Blind tests

[whoaru99]

I always thought part of resolution to any issue is to clariify what the other person is saying if there is a question/doubt.

There we go again with the extremism...nobody said it was necessary, and nobody said you have to do it to enjoy the hobby, and nobody said you have to prove anything. It's merely a tool that might be useful to separate the wheat from the chaff for those so inclined to be interested in that sort of thing. Goes right back to sheltie dave's comment.

 

[RayW]

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?

Same here. I don't understand the difference in listening.

 

[cwall99]

My perspective is that you're just trying to minimize the opportunity for irrelevant factors to add noise to the system (e.g. I love B&W speakers, so if I listen to a pair of B&Ws next to a pair of PSBs, KEFs, or Monitor Audios, I might be pre-disposed to selecting the B&Ws as the best sounding speakers just because I like the brand).

So, if it's at all possible, by hiding the speakers from me (behind a screen that's as optically opaque and sonically transparent as possible), I don't know which speakers are playing, and my brand awareness is neutralized.

By the same token, if I were comparing speaker cables, I wouldn't know which ones were being used, and I'd be forced to decide for myself which sounds better.

That's the point, in my book, of ABX testing.

 

[JonL]

My perspective is that you're just trying to minimize the opportunity for irrelevant factors to add noise to the system (e.g. I love B&W speakers, so if I listen to a pair of B&Ws next to a pair of PSBs, KEFs, or Monitor Audios, I might be pre-disposed to selecting the B&Ws as the best sounding speakers just because I like the brand).

So, if it's at all possible, by hiding the speakers from me (behind a screen that's as optically opaque and sonically transparent as possible), I don't know which speakers are playing, and my brand awareness is neutralized.

By the same token, if I were comparing speaker cables, I wouldn't know which ones were being used, and I'd be forced to decide for myself which sounds better.

That's the point, in my book, of ABX testing.

:yes:
Yup. It seems just that simple to me as well. Listen as long as you like, have someone else change the items under evaluation, listen some more. It may not be pure "ABX" testing the way it is done in large scale trials, but it would seem to be a good way to be true to one's own senses and not to one's own conscious or unconscious biases. I cannot fathom why anyone would think it's a bad approach.

 

[RayW]

Same here. Simple blind testing seems so easy that I don't understand all the objections.

On a technical note, that is not ABX nor double blind. That is simple blind testing. Double blind means that you are not aware of the DUT and the person doing the switching is not aware, they are just switching. In ABX you listen to A, listen to B, and then listen to X which can randomly be A or B. If you can reliably pick whether X is A or B then there is a discernable difference.

My apologies if if sounds like I'm being too simplistic, I just wanted to make sure anyone reading this knows the differences.