When ya see it, of course visual is a big influence. If you didn't know they changed some magic wire, you wouldn't hear it. There are people who walk up to me and I still don't know them until they SPEAK, and remind me of who they are. so seeing them doesn't always help until they talk. Blind audio test is the only way to be checking the sound, and not be swayed by the better looking stuff, that of course sounds better. Blind people have better hearing don't they, so maybe a REAL blind test should be done on real blind people, since they built up better hearing to compensate. Put both amps behind a curtain, don't tell ya which one is playing, then you are only judging teh sound, not teh visual clues of teh fancy one with a better front panel. Those cool blue meters on McIntosh you know sound better than some flat plain panel with just handles. Also put the price tag on the thing, that improves the sound perception too. 3 pice CD ponly players sound better than 1 box universal players, . Put a curtain in front of a Universal player and 3 box $45K highly distored CD only player, hide from magic ears, and let's see how well some overpriced mis wired distorred CD only player holds up. Visual sells AUDIO. Japan sold lotsa stuff with all kinds of lites on teh fronts of Sansui and Pioneer. Dazzle em with impact visually, not audibly, for teh masses. How come pro stuff is plain, bland fronts, and inside is stuff that runs forever and sounds great.

Blind testing is ill-suited for detecting small differences in subjective perception.

First, proper statistical analysis takes large trial listening tests to apply rigorous significance levels (such as .05). Otherwise, the statistical risk of missing small differences is essentially certain.

Second, ABX testing is ill-suited for testing sensory thresholds. It is well known and settled that anxiety raises sensory thresholds. Listening to the unknown decreases the listener's ability to perceive. See, number one. (Humans are a fascinatingly complex creatures).

Third, there are too many variables. In a properly designed blind test, the differences in the stimulus are precisely known, including in psychoacoustic studies. With a known difference difference we are testing the listener's ability to perceive or how it is perceived, not the equipment. That is, we are not testing whether the difference exists.

Thus, to conduct a proper blind test we need to know for certain that there is a difference between the sound of various cables. Of course, once this is known - there is no reason for the blind test.

However, the continued argument over cables and ABX testing is fascinating sociologically.

If you can readily hear the differences between cables, see the differences between television technology, etc. you have no need to subject the equipment to blind testing. For example, if you can't tell that one TV picture looks better than another - don't buy the more expensive TV. Same with audio equipment. If you need to rely on a blind test to convince you to buy more expensive equipment, it is a waste of your money to buy the more expensive stuff.

If you cannot hear a difference between cables, why spend time arguing that others similarly cannot? I find watching team sports unbelievably dull - but I don't spend any time arguing with those that enjoy watching football that they are fools for spending time and money doing so.

They are fools. How's that Michael Vick JO? Making million$ and has to be involved with animal cruelty, another sports "type" Million$ of dollars don't make them anything more than rich JO's. He has to give back like $22 Million, he probably spent it all, now he is in debt? How's that running lady who LIED about using Steroids, give back that medal.and endorsements all gone poof, low life with money. And the biggest JO, O.J. Simpson, OJ backwards is JO, hmmm, we shoulda' seen it coming!!! football "hero" still a criminal, ya can make em rich, but they are till , low lifes. Myike tyson....now there's a real winner, is he working at K-Mart yet? Bet he has no money left, low life also. So, yes, folowing sports is dumb. Cus' they are basically low lifes with too much money, that alows them to be low lifes until they get caught...and they all do. Just like wire scammers, and audio grade AC line cords, low lifes. sports and audio scammers, hmmmm, is there a link?

I admit to being fascinated that in 40 plus years of Hi Fi listening, not one "golden eared" audiophile or reviewer has emerged who does not have his listening skills so diminished by DBT as to render those skills no more astute than those of an objectivist with a coin to toss.

Seriously, don't you ever wonder where that one person is?

In a hobby full of people who try to hone their listening skills, nobody has consistently bettered an Abe Lincoln penny tosser at this fine art.

We should have seen at least one "DBT savant" by now.

(This is not an endorsement of DBT. DBT can be too crude or brief to allow for adequate decision making. If you took a complex picture and performed only minor changes, a viewer may be easily fooled by instantaneous DBT's, as well. DBT is by no means definitive in all situations.)

