• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Blind tests

W

willysan

Active Member
Recently, a thread about blind tests on cables has been closed. The author reported how his perception had been easily mislead by the physical appearances of the different cables.
I've participated in blind test on amplifiers and I've had a very hard time finding noticeable differences between a good, but average, amplier, and an expensive model, fully featured with fancy components.
all in all, I do believe blind tests are still the best way to find statiscally relevant results.
 
Register to hide this ad
I'm unsure. I had a high-end solid state amp in my system for a while. It took me about six weeks before I decided I wanted my old Dynaco SCA-35 back in the rig. I don't think it's because I was predisposed to like one more than the other... I think it was that the things that make an amp enjoyable for the long haul aren't necessarily obvious in a short side-by-side test. At least I don't think they'd be obvious to me.
 
The assumption that I'm picking gear based on looks or price is silly. The gear I actually run is MUCH more ugly than what is on my shelf, and it is much less costly than what I could ultimately afford. So what is causing me to pick one over another then?
 
If the listener could see the cables in question before the test, then it was not a true DBT. His observations were already tainted by the expectation (aka preconceived notion) that there should be a difference between the two cables before the tests were ever conducted.

Then there's the whole thing of system matching and synergy which can't always be achieved when doing a DBT.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we need to compare the following:
Willie McTell
Arthur Blake
Gary Davis
Lemon Jefferson
Willie Johnson
Sonny Terry
Stevie Wonder
Ray Charles

Or maybe we just let Stevie run the tests (he's the only one still with us).
 
JonL said:
Maybe we need to compare the following:
Willie McTell
Arthur Blake
Gary Davis
Lemon Jefferson
Willie Johnson
Sonny Terry
Stevie Wonder
Ray Charles

Or maybe we just let Stevie run the tests (he's the only one still with us).
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying! :yes:
 
The question I asked in the closed thread was not supposed to be biased, but it was. I only wanted to find out who here on this site has actually participated in one, to compile actual data.

I just wrote mythbusters about the cable sound subject. It would be really fun if they go and test it. Imagine the threads!
 
ev13wt said:
I just wrote mythbusters about the cable sound subject. It would be really fun if they go and test it. Imagine the threads!
Click to expand...

Actually, I wish I had thought of that. Although, I hold no expectation that they're ever do it, nor that the results what ever they were would be taken worth a grain of salt.
 
Tedrick said:
Then there's the whole thing of system matching and synergy which can't always be achieved when doing a DBT.
Click to expand...

Here again, the whole point of DBT is misconstrued. The point of most DBTs isn't to put together a system, but merely to compare (usually two) items affecting only one part of it, with all other things remaining equal.
 
JohnVF said:
So what is causing me to pick one over another then?
Click to expand...

You picked it, you tell us...although I suspect I already know the answer. :)

However, in regard to blind tests in general, what value does the eye add in evaluating the sound? Arguably a blind person hears and or listens better than a sighted person.
 
Last edited:
whoaru99 said:
You picked it, you tell us...although I suspect I already know the answer. :)

However, in regard to blind tests in general, what value does the eye add in evaluating the sound? Arguably a blind person hears and or listens better than a sighted person.
Click to expand...

Blind people DO hear better; it's amazing the minute differences they can resolve. As for the influence of the eye in our opinions, I think is quite important. Our eyes "tell" us it's quite obvious that a gorgeous golden cable is better than the standard one.
 
whoaru99 said:
However, in regard to blind tests in general, what value does the eye add in evaluating the sound? Arguably a blind person hears and or listens better than a sighted person.
Click to expand...

Audio tests should only be conducted by blind people. :banana:

:thmbsp:

Well try this experiment and post your results. Its slightly off topic physiologically, but the answer to your question can be found in any old "marketing 101" textbook for college. Buyer expectations, visual decision making, product, visual impact on buyer choices. Goggle that and you will find reading material.

1. Open the link: http://www.flixxy.com/hearing-and-vision.htm

2. Look at the dude. Move your mouse over play, close you eyes and click. Listen to what he says. Is it "ba ba" or "da da"?

Repeat the video with your eyes open.

Post results.
 
Don't get me wrong, I really don't care how anyone else selects their gear, and I don't typically buy gear based on blind testing - although I did not purchase least one item based on it.

My only point is that I think the general poo-pooing of blind tests seems a bit hypocritcal when most of us (presumably) listen with our ears and decide that way. So, why there seems to be such a problem with not being able to see the gear to make the same decision is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Blind tests is certainly an emotive subject.

Personally I think the result I achieved comparing QED Silver Anniversary (£4.50 per metre) speaker cable with Atlas Basic (£1.25 per metre) was the most honest way. I wired each cable pair to different amp outputs, and switched between the two to see what difference I could hear.

When the lady of the house (who was reading a newspaper at the time) asked me what I was doing to change the sound, and why one sounded better than the other, then I was happy that an honest response had been achieved, and was quite possibly more valid than my own. It's easy for people to hear a difference when they are listening for one - even if no change actually takes place - but to notice it quite distinctly like that when you are completely passive to the situation, then that proves that a difference genuinely exists.

As for stuff that looks good sounding better, any food guru will tell you that people eat with their eyes, and food that isn't necessarily the best flavour-wise can be made more 'tasty' simply by presenting it well. If it works for food - which after all is a necessity - then it will certainly work for cables and equipment.

Oh yeah, those speaker cables? I was using my Yamaha CA-710 on this first test. The Atlas Basic had fantastic high frequency detail, but being a lot thinner lacked any weight to the bass. Short term it did kinda sound nicer, but over time became a bit tiresome (with my 90's Marantz gear it sounds delightful, and the same with the 80's A&R Cambridge A60 amp, but the Yamaha it's just too bass-light). The QED cable is just a better all round balance, and sounds equally good with all equipment.
 
That is all very subjective. Girls are really smart and will also tell you that you have a big one. (a joke dude, try to follow along here xD) Its not like she is stupid and doesn't know what your into... If she says she can't hear it, you will talk for one hour about stuff she doesn't really care about. If she tells you that there is a difference, ya never know if she is actually hearing something, or saying it first so you don't talk for an hour, but smile big and kiss her and then you listen to some music together, etc etc etc. :)

Not saying there is no hearable difference in your cables! But all your statement states as "scientific fact" CAN all be based on mind processes. This means your sound difference could be based on mind processes as well.

I don't want to fight, my aim is only to train you for studio ears. Not golden or wooden ones. Armed with knowledge about your own minds "hearing" and your ears, schooled through the hated blind tests to perfection, you are actually a mile above a bunch of people.

Listen to some active studio monitors. I suggest Geithain 901k and 922k. They might just blow you away, correctly positioned, in a proper room and measured in. Fairly priced studio perfection.
 
I think blind tests are excellent in proving how human perception works in the setting of blind tests.

People assume it proves something about every day listening and gear choices, but the more years that go by, the more I try to put my finger on anything, the closer I get to the understanding that ABXs and DBTs only prove how the mind works in those specific settings.

The tests themselves have not really been tested; not many of them show that people can perceive a difference that is there my any/all other measures. If a person fails to notice a difference that is there, I say the test has failed.

Besides, I don't know why someone would want this info anyway.
 
Just curious.. is it PC to be calling something a "blind" test?

Maybe we should call it a sight challanged test?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom