BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 10 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
How about SBT (single blind testing)?
bertdw
bertdw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 18 2007 - 5:41am

What kind of components could this be done with? Speakers would have to be behind a curtain, veiling the sound. The controls on a preamp need to be seen to be operated. You couldn't play a record without looking at the turntable and cartridge to cue it up, or pop a disc into a player without seeing it. So wouldn't this test only be good for cables and power amps?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am

While I agree with Bertdw about the difficulty of doing this with many components, it would seem to be a fun thing to do with cables.

I have had buddies do this for me with interconnects, and then listen at leisure and try to see what I can hear.

I've also done it with certain tweaks.

I find it fun and illuminating, but my agenda is not fully the same as a reviewer's.

I also think it would be cool to get some honest, no cross communication, simultaneous reviews and see what different reviewer's hear with the same component of any sort.

I know the arguments against it are numerous, and it HAS been done in a limited way in the past - but I'd be interested in an issue where Sam Tellig, Wes Phillips, Art Dudley, Mike Fremer, Brian Damkroger, Robert Reina, etc...all submit a two page review of the same component using the same recordings (I'm sure Stereophile could manage to get them all a copy of each Stereophile recording...;)...)

That would not only be interesting from a component standpoint, but would also be enlightening with regard to varying rooms and reviewer sensibilities.
What a great way to really get a sense of a component!

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 10 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm


Quote:
What kind of components could this be done with? Speakers would have to be behind a curtain, veiling the sound. The controls on a preamp need to be seen to be operated. You couldn't play a record without looking at the turntable and cartridge to cue it up, or pop a disc into a player without seeing it. So wouldn't this test only be good for cables and power amps?

Yes, cables & power amps would be perfect for that. For components such as speakers, turntables, etc, there would be complications. Actual blindfolds before entering the room with the speakers! For preamps, maybe a universal remote control to select volume, inputs, etc. A poorly paid intern to insert your CD's for you. Details, schmetails.

bertdw
bertdw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 18 2007 - 5:41am

I forgot one - maybe phono preamps.

Sorry if I sounded, um, snooty before. I didn't mean to, but after rereading my post...

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 10 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm

No sweat! There certainly are some practical issues involved, but most could probably be worked around, if the reviewer and his "sighted" partner were willing.

absolutepitch
absolutepitch's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 9 2006 - 8:58pm

Great idea for eliminating sighted bias. After reading about the Caltech study of wine tasting better if the taster knows the labeled price is higher, and the taster chose the least expensive wine as the best when the price was masked, audio equipment reviews of the sighted kind is definitely not without bias, at least bias cannot be ruled out.

In a prior post under DBT topic, I wrote, that years ago, I helped a friend set the tracking force on a TT under SBT conditions. He adjusted the force and I gave feedback on how it sounded. Then zeroing in to an "optimum" force setting. This is one example of SBT use.

bertdw
bertdw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 18 2007 - 5:41am

To me, the most interesting part of that study (assuming it's the same study) is that brain scans of the subjects showed increased activity in the pleasure center(s) of their brains when drinking the expensive wine. The subjects actually experienced more pleasure when they thought the wine was expensive! This has some interesting implications for audio. If I can actually experience more pleasure with an expensive component, whether it sounds better or not, why shouldn't I buy it?

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm


Quote:
While I agree with Bertdw about the difficulty of doing this with many components, it would seem to be a fun thing to do with cables.

I have had buddies do this for me with interconnects, and then listen at leisure and try to see what I can hear.

I've also done it with certain tweaks.

I find it fun and illuminating, but my agenda is not fully the same as a reviewer's.

I also think it would be cool to get some honest, no cross communication, simultaneous reviews and see what different reviewer's hear with the same component of any sort.

I know the arguments against it are numerous, and it HAS been done in a limited way in the past - but I'd be interested in an issue where Sam Tellig, Wes Phillips, Art Dudley, Mike Fremer, Brian Damkroger, Robert Reina, etc...all submit a two page review of the same component using the same recordings (I'm sure Stereophile could manage to get them all a copy of each Stereophile recording...;)...)

That would not only be interesting from a component standpoint, but would also be enlightening with regard to varying rooms and reviewer sensibilities.
What a great way to really get a sense of a component!