This subject is starting to get traction, however. Recall MF talked about how the superiority of the Continuum table was obvious to listeners who merely played a CDR he had made comparing that table with others. JA mentioned in a recent "As We See It" that he had actually heard sonic differences during a blind listening "challenge," so there is still hope that they may explore this fascinating subject...as long as it serves their purposes.

I disagree - blind testing essential if you want to prove that something truely has the effect it claims.

I understand your point about human hearing being adaptive - but if that is a problem then change the test - not the testing method - for example perform the two tests 1 hour after each other, and perform multiple tests with them in different orders. If a product truely does have a benefitial effect then the results will clearly show it.

If a person cannot tell the difference between an audio source using a 'magic cable' and one that is not, without knowing in advance, then why spend $100 or whatever on it?

Most published blind tests I've seen, ironically the better documented ones being those conducted by Stereophile, had serious flaws. As an example Stereophile did a large sample amplifer DBT at a trade show where they packed people into a large room for the trails. The contrast of such a situation with the typical home listening environment is of course obvious.

Another aspect is that the folks involved with DBT are typically of the NSD (No sonic difference) bend and little effort is given to important issues such as listener selection. For example the Boston Audio Society (BAS) just published a study that concluded that hi-rez audio (SACD) did not exhibit sonic superiority over 16 bit Red Book CD standard (specifically that the listeners could not distinguish between the two). The report was very shabbily documented yet it was disclosed that 60 BAS members helped with the tests presumably the bulk as listening subjects; those unfamilir with the BAS should know that if you were interested in gathering a herd of naysayers could do no better than crashing a BAS meeting. The point here is that a blind test cannot in any sence combat a bias to not hear difference.

What audiophiles need be aware is that the entire body of published DBTs is a remarkably slight opus. Most of the times when the diehards are referring to what this or that test has demonstrated they are in fact referring to an internal fantasy where those tests have occured!

--

As for audiophiles doing blind test all I can say is that I do them myself and I've seen innumerable reports from other audiophiles on their experiences. However it is also true that I have not witnessed a single diehard DBT advocate accept the testimony in such reports. All the tired excuses are roll out... didn't do proper level matching, must have neglected some control, etc., etc.

Quote:
... Blind audio test is the only way to be checking the sound, and not be swayed by the better looking stuff, that of course sounds better. ... 3 pice CD ponly players sound better than 1 box universal players, . Put a curtain in front of a Universal player and 3 box $45K highly distored CD only player, hide from magic ears, and let's see how well some overpriced mis wired distorred CD only player holds up. ...

DUP,

Well I imagine, assuming I'm interpreting your trademark challenging prose correctly, you're suggesting the "Universal player" would perform better than the "45K highly distored CD only player". Assuming that to be the case I'm afraid those scientifically oriented BAS folks who just completed and published their investigation of Hi-Rez (SACD) vs. Standard CD that, of course, utilized controlled blind A/B/X tests would suggest the burden of proof falls squarely upon you to substantiate, i.e. from the Conclusions are of the document they write:

Quote:
Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades highresolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

Source: Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted. into High-Resolution Audio Playback
E. BRAD MEYER,. AES Member. AND DAVID R. MORAN,. AES Member
Apparently to be published in the AES Journal.

Ironically that sort of places you squarely in the role of Audiophile Snob with typical hifalutin preconceived ideas of sonic superiority. Of course you could conduct you very own "properly controlled double-blind tests" to demonstrate otherwise!

ps.

Using Google one can locate a link to said document (pdf) but it appears it is no longer working. I downloaded a copy earlier and can provide via email.

The authors have published an additional details page located here: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

I have the DSD/SACD versions of several CD versions all the DDSD/SACD smoke the Cd only versions. Played on the same player. Just like HDTV smokes the exact braodcast on stnadard obsolete analog version, that's an easy test too, hit remote between the HD channel and "regular" station. A miswired, highly distored Cd only player that takes 3 boxes of stuff to do what it does, when a universal one box player, smokes it, for much much much less money, means that the reviewer who thought it sounds so great, is merely a fiction writer, did those peopel who plainly heard the improved sound on a CDR copy of the $100,000 TT know they where listening to the particular table, and the TT had the same cartridge and same pre amp? And same The fact that a 10 cent CDR DIGITAL copy, proves that DIGITAL works, and works well LP vinyl is OBSOLETE, it is not how things get better, it's hanging onto the past. I'm sure when Incadesent lamps are finally not mfg. there will be incandescanet lamp loves who claim LED and CFL is no good. Hanging onto obsolete past things is just human nature, resist change, In teh case of lighting why would anyone with logic use 100W when a 23-28W lamp gives similar light, and color temps etc. Many situations when using high quality CFL you can't tell the difference in light color or levels. $30 LP's are hardly logical when DSD/SACD is cheaper and better. And don't wear out with each play. I have lotsa LP's and DSD/SACD is always more convient and better sounding. Less muss, less fuss.

