Blind tests

[Sam Cogley]

Ok let me say it a different way.

If "The ABX test (actually called a duo-trio balanced reference test) is not indicated for the class of sensory stimuli in which audio equipment evaluation falls.

Then we will have to live with it.

marc mc

That remains to be seen. I'd like to hear more about this "issue," I have a feeling that some bad science is involved.

 

[whoaru99]

Ok let me say it a different way.

If "The ABX test (actually called a duo-trio balanced reference test) is not indicated for the class of sensory stimuli in which audio equipment evaluation falls.

Then we will have to live with it.

But I think the main point of the claim is if ABX testing has ever had "Board approval" as a test for audio in the first place. If not then thats what is known as a good old fashion kick in the ass. Agreed?

And if ABX testing (for audio gear) is in fact an accepted method by the scientific community (not the guys that posture on forums) then I will personally accept that as the standard and will change my subjective ways. In fact I will make a hunting store my first order of buisness and get me some cam gear. I figure I might as well use the opportunity to look for Bigfoot at the same time because ABX tests are just as rare. In fact I might even take bets on which one I will find first. Personally I think the smart moneys on Bigfoot.

Guys I'm just having fun!

marc mc

First we'd have to agree what the test would be used for, then we'd have to agree which body of experts is the ultimate authority in such matters.

Good luck...

On another note, key to the debate, is that ABX really isn't a preference test. It's about choosing whether X = A or X = B, then tallying the number of correct and incorrect matches. No more, no less.

 

[sheltie dave]

Ray, I was making note that there is only one thing that can happen in our basement with that setup - listening. I am from the school that has found any test in life is blind - you don't know how, when, where, or exactly what the test is going to be - but you know it is coming.

Every day I go to work and have the task of finding something that is invisible to the naked eye. My ability to earn a wage is dependant on my skill in properly assessing whether we should spend a quarter of a mil to dig up, package, ship, and dispose of contaminated material that is toxic.

When I am home assessing the performance level of stereo gear, I like using many of the same tools, and much the same approach, to readily identify better performance. Blind tests, generating and reviewing engineering dataplots, listening on and off-axis, listening with a multitude of gear moved in and out, having friends over for critical listening, reading reviews, looking at the costs involved, looking at the quality and cosmetics, all can provide useful information.

 

[marc mc]

When I am home assessing the performance level of stereo gear, I like using many of the same tools, and much the same approach, to readily identify better performance. Blind tests, generating and reviewing engineering dataplots, listening on and off-axis, listening with a multitude of gear moved in and out, having friends over for critical listening, reading reviews, looking at the costs involved, looking at the quality and cosmetics, all can provide useful information.

Or a boat load of work. You guys don't take this stuff that serious do you

No wonder the plug and play thing caught on.

Just teasing Dave

marc mc

 

[sheltie dave]

I know, Marc.

I just find the little middle ground (the listening) to be seemingly disparaged at both ends.

 

[Brett]

Can anyone tell me which amp will sound better in this listening test?

I'd say the sound will be bad, no matter what amp is used. Klipschorns are corner horns, ie they need solid walls behind them and well sealed into them to complete the last few feet of the flare.

 

[sheltie dave]

Brett, while you caught the reason they are named Klipschorns, maybe you didn't catch the 200 pound bookcase that completes the false corner on the far KHorn, and you probably missed the pipe insulation on the tailboard on the exposed right face of the near KHorn. A Cornwall does quite nice sealing that facade when the listening need arises.

Our ALK modded crossovers and attenuaters also take care of the glaring mismatch in the output levels between the woofers and mid/tweet drivers. A little engineering and a lot of perspiration make a good system sound great. Also remember, that attitude goes a long way toward reinforcing the NEED for blind testing, as you believe this system will sound bad before you even get within a state of where we live! :sigh:

The wife likes her access to the back bedroom when she wants to go there, so I have nothing permanent. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid. Rule number one is Keep Mamma Happy! :thmbsp:

 

[Brett]

Brett, while you caught the reason they are named Klipschorns, maybe you didn't catch the 200 pound bookcase that completes the false corner on the far KHorn, and you probably missed the pipe insulation on the tailboard on the exposed right face of the near KHorn. A Cornwall does quite nice sealing that facade when the listening need arises.

I owned a set of Khorns for several years. Initially they went into a near perfect room with very solid concrete walls over a bedrock base (dug into side of a hill). When I moved to my new home, I needed at least false side walls. I built the false corners a la Dope From Hope, and they were hopeless. It took 5' wide besser (cinder) block walls cemented and filled with sand and very well sealed to get close to how they were in the original room I used them in. Until then they had less subjective and measured LF response than a pair of freestanding LaScala I used for surrounds. I also used ALK xovers for a while.

Eventually I went active and started modifying out the Khorn faults until I got rid of them all. By that time it contained no Khorn at all.

So I am more than familiar with all the aspects of their performance, and whilst I appreciate you have some domestic considerations in use, a Cornwall and bookcase aren't going to maximise their performance by any means.

 

[Sam Cogley]

As an instrument that is fair to everyone, the blind test also rankles people who don't like a rigged test.

I like having as much information as possible if I am going to trade, purchase, or sell gear.

Can anyone tell me which amp will sound better in this listening test?

