Can anyone recall some blind or double-blind audio or speaker tests?

[mtrycrafts]

1) Sure, I understand biases. No, I haven't done blinded test.

...

Then your perception is just anecdotal and a singular reality at best.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

3) Ha! You're trying to disprove me ...

No, he is trying to find out if you are the ONE who can detect difference..

 

[mtrycrafts]

For blind testing, long-listening sessions are not required, for the most part. Aural memory degrades after just a few seconds, so what has to be done is fast switching between speakers, or recordings, or whatever sound you are comparing. If you aren't immediately switching between speakers, you can not properly compare them.

Shanefield, I believe his name, been a long time ago, did a long term DBT with an amp. Didn't help one bit.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Also Beave, thanks for being very reasonable. I'm trying to find that NPR article where there's a shade of color that only a few people can see - though my time will be limited here.

How nice, change to subject to color. We are not talking about color, nor cars, nor anything else, just audible differences between audio components, cables, etc.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yes but saying that a bunch of people can't hear or see something doesn't invalidate its existence. Gamma rays anyone?

Yes, you are correct. Instruments can measure extremely small differences in both and well below human detection capability.
Again, we are not telling you that a difference is not there, just a human subject to detect it is most difficult and so far chances are not in our favor.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think the basic FUNDAMENTAL problem with a number of double blind tests is that they are done in unfamiliar environments, with unfamiliar equipment - often with unfamiliar speakers.

...

Sorry, that is not a fundamental problem, just an excuse for failure to perform.

 

[TheWarrior]

For blind testing, long-listening sessions are not required, for the most part. Aural memory degrades after just a few seconds, so what has to be done is fast switching between speakers, or recordings, or whatever sound you are comparing. If you aren't immediately switching between speakers, you can not properly compare them.

I've had the privilege of trying Harman's 'Speaker Shuffler'. It is ideal to compare more than two speakers at a time, I learned that just from my own subjective Bookshelf Speaker Shootout. But if you listen in mono, where any masking stereo effects are eliminated, take all the time you need. Harman at least saves a bit of time by having music tracks on loop that are 90 seconds or less (maybe a tad more). But you are allowed to shuffle between 1 of 4 speakers as many times as you like, for as long as you like before giving your rating score.

Harman's 'How to Listen' software also helped prep me ahead of time, but I am limited in only using laptop speakers. The excessive vibrations caused by LF content aided my level a few times, but decent speakers are essential.

 

[mtrycrafts]

70K for cables! That one I never heard of before. Wow that's insane.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I haven't heard of them either just a cable in the $30k+ but even in a $1million setup it didn't perform.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html

 

[TheWarrior]

Sorry, that is not a fundamental problem, just an excuse for failure to perform.

Floyd Toole proved this by using the same speaker in his style of mono, double blind testing, in multiple rooms. Above the transition frequency of a room (where bass ceases to be omni directional, and higher frequencies have an increasingly forward bias) listeners have proven to be capable of 'listening through rooms' above the transition frequency. Below, the room is firmly in control of bass.

 

[mtrycrafts]

..., for as long as you like ....

LOL, do they supply food and a sleeping bag?

 

[TheWarrior]

LOL, do they supply food and a sleeping bag?

Well, Floyd did buy me breakfast...

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here's another shortcoming about double-blind tests. They are TOO SHORT.

...

What part is too short? The sound track? The overall test?
There is no rule it needs to be short, so it is not a shortcoming, just another excuse to perform.

 

[jinjuku]

Here's another shortcoming about double-blind tests. They are TOO SHORT.

Anything that takes days/weeks/months to figure out if you are hearing isn't something worth dropping any coin on simply because it's most likely all physcosamatic.

Here is what started my banishment at the Polk Audio Forums:

People talking about the benefit of cable burn in (why can't cables ever sound bad after burn in). They also eschew science and practical approaches to bias controlled assessment. So fully sighted and they can control their bias irregardless of all the scientific literature to the contrary.