Very interesting topic, and point of view!

I do agree that blind testing is difficult and flawed. However , it should not be flawed to the point that it is completely useless, surely?

In the thread, some of you make claims that not one audiophile has been able to stand up and claim success in blind testing. I'd be interested in reading more about this -- I recall reading mention of someone in the magazine saying he could easily hear the difference between mp3 and some higher quality recording in some auditorium. Anyone have a link that I can follow to pursue the claim that no-one has ever withstood blind tests?

Despite the problems with this testing, it seems the core of the problem is just setting the bar appropriately for the listener. I'm sure we'll all agree that at some point anyone can pass a blind test. Try transistor radio quality over fabulous system (volume levels matched of course). Several recent posters have made this point.

I recently subjected myself to such a test,
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=26559&an=0&page=3#Post26559
and I did feel a certain amount of anxiety, even though the setting was a friendly as possible. It took me a while to settle in and focus.

Its not easy to shut down all the distractions in your head, especially under duress. Yet without doing so, you are not fully listening, and the discernment bar is much lower.

A handy way to do tests would be like an optometrist's exam, where you go from obviously different ABs, to gradually more alike, until the listener can no longer distinguish. This helps everyone to establish that
1) yes there are differences in A and B
2) at some point the differences become imperceptible to the listener
3) that point is different for everyone.
Moving from obvious differences to not-so-obvious differences would also help to settle the listener, I think.

Thanks to my relatively informal test (mentioned above), I'm quite comfortable with my own ability to discern at least some differences. (Although I would still like to find my limits of discernment!) This makes it a bit hard to hear doubters and skeptics: my inclination is to believe that they either have poor focussing/listening skills, or have never been subjected to a test that allows them to experience their level of discernment. Maybe they've only listened to cables whose sonic differences are either non-existent or beyond their discernment ability. I like the guy who said he tried using a poor cable just to convince himself that there are differences.

I just wish I was clever enough to invent a test environment that would allow switching between gradually different sound qualities so we could all come to relative agreement that different systems do sound different.

Quote:
I have the DSD/SACD versions of several CD versions all the DDSD/SACD smoke the Cd only versions. Played on the same player.

Ah huh?... and you verified that with controlled blind tests, or were you aware which was which? We're talking science here... a rant is not a substitute!

Exactly, since the players are in a separate room, the DSD difference is extremely audibly BETTER. No one missed picking the SACD over the Cd versions. The difference is extreme. Picking teh LP is also easy, snap crackle...with the most pristine clean VPI sucked clean 16.5. No visual clues needed to tell me which one was DSD. When the fiction writers claim to have heard Cd like never before and they are using a 445K Cd only player, they know they are using teh $45K Cd player, they are not switching back and forth unknowing just to compare it to say a "mortal" $1,000 player or less. then maybe they wouldn't come to such absurd concllusions, that this $45K player really does sound better than ones made for mortals. And how this reviewer liked what he heared when measuremtns showed it to be mis wired, highly distorted, much also prove his ears are defective, so how can ya trust anything he claims is good. Other RECORD reviewers have made teh same claim as to his abiltys to make claims of what is good or bad. He sees the price, and hears teh price, how could something so pricey be bad? not when it comes to getting them to run an ad or two.

Quote:
Exactly, since the players are in a separate room, the DSD difference is extremely audibly BETTER. No one missed picking the SACD over the Cd versions.

You'll forgive my confusion but earlier you made reference to a single player... "I have the DSD/SACD versions of several CD versions all the DDSD/SACD smoke the Cd only versions. Played on the same player. "(emphasis added) ... whereas now you mention "players"... "since the players are in a separate room."

Also earlier you spoke of yourself but it would appear there were multiple listeners... " No one missed picking SACD over the Cd versions" (emphasis added).

Anyway as your experience clearly seems to have demonstrated a sonic difference between SACD and mormal CD contrary to the results in the recently published BAS work why don't you take a little time to describe the tests you were involved in? I'd certainly like to hear about it and I'd bet many others would as well.

