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
128x128artemus_5
If it actually sounds better or it doesn't but you think it does, all that matters is someone is happy with their purchase. Also, of course everyone's hearing and listening capabilities and appreciation is a big variable.

I have found some things don't do what I was told they would, and others did WAY more than I thought possible. By making these types of changes, you learn what can impact the sound the way you want. 

What listening in stores CAN do is if you compare one component to another while keeping everything else (and I mean everything) the same. Optimally playing a few records you know. Stores may not be so willing to do this....

Otherwise, I've had a salesman say that he was so sure of the improvement, I could take it home and if I wasn't amazed (not happy or satisfied), I could return it for a refund (not the BS store credit nonsense).

It was an arm, and it made more of a difference than upgrading the table separately keeping the new arm. He's never made that guarantee on anything else I was considering. He would say something like "I'd expect it or I am sure but I've never directly compared". Also, not willing to do the cash refund guarantee. That tells you something.
Because components at a certain level, the very best ones aren’t really doing anything.

The perfect component does absolutely zero to make the sound good.

----

Therefore, if you find something really good and you go to listen it is only going to reveal all the other crap in the system.

This is why I never bothered to go listen to Moabs even though I could have. If they are as good as I expect then I will only hear whatever they are connected to.
Your post reveal a general misunderstanding in audio customers community...

There is a fact in audio: What we listen to is not the "component" sound first and last...

For sure the quality of dac,turntable,amplifier and speakers is an UNAVOIDABLE fact also with which we must compose when buying what we can afford ONLY.... Then never the best for most of us.....

BUT what we listen to FIRST is the acoustical cues collected and filtered by the recording engineer, and what we listened to is delivered to ours ears by the gear but LAST TRANSLATED by the acoustical controls or lack of it in our room.... The acoustical cues of the recorded event being conveyed by the gear are RECREATED by the acoustical dimensions of our room.... We never listen to speakers, we listen to speakers/room....No piece of gear at any cost can replace acoustic laws playing between speakers/room/ears....

Ignoring that you claimed that you dont need to listen to the speakers, being Moab or anything, because " I will only hear whatever they are connected to." You are not completely right here....The speakers are not only connected to an audio system but to a room....

Then i think myself that the fundamental fact of audiophile life is acoustic treatment and more than that acoustic controls....

And anyway there is no " perfect component", contrary to what you just said, and any component add something of his own, this something added or substracted from an alleged "perfection" or imperfection can be corrected in a relative way by upgrading the system or part of it .... I chose to use acoustic controls and treatment because it is powerful and cost me peanuts....I dont need to upgrade my 500 bucks system at all and no system at any cost, most better than mine, can induce now the urge to do so for me, so powerful is Helmholtz mechanical equalization of the speakers/room (acoustic controls) ...


Anyway all systems at any cost, unbeknownst to most, are acoustically limited by the room where they are and the lack of control....

I will not speak here about the 2 others embeddings controls (mechanical and electrical) because so powerful they are, they are less impactful than acoustic....Anyway they are all important....

This is a fact.....And my experience....


By the way acousticians NEVER blindfold themselves and use their ears whatever their age after cleaning it for sure ....I imitate them... 😊


My best to you.....
Marvelous!

A fine example of self contained subjectivism, and not to mention self confessed expectancy bias, as you could ever hope to find.

Outside those select reviews you agree with there’s not a single external reference point anywhere!

Are you seriously recommending this ’method’ in preference to blind listening tests??

Yes. And I am seriously recommending you work on your reading skills. For starters, when you see the words, "at this point" like were used above that is a clue to consider what came prior to "at this point". Next I would suggest you consider anyone can make an airtight counter-argument easy as pie provided only they are willing to disregard the actual argument in favor of one made up out of thin air. The people who study logic call this the fallacy of the straw man.

You built a great big straw man. Congratulations! Now watch what happens the first little breeze comes along:

https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367

"That was the best the Who album has ever sounded and I’ve heard it on a lot of different systems... I mean a lot!

That spot, the listening chair is a very special place that went beyond just listening to music. Great job creating a near religious experience."

"you’re a better man than me - sharing your work and discoveries and opening yourself up to ignorant comments. But thank you! I’ve learned much from you."

"Suffice it to say, it was the biggest, most powerful musical experience I’ve ever experienced in a home setting."

"WOW ! Is all I have to say. I don’t see anything out of place, in this system . Well thought out."

"The imaging was so good that I felt like the vocalist was performing right in front of me and that I could reach out and touch them."


Does that sound like "chasing my own tail"? Are all these people suffering from "expectancy bias" too?

It’s hard to pick a favorite but for some reason right now it would probably be this one:

"you’re a better man than me - sharing your work and discoveries and opening yourself up to ignorant comments. But thank you! I’ve learned much from you."

Post removed 

Make what use you want of it. Blind A-B testing can tell you if you prefer A to B. For whatever reason. Can it make you an expert on differentiating a 2db drop at 11kHz from a 5db spike at 19kHz? Not likely. Can it help you, combined with observing measurements, using great tools, to decide if that $10k set of cables and power conditioner is worth it? Probably. Hopefully. Can it make you wise to the tendency to fool yourself in quantifying the 'differences' you think you might have heard? Most definitely. So, without slicing and dicing, ad infinitum, I just keep it simple, and recognize the usefulness and efficacy of the 'science' involved, make my decisions, and get on with the enjoyment of the music I love, with the best system I can afford.