SOOO... I decide to knock every single objection out from underneath them:

1. It's not my equipment
2. It's not my room
3. I need to decide when to switch
4. I need to decide the duration that I listen
5. I need to do it sighted
6. I can't have someone administering the test
7. I can't have someone staring over my shoulder

So I offer to send out two sets of line level cables, RCA or XLR, two burned in and two not. Randomly labeled. I'll even send $100 to a charity of their choosing if they can sort out the correct pairs and also pick the better sounding pair and have it be the burned in pair.

Hilarity ensues and they label me a troll for answering every concern they had about a bias controlled evaluation. So funny this thread that Bob Lee, head applications engineer at QSC audio, likens me to 'Copernicus walking through an astrologers convention'.

 

[Bucknekked]

A

Hilarity ensues and they label me a troll for answering every concern they had about a bias controlled evaluation. So funny this thread that Bob Lee, head applications engineer at QSC audio, likens me to 'Copernicus walking through an astrologers convention'.

jinjuku
I read some of the stuff around the post you quote. I am glad to see that on other forums things get just as wrapped around the axle as they do here sometimes. One of the things I like the least in forums (AH included) is the lack of civility when there are two or more different viewpoints. Things are pretty good here lately and even with differing viewpoints. On the threads I'm reading most folks are keeping their cool. That gets two thumbs up from me.

On the topic of cables, the folks who believe in high end cables making an audible difference really do believe they make a difference. Regardless of the wealth of information to the contrary, the believers stick to their guns with remarkable persistence. I think all the objective evidence crowd (to which I am a member) can do with "true believers" is state the facts and hopefully keep folks from spouting the "amazing differences a cable can make" as gospel or good science.

In the end, its their money leaving their pockets. All we can hope to do is keep the newbs and the folks looking for the straight scoop entertained and plugged in to good information.

 

[shadyJ]

... physcosamatic.

psychosomatic

 

[Beave]

Anything that takes days/weeks/months to figure out if you are hearing isn't something worth dropping any coin on simply because it's most likely all physcosamatic.

Here is what started my banishment at the Polk Audio Forums:

People talking about the benefit of cable burn in (why can't cables ever sound bad after burn in). They also eschew science and practical approaches to bias controlled assessment. So fully sighted and they can control their bias irregardless of all the scientific literature to the contrary.

SOOO... I decide to knock every single objection out from underneath them:

1. It's not my equipment
2. It's not my room
3. I need to decide when to switch
4. I need to decide the duration that I listen
5. I need to do it sighted
6. I can't have someone administering the test
7. I can't have someone staring over my shoulder

So I offer to send out two sets of line level cables, RCA or XLR, two burned in and two not. Randomly labeled. I'll even send $100 to a charity of their choosing if they can sort out the correct pairs and also pick the better sounding pair and have it be the burned in pair.

Hilarity ensues and they label me a troll for answering every concern they had about a bias controlled evaluation. So funny this thread that Bob Lee, head applications engineer at QSC audio, likens me to 'Copernicus walking through an astrologers convention'.

Ah, the good-ol-days of AVS, when all those 'big names' posted there. It's funny to see how many have been banned (which, in some ways, reflects more poorly on AVS than it does on the various posters).

 

[jinjuku]

Ah, the good-ol-days of AVS, when all those 'big names' posted there. It's funny to see how many have been banned (which, in some ways, reflects more poorly on AVS than it does on the various posters).

Here is the funny thing. So after I'm banned at PF some members from there come over to AVS forum get into a few threads with me. It didn't work out for them the way the thought it was going to:

"you may not like his attitude/lack of tact, but it doesn't make him any less correct"

The point being is you can't be 100% civil with the subjectivist because their understanding of how audio works is basically broken. Stupidity is ignorance let willfully uncorrected. They are flat earthers through and through. I've openly stated under what conditions that I would accept my being incorrect. They don't have that sort of intellectual honesty.