Yes, soem different SACD players, versus soem different Cd players, YET The Universal players can play both CD and SACd and DVD-A, so when comparing the same Cd it's played on the same one as teh SACD was, get it? And this occured on more than one Universal player. The DSD always smoked the Cd only. DSD has much more life and SLAM. IMPACT, delineation of subtle nuances, how bout hearing some finger slide on teh guitar strings like you are in teh stuido with teh rolling stones, not audible on teh CD only version. Simple, no amount of verbage or prose needed. The audible difference is extremely apparent. And both discs are labeled as taken off original tapes, so DSD is easily superior. AND I have the original LP of this particular album and it blows compared to SACD. It's a pristine LP...original from the late 60's early 70's. SACD is superior. No word play needed to describe some audio bable, DSD sounds better, always. DSD is the biggest improvemnt in recording/reproduction of the recordings in decades. It brings what used to be unobtainalbe in teh home, an exact sounding copy of teh tapes made when it was recorded originally. Do you think the studios are arching old master tapes into DSD cus sooner or later the old analog tapes will self destruct

DUP,

Seems you're deadset agianst providing a straightforward description of the tests, hmmmmm...? can't imaging why?

But seruiously, I'd say if you're so conviced of the superiority of hi-rez that you don't feel any need to demonstrate with controlled blind tests that you should simply grow some balls and just say so... strictly MHO of course.

Quote:
I do agree that blind testing is difficult and flawed. However , it should not be flawed to the point that it is completely useless, surely?

DBT is the gold standard in every branch of science. Except audio it seems.

--Ethan

Quote:

DBT is the gold standard in every branch of science. Except audio it seems.

--Ethan

Wow, the gold standard in every branch of science, I had no idea!

Hey, would you mind giving examples of where DBT has been instrumental in the furtherance of scientific knowledge, e.g. for validating important theories (or whatever), in say Physics, Cosmology, Astrophysics, Geology, Biology, Mathematics... or in some scientific fields of your choosing?

TIA

The subject is endlessly interesting, and I enjoy challenging myself with blind tests - as I am able to do them.

I will have the wife switch cables/or not, or try to pick out certain things that I can adjust...and then set things up so I don't know which change I'm listening to at any given time, and see what I hear.

For instantaneous comparisons, I like to start out right next to the speakers, and try to detect ultra near-field differences. This is especially useful when listening for "noise" or treble differences.

Then, I try to keep moving farther and farther away from the speaker and into my "sweet spot." (I hate that term, but everyone understands it.)

There have been differences I can easily A/B in the extreme near-field that "disappear" in the farther field, and other differences that I couldn't hear from the sweet spot, that I could up close...but then could here in the sweet spot once I 'learned' to hear the difference.

I enjoy trying to explore the limits of what I can detect.

I'm also actually a believer in "slow motion" blind testing; and I admit that audio memory can be very short live, but there are ways of dealing with that.

I don't usually try to quantify immediate changes in gear. I've become more patient and just wait for something to grab my attention. I might listen to some combination for a couple of weeks before anything sinks in. When it does, it's off to the races.

Sometimes it doesn't take very long for me to hear something that causes me to explore the change, but more often than not I have to simply wait for the moment when I say to myself, "I seem to remember that horn having more bite" or "I don't remember hearing that much hall ambiance on that record" or something of that sort.

Once something strikes me as different than what I'm used to, I can start throwing records that I'm familiar with at it until I decide if I prefer one over the other.

What I hate more than anything is getting an immediate impression that a component is inferior to what it replaced and then having to keep it in the system for a few weeks to see if it ages well. More often than not, if I didn't like it pretty quick then it I don't end up liking it later. But, every now and then something will really wake up and shine after a few hundred hours and so you have to give darn near every change a reasonable amount of time to evaluate its character.

I've never had a component change that I was completely happy with. Invariably, it's a matter of some sort of trade off. Some aspect will be better and some aspect will be worse. I don't have a hard time deciding which I prefer if I give the change enough time, but I would probably have a hard time blind testing most of the changes.

In my personal experience, when I've run my own personal ABX tests, with very fast switching times, I can identify audible differences to a degree that is far more sensitive then what I experience in everyday listening or even very emotional listening. And the longer I go between switching components, the less sensitive the test is.

So IMHO, saying that DBTs are insensitive, especially fast-switching DBTs, is bollocks.

