1. Home
  2. cables
  3. 166355-2693

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
artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5 OP
2,016 posts
 
@millercarbon
 
The subject was the premise double blind testing is inappropriate and meaningless. The supporting evidence is a study involving speech recognition. The flaw in the reasoning, no evidence is given that speech recognition and component evaluations involve similar brain functions. Let alone skills sets. So the OP premise is fatally flawed.
OP
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

The pivotal paragraph is the one above IMO. The question is the veracity of the last sentence...
If a comparison method is not working well with speech, it would not work at all with music


We know that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. But there is a correlation and sometimes they DO overlap to the point where they are the same. Which begs the question, if we cannot discern speech while blindfolded, can we discern music any better?  

I've lived long enough to know that there are those in this world that no amount of evidence will prove anything to them. They have a  closed mind which cannot learn. So I don't try to convince but like Fox, I report, you decide. FWIW, this was written by another, not me. But I have plenty more which will be disclosed later

artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5 OP
2,016 posts
 
@douglas_schroeder 

I agree with your perspective. The reason I post this is because we have a lot of new people who have been putting forth this scientismist POV. There are also new people here who really want the proper info. They don't know. Hopefully they can come to an understanding, much like I did from some of the more knowledgeable posters from the past & present
mapman's avatar
mapman
23,658 posts
 
Obviously no testing is much better than blind testing. Or not-blind. Testing is hard work......who needs it? People have better things to do with their golden ears like listen to the things they know they  like. So what if there might be something better? Beauty is in the ear of the listener.
artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5 OP
2,016 posts
 
@orgillian192 A test of systems (or components in a system not my own) playing it to me would still be useless as my reference is my own system and without a direct comparison to that, I would have virtually no frame of reference to opine on what may or may not be different.

Indeed a very good point and one which Paul McGowan (PS Audio) & Hans Beekhuyzen have made as well. Harman Int. trains all their people who do testing,  on how to listen. @mikelavigne  above has given many problems which he faces in the many DBX he has been involved.
erik_squires
17,593 posts
 
Absolutely no one asked me to so I must therefore opine.

Double blind studies are for product development, not for making a choice in buying.

A double blind study on the value of a feature will help me tailor my product and marketing.  It won't help me, not even a little bit, chose among products I'll purchase.
More to discover