I am having problems with posting today and again can't get some posts to quote. Anyway in response to Mischa
I would really appreciate it if you have an open mind, most of these questions you can probably answer yourself if you just thought about them. Or went back and read my previous answers.
I have spent a lot of time on this subject and I have come to a conclusion about blind tests, which is they are valid and produce interesting, unexpected and sadly for many unwelcome results. That does not make me closed minded. I am here to join a discussion about blind testing, not to answer my own questions and please don't be so sure you have all the answers in your previous posts.
“How come people can remember the 'differences' when the test is done sighted?”
Because if I place a red and black dot on piece of paper beside each other. You can actually see them at the same time. You do have to switch between complex pictures but if you know where to look and they’re beside each other, then you can see them both at same time. You definitely can see 2 letters that are on your keyboard that are beside each other at same time for example without having to rely on your memory.
I am talking about audio memory. I am sure that blind testing shows us that sight (so style and image) and knowledge of hifi (brand names, cost etc) have an affect on perceived sound quality.
“How come we can remember differences such as the difference between a radio, your car stereo and your own hifi?”
So what you’re implying is that you can either remember something or you can’t remember anything right? Cause it’s not possible for human beings to have varying memory? It’s not really possible for some tasks to be harder to remember than other tasks? You can either remember everything in this world or not?
Strawman argument. Again I am only talking in refernece to our ability to remember differences in sound reproduced on hifi.
“How come we remember voices over the phone?”
I don’t even understand what you’re trying to imply here, I truly hope that you’re not implying that because we can remember easy tasks then we should be able to remember extremely difficult tasks as well? Your not trying to imply that just because you can remember one voice, then you are able to remember entire complex sounds of anything?
I was giving an example of how we can remember differences in sound, such as the human voice, when there really is a difference. I could also have used car engines as an example. I used to live near a Porsche dealer back in the 1980s. So many of them went past the house I could tell you if it was a 924, 944, 911 or 928 just from the sound of the engine. Indeed in our normal day to day lives we have a memory bank of thousands of sounds. Language depends on a memory for sound. We can, (sometimes with a bit of practice) remember sounds. So why do we supposedly lose the ability to remember sounds when it comes to blind testing hifi?
“Indeed how are we able to audition hifi and tell any differences at all if it was not for memory?”
So memory is either perfect or not? If you’re able to accomplish a task, then you should be able to accomplish any task in the world? Mind if I ask how old are you?
Again, why are we able to remember thousands of different sounds and not remember the sound of one hifi compared to another in a blind test? I am mid 40s, why?
“Lets say it is memory, then ABX is not a fail for showing that up, it is a success. It has discovered we have a short term memory loss when it comes to sound quality differences. We should not dismiss that as a fail, we should then fit that into what we know about hearing and sound quality.”
Exactly that’s my point you don’t know if the test failed because it’s a memory problem, or because the test was too difficult for the person to distinguish between 2 audio files or that person has hearing loss. You have no idea why the person failed. Because people who conduct these tests aren’t interested in why people fail and are only interested in the result when people pass. That is why those abx tests tell you nothing useful when they fail.
In reverse order, enough tests have been done by enough people to be able to say hearing loss is not an issue. It would be remarkable if it turned out that every single audiophile and other who has taken part in a blind test suffers from hearing loss. I think that the tests do show that not just audio files, but other parts of the hifi chain are not audibly different. That is shown by the tests that are passed, such as with some audio files and speakers. Indeed that is one of the reasons why I do not think that we have a memory problem for sound quality, if so why are some blind tests passed?
"Lets say it is not memory, then again ABX is a success as it shows there is a point where differences get so small that they are now in reality inaudible. So any differences we hear when sighted are down to other senses."
Yes It’s a useful test, but no one is arguing against that. We all know that it has it’s uses.
"With that knowledge you can then make buying decisions based on what is really audible and what is not. I for one will chose to buy cheap cables and not worry about my DAC or amp and concentrate on my headphones. Others will do it differently."
This thread has nothing to do with whether you can hear a differane or not and whether you should be buying expensive cables or not. Please direct your opinions in this matter else where. They are cloudy your judgment (bias doesn't belong here).