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
128x128artemus_5
stereo5's avatar
stereo5
6,278 posts
 

This is the same old BS I have been hearing about blind testing, double blind testing, etc for the past 50+ years.  Nothing new here and what I did read was quite boring. 

cd318
2,636 posts
 

Blind listening tests are not the ultimate, definitive final answer to which products are better.

They're just the best and the most scientific means we have of comparing the sound signatures of different products.

It has been long established that the human mind is subject to a great number of biases and preconceptions when it comes to forming judgements.

Sometimes these biases and preconceptions can be helpful eg if you see a growling dog approach you with its fangs bared, you don't need to think very hard before taking evasive action etc.

Other times they may not be so useful, eg a 50k amp MUST be better than a 1k one.

Therefore since most of these biases are closely linked to sight, it makes good sense to break that link in the first instance when you are looking solely at sound quality, does it not?

Blind listening tests are not perfect, nor were they ever claimed as such.

However, in comparison to sighted listening tests, there is simply no comparison if you what you want is a judgement based primarily upon sound quality.

For me, even the simplest blind listening test is vastly superior to any sighted one. Most of the times I've done one, I've been surprised at the results.

teo_audio
2,197 posts
 

the longer a question exists, the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The lack of reconciliation here, and the general kindness of the group that supports the difference in cables, as expressed toward the naysayers..

... vs the general violence expressed by the naysayers, speaks to the understanding that the naysayer group is missing understanding, or data.... within their ideas on the totality of the data required - for the formulation of the question.

Ie, that the naysayers are, generally, not in good enough psychological shape and reach to be asking the question, and the known path of substitute activity for people in such condition where questions ill formed turn to being demands, is to project and possibly act out violence.

This situation of general kindness vs general violence is what we consistently see here, in these areas of clashing.

ebm
9,311 posts
 

Because its FUN.

unreceivedogma's avatar
unreceivedogma
916 posts
 

My approach to audio these days really helps me to stay out of these arguments.

it’s simple: I like the way my audio sounds. Until I don’t. And then I fix it. And I have zero expectations of persuading anyone to like what I did to make it sound they way it does. The only audience member that matters is me.

it is so much less stressful. You audiogon folks should try it: the Don’t Worry Be Happy approach to fine listening

 

More to discover