Quote:
If you take that free thinking attitude and combine it with a bit of critical listening skills, you should be able to sit down and listen to a couple of components and decide which one you think is better. Biases can be put aside. This is what I've been saying! Many of the proponents of ABX believe that we cannot think for ourselves, and that putting aside bias in a sighted test is impossible. If I listen to two components that sound very similar and both sound good, but one costs twice as much, give me the cheap one.
I suppose this thread is so much back and forth on topic that I can reflect some more on what DaveBSC is noting above, which I largely agree on. To the OP, your question has been answered earlier in several ways and you're not going to get a better answer at this point. It's just us stragglers who refuse to go home after the bar closed that are left here discussing now
The problem with relying on critical listening skills is that it takes time to develop them as extensive experience with many different systems is required. Time is no guarantee either, as having someone else with experience help you on the way can be an invaluable guide to learning (just as in any learning situation) and thus both extending (if you don't have any guidance, or the wrong type of guidance) or shortening the time frame. This means that there is no way around the fact that many who comment on experiences fall into the categories of 'exaggerating', 'overconfident', 'imagining things', 'not enough confidence', or 'focusing on other aspects' which are governed by different agendas than the more neutral experienced listeners. Being exposed to widely different equipment over extended time is still mandatory for all who truly wish to learn not only how to become a critical listener, but also which quirks that each such listener (including yourself) appears to favor and thus is influenced by.
On top of this, we all hear and inherently prefer different sound signatures based on these experiences (and quite plausibly the order in which we are exposed to them). This may be affected by the music we typically appreciate (less of a factor for myself, but a big deal for some), how we listen to music (depending on if it particular sounds, instruments, rhythms, voices, etc, that makes the music tick for us), how loudly we prefer to listen to music (maybe in particular relevant for speakers, but certainly something that is mentioned for some headphones as well), and so on... This further implies that even among the more neutral experienced listeners, differences exist.
This creates a situation which makes many people uncomfortable, due to the wide range of opinions between people of less experience (including in terms of guiding others to find their preferences) and those with considerable experience (among which there is still a great range of different opinions). To get guidance, those who are starting to become interested have an absolute jungle of opinions to sift through. I'm thus not the least surprised that many people look to metrics as a way to find The One Answer. I'm all for each person finding their own way to improve (i.e. become more aware of their own subjective) preferences, including using metrics to test listening experiences. What I never get - but they are free to do and think as they wish - is those that seem to hold onto metrics as the holy grail. Among the people I have met who share this 'metrics-FTW' belief system, I have found it absolutely striking how much some of them (not all) strive to justify these metrics in whatever they are listening to. To me, they are as bad as those who believe any multi-syllable phrases of a fancy reviewer in a fancy high-end magazine. I've had many customers (no, I'm not MOT anymore - this is several years ago and I do completely different things for a living nowadays) I didn't have the nerve to tell them that they weren't always listening to what they so feverishly stating that they heard based on the metrics they knew of.
Thus - in my experience - metrics can as easily be abused as qualitative opinions when it comes to affecting the perceived (or imagined) sound from equipment that is being tested. To each, her own. I believe that our (personal) main objective when considering various equipment should be to question our own assumptions, regardless which belief system we hold onto. The challenge should be in finding the balance between doubting our own abilities and believing in them enough to actually advance our experiences in terms of listening and appreciating music. I personally believe that holding onto my wallet is a good sanity check when doing this, but I am also quite happy to spend money when I do find something (whatever!) that actually makes a significant positive impact on my preferred music experience. In between, I'd rather hold onto it and wait until something does come out that makes a bigger impression than pick up any little new piece of equipment that comes out.
I've extensively used various setups and alternatives for blind reviews, and quite honestly - they were more for others to take part in as I learnt very little new in them myself. Granted, I don't care what brand or cash lies between anything and happily focus only on what makes a sonic impact that I find favorable. Once approaching equipment in this fashion and you truly can disconnect yourself from the bling appeal, every test implicitly becomes a blind test. I don't know if it's the 'wallet factor' that keeps me from easily resisting attractive re-packaging of what is otherwise the same or worse sounding stuff. It could just as well be the 'stick-it-to-the-manitis' that Jack Black suffered from in School of Rock, but yeah... I definitely agree with you, Dave - as soon as someone tries to force me into an ABX test, I immediately want to punch them in the face and leave the room. If they ask me nicely if I would be interested, I'd more than happily participate. I guess I'm a bit over-sensitive to having someone else's presumptions shoved down my throat from the years of questioning my own assumptions...
Edit: Spelling.