Are the K-horns going to start multiplying like the tables?

 

[sheltie dave]

Brett, this thread isn't really about maximizing the Khorns performance, that will have to wait on the house addition for the best corners. :thmbsp:

Rather, we are discussing how the Lane end tables seem to be replicating, and what purpose a blind test may serve. :yes:

It is interesting to note a blind test can remove built in biases. Would anyone contest that statement?

 

[F1nut]

So, has anyone read any of the books I mentioned? Particularly 'Perceptual Audio Evaluation-Theory, Method and Application' by Dr. Søren Bech (Senior Specialist for Perception at Bang & Olufsen) and Dr. Nick Zacharov (Principal Scientist of audio quality for the Nokia Corporation).

You may find it interesting that in the book descriptive type tests for audio are extensively discussed, while ABX and other blind type tests are barely mentioned.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Looks interesting, but at $130 a copy I think I'll pass...
http://www.powells.com/s?header=Sea...dio+Evaluation-Theory,+Method+and+Application

 

[JohnVF]

It is interesting to note a blind test can remove built in biases. Would anyone contest that statement?

I would agree that it could, but I disagree with the notion that we are all so easily swayed by them. I have been surprised a number of times in this hobby by the sound of something that I didn't think would sound so good. I've also put two components up against each other and clearly favored the one I didn't expect to. The whole time...I was looking right at them. Some people in this hobby seem literally obsessed with the price or make of the gear they listen to, but not all of us are. I'll give anything a chance and I sincerely and honestly believe that seeing or not seeing would have absolutely no effect on what I prefer over the long run.

 

[JonL]

I would agree that it could, but I disagree with the notion that we are all so easily swayed by them. I have been surprised a number of times in this hobby by the sound of something that I didn't think would sound so good. I've also put two components up against each other and clearly favored the one I didn't expect to. The whole time...I was looking right at them. Some people in this hobby seem literally obsessed with the price or make of the gear they listen to, but not all of us are. I'll give anything a chance and I sincerely and honestly believe that seeing or not seeing would have absolutely no effect on what I prefer over the long run.

I think the biases are more insidious and the potential benefits of blind tests become greater as the sonic difference between the gear under comparison becomes smaller.

 

[sheltie dave]

John, I would expect blind tests to offer a data point, or in profound extremis, to allow the listener to open his mind to a new paradigm.

It is interesting to see some of those who are diametrically opposed to anything but listening when discussing measuring/testing of cables, do the complete flip-flop and are diametrically opposed to listening as a valuable tool when discussing blind tests. :scratch2:

 

[Mr. Lin]

John, I would expect blind tests to offer a data point, or in profound extremis, to allow the listener to open his mind to a new paradigm.

It is interesting to see some of those who are diametrically opposed to anything but listening when discussing measuring/testing of cables, do the complete flip-flop and are diametrically opposed to listening as a valuable tool when discussing blind tests. :scratch2:

You're misunderstanding the argument if that's what you think. Critical listening for differences between components is not the same thing as listening for differences during double blind testing.

 

[willysan]

I authored the OP but I haven't contributed too much.
Having studied electronics, and having learned a bit about perception, I favor double blinds tests from the point of view of a designer.
We already know that pure electronic measurements aren't comprehensive enough and listening tests are crucial. However, senses are easily deceived and opinions could be biased by resorting to impressive features. Who can deny a glowing tube or a bouncy vu-meter are gorgeous. By the same token, golden connectors look better than chrome-like ones, even if the silver-colored connector were made out a fantastic alloy.
All in all, a manufacturer needs a design that appeals many people or banruptcy is around the corner.
Having said that, I'm most in favor of personal tests that suit the owner's expectations. This is a singular event, not devoted to mass production and I encourage everyone to find his/hers best set. This is why I love experimenting with DIY designs

 

[sheltie dave]

You're misunderstanding the argument if that's what you think. Critical listening for differences between components is not the same thing as listening for differences during double blind testing.

For me, listening is listening. The gear either sounds good together, or it is lacking. Different flavors may sound better, or best, but it is an enjoyable time. A blind listening session is quite enjoyable, because there isn't too much for the frontal lobe to get involved in that will preferentially preclude me from getting into the music.

If you can't "critically" listen to music because you can't see everything involved in the process, it seems to me that you are unwilling to separate what you hear from what you (can't) see. And that falls right into the wheelhouse of the derision and scorn argument heaped on audiophiles by those who brand folks as golden ears.

 

[whoaru99]

You're misunderstanding the argument if that's what you think. Critical listening for differences between components is not the same thing as listening for differences during double blind testing.

I'm not clear on the point. IMO, listening for a difference is listening for a difference regardless of the evaluation method.

Can you clarify?

 

[Mr. Lin]

If this is where you guys are still at this far into the debate, and having debated this countless times in TOL for a while now, you should know exactly what I mean. We disagree about some fundamental things, quite strongly, and the more we talk about it, the more strongly we disagree (at least that's how I feel), and frankly, I'm bored of it. This is one of those debates that goes around and around, and it seems some arguments are going in one ear and out the other for some involved in the discussion.

If you feel double blind testing is a necessary component of your audio hobby, then have at it. I don't have anything to prove to anyone, and I don't need to prove anything to enjoy what I hear.