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? - QuoraI’ve had a few customers...musicians...that are actually blind, unsighted. The interesting thing about such people...especially musicians...is they actually listen with their ears. I’ve made repairs and adjustments for them based on whet they can hear, not what they can see. It’s rarely the most expensive or esoteric thing either. Simplicity works very well in this regard. |
When I followed Andrew Jones’...an actual physicist by training/education... career from TAD/Pioneer to ELAC, I last heard his masterpiece TAD Reference One before he went to ELAC...where he showcased the diminutive Navis ARB-51... I was expecting diminutive sound from such relatively small drivers. It ended up like Spud Web against Shaq. Simply huge performance from such a small footprint. Was it the same visceral experience as the commanding presence of the $85,000/pair TADs to the $2,200/pair internally triamped ELAC ARB-51? No. Was it a difference worth the $81,000? Oh hell no. That would be a fun blind test demo to listen to, where you no nothing of what’s coming through the blind screen until the reveal, including pricing. Even Andrew was surprised at what he’s accomplished. |
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. |
Actually...McDonald's "food" is not good you, and will lead you to an early grave. This has been measured. Making such snobbish comments on those of us that don't buy into the all the audiophile nonsense, have actually listened to this varied gear and reach a conclusion that the prices don't justify the performance...by actually listening, and not falling for the psychologically subjective things they are told are there. Refusal to listen? That's an incredibly ignorant assumption and statement to make. You can snicker all you want at those that don't join your elitist club...the same reason's I never joined a fraternity. It's not what you know...it's who you know. And it's pretty fake. |
More revelation. Thanks. |
So much revealed in one comment. Well done. |
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. |
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. |
Please keep posting. It's very enlightening. |