As a manufacturer, you end up with this sort of detail when a product goes out for 'evaluation' to differing dealers. Sometimes the given item is handed through about 5-10 of the given store's favorite customers or the owners friends who have straddled that line of friends/customers over the years.

I've found there are TWO main types of listeners, And TWO main types of manufacturers, this being logical, once you hear the point that is coming.

It's the exact WAY of how we listen, and WHAT we listen for.

AFAWK (As Far As We Know)..

..It comes down to the organization of the given audio related brain bits, over time, in the given individual.

There is seemingly two main ways that folks listen. One is seemingly a bit more holistic , the other a bit more intellectual. Mostly one follows the other type of listener, as a type that we tend to get into. Holistic tends to come second in the order of the 'mental considerations', over time. It's audiophile listener-- "stage two".

Stage one, the intellectual listener. The quantification of tiny bits. This is the process by which the bits of the music are quantified and considered in little bits, even though they are all enjoyed together-like anyone who buys gear, it is about music, not matter how it seems. This is the more fundamental learning stage in audio, IMHO. The tearing down of what we hear.

There is a very specific set of reasons for this, and the one basic is the human hearing mechanism, and that mechanism is principally looking at the leading edge of transients, their timing and the levels they are at with respect to one another. In the context of a speaker, for example, it involves having the leading edge of a transient fly out of speaker and off into the air..before the rest of the signal is obscured and the box and system explode with noise and distortion. Commonly known as 'bleeding edge' ie, the high frequency transient emphasis crowd. A very specific crew and type. Ow. My ears are bleeding. Spatiality and transients are the emphasis, whether they realize it or not. There will be specific component types in these systems, you will recognize them after you see enough of them.

Then there is the crowd who, over time, has learned to realize that the BODY of the note is at least as critical as the transient and spatiality. Part of the audiophile evolution, in the personal sense, IMHO. They only desire to swing their butts to the music, even though they still value those other parts and do not want to let them go. But those components must now integrate into the body of the note, those folks must now hear the body of the music, and if the body of the note is obscured by noise, they do not want that component in their systems. That's audiophile stage two.

When an audiophile has given up, changed gears, etc..this the general sign that this is when they are making that transition, in the general sense. Their auditory skills have grown over time and then they find that there actually IS equipment that delivers the 'body' of the music. The 'backwave', the parts that follow the transient are actually revealed better, and integrated better in some gear than compared to others. This is the equipment they find themselves gravitating to.

It would require a more lengthly dissertation to state it more correctly, but the general idea is here.

What such a test with Stereophile reviewers would do for me, is to reveal where the given writer's audiophile 'stage' of 'learning about signal' is actually at.

We all evolve and change at different speeds and we are all at our given point in that journey. Some never make it past stage one, and some come into the game already at the later stages, with respects to how they listen, hear, think, and feel. It tends to follow the given human evolution and personal awareness levels quite closely, as factors go. In the general sense. It's not exact, but then again, nothing is.

There are similar levels of evolution, and similar stages, in other hobbies, professions, and endeavors.

absolutepitch
absolutepitch's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 9 2006 - 8:58pm


Quote:
I can actually experience more pleasure with an expensive component, whether it sounds better or not, why shouldn't I buy it?

Some people will buy the expensive gear and feel good. This is the "to each his own" category, and judgement on diminishing returns.

I buy the less expensive equipment which sounds nearly as good, and feel good that I didn't have to spend $$$$, but only spent $$. Now I have more $$ left for some other less expensive gear, that I couldn't get had I spent the $$$$. Because, I don't usually have a lot of $$$$, but I more frequently only have $$. It's definitely an individual's choice.

bertdw
bertdw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 18 2007 - 5:41am

You've misquoted me, WTL. I said "If." I can't. About the only expensive component I could afford would be headshell leads. But anyway, thanks for reminding me that I've done pretty well with the money I've spent. I should remember that more often.

absolutepitch
absolutepitch's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 9 2006 - 8:58pm


Quote:
You've misquoted me, WTL. I said "If."

bertdw,

You're right about the misquote; I missed the "If" part at the end of the prior line while copying and pasting.

As for the "done pretty well", I can't see spending huge amounts of money for small incremental improvements. So, I'm with you on this, in that I get pretty good sound given the relatively low amount I spent in $$, but some substantial effort in tweaks for inexpensive cost in parts. Hope you can get together more $$ in order to get more than just headshell leads.

Log in or register to post comments
-->
  • X