Why"double blind"tests don't work:brain?


In Kubla's poop post realized why double blind testing doesn't work. The parts of the brain used for "enjoyment" and "critical listening" are different and only cooperate under certain conditions (except in a few highly trained individuals)
So at home in normal listening we can evaluate things as we switch from enjoying to thinking about what we are listening to. But in a "test" or controlled environment, the brain's enjoyment cells are too stressed or??? to get in and take part. The Ego is demanding the utmost from the evaluation and the most needed parts of the brain (the enjoying parts) do not cooperate. (read this in context of my post in the Kubla's "poop" post) So the testee fails to notice the real difference under the test conditions that they Do notice at home...(though a few exceptional individuals can do this)
This is TOTALLY speculative and I just throw it out for our mutual amusement... But please feel free to take part in this thread
elizabeth

Showing 7 responses by sugarbrie

What has challenged my beliefs is this Stan Warren modified Pioneer DVD player I purchased. This things sounds great in my system for what I paid. Therefore, Stans mods are first rate. The challenge is that other than Stan's mods, the player itself is the biggest piece of Janpanese mass market junk on earth. It is all plastic, with a transport so slimsy it might break if I breath on it too hard. This thing should not sound good the non Stan parts are so cheap, but is does ??????
Thanks also to Redkiwi. Your are right. Stan really does not do a "mod", he re-engineers the Pioneer. In his mind, it is a box with a transport and a Burr Brown 24/96 DAC. My understanding from talking with Stan is that he upgrades-rebuilds the analog section and removes entirely the output section and replaces it with a couple Blackgate caps as a buffer. He also put a better cap in the power supply path.
I do trust my ears. I was just thinking that Mike Vansevers by offering backup to his ideas is trying to use a proper scientific approach. By showing his data, he opens himself to examination by others. Mike was once a total unbeliever like many pro-audio engineers. He bought into that gospel that cables and power conditioning does not matter. A lot of unbelievers will refuse to sit down and listen and have their beliefs challenged. He did sit down and after hearing a difference was man enough to admit he was wrong. His research was done not to sell you and me, it was to prove to himself why there is a difference. By making a statement that Mike's work is bunk, do you offer proof?? It might be; but its over my head to tell. I've just tried some of his stuff and it all does exactly what he sais it will do, so I tend to believe him.
I guess I do not agree. Years ago when I first got into upgrading cables I started with an interconnect from my CD Player to integrated amp. I went to a dealer I trusted who who could duplicate my system (and they did). I was totally blind; the salesperson (an electrical engineer by training) switched cables around for me to listen to without telling me what cables he was using or how much they cost. I found out later they ranged in price from $70 a pair to $400. I would respond with: "I like" or "do not like" these cables compared to the ones that came before. I had him switch back to the other cable to confirm I liked it better. He did a lot of switching around and would eliminate the ones I did not like. I eventually settled on a cable which he revealed to be a Nordost Blue Heaven; about in the middle based on price. There was one cable I hated that smeared the sound of that setup which I later found out was a Kimber cable that is very popular seller. So blind testing worked for me.


Secondly this is how HiFi Choice Magazine basically does their panel reviews, which for me are the best I have found for getting a feel for budget audiophile gear before going for a listen.

I've read the John Dunlavy article on his website. Despite all the statements and claims he makes, there is one thing missing. He offers no proof or backup what-so-ever to any one of his statements. It is just a bunch of Clinton-speak. He claims to have fooled people who have golden ears, but does not name them, or offer them as a reference or endorsement, or even tell us how he knows that these people even have golden ears in the first place. He fools people by never switching cables, but telling them he has. This to him is proof that people cannot tell the difference between cables, however, never switching cables does not prove people cannot tell the difference between two different cables; you would have to actually switch cables and not tell them you switched to prove that.
The Dunlavy article comes across to me as only a marketing ploy to impress the reader and sell his gear.
Read the white papers Mike Vansever wrote on his website. www.vansevers.com -- Mike is a pro-audio electrical engineer, the kind of person who ususally claims there is no difference. Mike not only sais there is a difference, he explains why, including diagrams, and lots of explanations, and scientific stuff that is a little over my head. I think one white paper is titled something like: "Why do things that should not have a sound, actually do."
Sorry Liguy, did not intent to shoot at you. I am very skeptical of claims made by various people selling tweeks for big bucks. I have tried some of Mike's ideas and they worked for me. He also seems to choose materials for his cords and conditioners not because they are of the highest quality available, but because they sound the best to him and his staff. So he appears to be using his ears also.