I think it's also important to gauge differences in the context of a long-term reference. For instance, I can identify characteristic differences from single component changes in demo systems, but I am MUCH more sensitive to any alteration to my own system.

On that basis, I feel that ABX testing using unfamiliar components has very little value.

Additionally, I think proponents of stringent blind testing are mildly hypocritical. Consider this: The reason cited for conducting blind tests is that many perceived differences are the result of a mental bias to hear differences; Therefore, subjective comparisons are invalid. However, the blind test advocate is likely of the mind that differences are rare, and is hence biased against hearing them.

Oh, well. To each his own.

When I replaced my Klipsch speakers with Paradigms I was very displeased at first. The salesman said to "play them in". Every day they got better and after about two weeks of daily use I got the Heresys back out to see if I was just adapting or what. I am really in love with the Paradigms now. Learn something new all the time. I am still not willing to talk about my experience with cable comparisons. Some things just take time to mentally process I suppose. Especially changes in long held ideas.

JA is the only one who approaches it with SCIENCE. MF is a fiction writer? Yeah, how come these reviewers don't have some breakthrough component of teh day, and just come out and say, it sounds like teh previos 12 I listened too. This stuff is mostly all the same within it's power, and capabiltys. Everytime a fiction writer gets some new piece, it's another breakthrough. It just ain't so. Why can't teh reviewers be honest and just say, hmmm $45,000 for a Cd only palyer and it takes 3 parts to do it? This stuff is more for visual impact than sonic impact....and just for once hook up some mortal player for giggles and play them side by side, and conclude, not much if any difference, now let's try and see WHY they are asking $45K, discect it, physcially , sonically and with reality based ideas. I think most reviewers use such gobbly gook prose so they really ain't saying anything, that's the duty of a reviewer, while a real review, based on meansurments etc, proves what the thing really is. After all, when teh mfg. makes the thing, you telling me they don't measure with insturments? Yeah right. Well maybe in teh case of teh $45,000 Zunder/Zinder/Zooder miswired, highly distored joke they didn't. YET it got high praise from the bizzaro side of audio. Reveiwes for electronics should have a side by side listen if they wanna keep touting how great and such a breakthrough the current months CD player is, and how bout that under wattage high priced amp...hmmm, just missing 500 or so watts, then teh reviewer says, oh well, it's not really noticed..If JA didn't measure, the reviews would all be just story telling. Measurements matter. Did they launch rockets and sattelites by just looking up and saying, over there? Took a lota measuremtns didn't it. Subjective audio reviews is just personal opinons, and the mood of teh day...measurements matter. When a reviewer claims he hears one wire doing this dramatic change, you gotta use logic and ask.....is this guy for real.....?Still say if MF didn't know what TT is playing he wouldn't know his one overpriced Yorke from his Continum, or the previous end all spinning platter. When is teh MKII coming out, surly there is an improvement in the greatest TT ever sold, VPI does it all teh time

Bottom line, science aside, what do you like?
If you like it what else matters?
I use my wife as my judge.
She thinks that this whole hobby is insane.
When she claims she hears a difference then I know it must be fact.

Not to throw this discussion off blind testing, auditory memory has been said to be short in this forum and other places in Sterophile. Does anyone know if this is true for all people, at all times?

My own experience (previously posted, I think in the tweaks and tips section), shows that auditory memory is used to enhance or optimize a setting. In particular, dialing-in a TT tracking force for a friend, as he adjusted the force, I listened without knowing what force he set (Single-Blind), identifying only each try as A,B,C,D, etc. I identified the 'best' sounding setting, and then he set the force at that setting and listened. He was very pleased. In turn, I learned what the sound of opposite sides of the optimum tracking force really sounds like, and now know what to listen for.

In another instance, memory (auditory?) enabled me to correctly identify a particular recording that I was very familiar with, but played in a different environment on a table radio (easily days, perhaps weeks or months since I heard the same recording in my home environment), before the announcer identified that recording. I don't think auditory memory is so short as minutes or even 25 minutes, in my case. Although this is not rigourous scientific proof, it is persuasive to me.

However, I would be interested if anyone can refer me to a published scientific study showing auditory memory is so short.

Especially so if your wife cannot detect differences as well as you can, which is my experience here. If she can here it, it's really there. Then again, she used to say that after listening to the good system, the car radio really is undesirable to listen to.