Vote

Once in a while I like to be proven wrong in some preconceived notions. It can be a reality check which may help save me thousands of dollars. It sounds like a fun activity, anyway. But I will be careful to say that certain types of comparison require long listening test periods in order to arrive at the correct conclusion. A case in point: Power supply products need to settle down after being plugged in. Optical disc drives are also highly unstable. I have yet to come upon any optical disc players that does not exhibit sonic differences depending on how the track is cued-up and player, whether the track is being read the second time, the third time, or whether remote control was used. Those sonic differences are pretty audible in my home and office systems.

Blind audio tests are good for testing a listener's "pick-up and transmission hardware", (ears and neurological pathways), the processor (brain) and "software" (perceptual skills). "Hearing" can be affected by many factors, such as age, gender, disease, medications (including drugs and alcohol), injury, anatomical anomalies, etc. The "perception" of particular sounds can also be affected by the individual differences in hearing, by learning and training, by cultural differences, or even when an individual is fatigued or stressed. Whenever I make what I think to be a significant change to my stereo system that results in an improvement in sound, I often ask my "non-audiophile" friends to have a listen. Usually I'm asked by each of them "What am I listening for?" When I do a little "training", for example, tell them to listen for improved soundstaging or better bass response, and even do an AB comparison (sighted, of course), some hear the difference, but some still don't.... In other words, unless the test is rigidly controlled, you may end up with differences in responses of different individuals, not the differences in the equipment being tested. Go to your local university library and have a look at any decent undergraduate textbook on the perception of sound. You'll see how difficult (but not impossible) it is to design a blind test without taking into account the listener/participant.

Comparing two components without knowing which one is playing helps to neutralize preconceived notions. That way, one hears what's playing, instead of confirming prejudices.

They determine listening preferences

This is the only way to ensure un biased testing.

I think to read about someone else's experience of different components is of some use, but "Listening" is an individual and subjective experience, mainly because we do not share the same ears and we do not have the same emotional programming. This is crazy, but there have been days when I have repeatedly switched cables between components and than a day later, I may go back to the original set up beciase now it sounds better. I have done this with tubes as well. I think certain emotional states influence the senses as well. I guess what I want to stress is that you cannot base a component on the listening tests of someone else. You need to hear it for yourself.

I'd say more that blind listening tests would demonstrate the *lack* of useful differences between many components, at least for those of us with average listening acuity.

I don't see much value in blind tests. Listening and hearing are not the same thing, and too many variables affect both. Put sensitive measurement devices in close proximity to each other, like two people who sit side-by-side in the same room for the same test, and you still may measure slightly differently because of the different seat locations relative to the sound source (effects of room acoustics, etc). How does anyone expect blind testing to be any more valid than subjective testing? It doesn't take a "golden ear" to hear the difference between extremes, such as a crappy speaker (eg: cell phone) compared to a terrific speaker. But can a blind test evaluate the difference between two similar components? I think not, nor do I think a precise measurement device can, either. Moreover, different nuances of sound reproduction appeal to different people, something like "sex appeal" (I can't define it, but I know it when I see it). At the end of the day, it's a question of waddya like?

The merits are relative to the listener. Who else matters?

It can be used to tell the differences between two components without bias but only if the differences are large enough. It is also true I think that many do not have the skills to tell the differences between two high-level components. For more subtle differences between components, a much more long-term approach is required where both components should be enclosed in identical exteriors and use an external control panel to make identification of components impossible. Thus, blind tests can be used for both large and subtle sonic differences.

I've ben saddened by the vitriol and polarity in the recent run of this debate. Ultimately, only our own ears and "ownership desires" can decide.

While listening test are a necessary compliment to measurements, there are flaws. Some people have become accustom to certain distortions and/or equalizations and actually prefer them. I think there needs to be a sub-group of audiophiles who want the sound of each and every component to sound neutral ,ie, a straight wire with gain. They are the audio purists or puresoundophiles. Even many of the best of the

Nothing beats a blind test for finding differences in components. Nothing beats an extended in-home tryout for determining whether a component meshes well with your system, your room and you. If all cables were purchased with blind audio in-home tryouts I bet we would see the decline in sales of cables which cost more than the components to which they connect.

Can't fool a blind dog.

They determine who is the best listener. Certainly, but how is that not useful? Why should I trust the review of someone who can't even tell different components apart without seeing them?

If using trained listeners, you can use humans to assess audio performance. If using untrained listeners, you are assessing differences in listening ability. When listening for very small differences, you are assessing listening ability at the Olympic competition level. Only the best trained athletes are able to pole-vault 18 feet 3 times in a row (most cannot) and only the best trained listeners can repeatedly identify small differences in the blind tests.

Since hearing memory is so short, blind tests determine someone's ability to expand the length of their auditory memory. If someone has no experience with observing the clarity and quality of the music they enjoy, they of course would not be able to tell the difference between a good piece of equipment and a piece of garbage equipment. They literally have not developed any sense of reference in their brains for distinguishing one from another unless the differences are extremely disparate.

his is an odd question. Blind listening tests, I feel, do indeed reveal useful information on components and wire. They take away the pre-judgments due to the maker of the gear under question and its price. Both bits of information can indeed cause assumptions to be formed prior to the actual listening experience. If its a highly thought of company and the piece of gear is expensive, one would assume that the gear must or should be good. I would think this aspect of the listening experience would be very obvious to most all. As for the second question of wether such a test only highlights those with the most refined listening abilities, then the blind test should be even more valuable to those people. Given that they have enough time to make a thorough listening judgement. And, likewise, for the people who can't tell the difference after enough listening time, well, they should either go the more affordable route and or give up trying to pass themselves off as a golden ear. Perhaps, heaven forbid, there is little to no differenc between the gear being tested, or that the less expensive piece actually sounds better than the big bucks item. I only see pluses for this entire experience. It's cool to fall in love with a certain manufacturer, but don't let that blind your ability to grade its gear against other products.

Not everyone has the same hearing or experience on which to draw, but this in no way invalidates the test. When the equipment being tested is very close in quality, perhaps only the most experienced listeners will ascertain the difference, but in many if not most cases, the average listener will identify the best sounding equipment in the comparative analysis, and I will wager their conclusion will consistently be supported by the measurements from Mr. Atkinson's test bench. I respectfully submit that the support Mr. Iverson has offered for his arguments, although not completely without merit, are weak.

While I can see that blind tests can be tempting to those trying to eliminate the effects of visual prejiduce towards expensive or cheap looking components, they only offer a compromised ability to determine anything with certainty. Iverson has it right, and I suspect it will take time for most blind test supporters to see why. In the meantime, I'll rely on my own test equipment (my ears) to determine what is best.

Single blind listening tests can help to prevent bias from influencing listening preferences. Double-blind tests were designed by people who can't hear differences in equipment to fool the senses of those that can and therefore make the designers feel better about their own ear-brain inadequacies.

The ABXers are too dogmatic to reach with reason. This whole debate is tiring.

They should complete or even be a perequesite of any comprehensive test.

I think this more a personal excercise in discerning listening, rather than component selection. I would think that this would be a great personal excercise in improving critical listening. I can see a new Stereophile test CD in my dreams. Differeing levels of jitter? Differing levels of distortion? I found the listening to the different formats of K622 to be enlightening in trying to hear analog vs digital, redbook vs SACD, and analog vs SACD. This education was worth the price of the lp and SACD alone.

These test are much to subjective for any "real" test.