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? - Quora
artemus_5
@elapid

a reasonable man, shown data that destroys his beliefs will change his beliefs to fit the data.
audiophiles are not reasonable men.
not many people can be counted on to accept they’re wrong.
they kick, scream, call you names.
doesn’t change the facts.


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?
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....