives truths here. To hear a proclamation of our well-known rights is quite boring, and totally unenlightening. To hear incoherent blabble from eber and David-Diva99 may seem funny at first but quickly becomes boring too. Their mouths are too large for their heads ! To hear smart discussion points, whether I agree or them or not, from the likes of Leafs, ficciones, Jostler and Darvek, among others, is enlightening. Again: there are many limitations in the use of objective testing in audio. However, its not too hard to tell that a great many incumbents don't want any progress to be made in that camp. For know, I'll continue to find useful the opinions of the reviewers I respect more given their independance and track record. But I'm still hoping the search for more objective tools continues. I would also like some magazine to start doing modified blind testing, perhaps not for all of its reviews, just some, as an experiment.