[watchnerd]

Not new, but I recently re-read a great post by Dr. Sean Olive of Harman Labs:
 
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
 
Some standout quotes:
 
"

While double-blind protocols are standard practice in all fields of science - including consumer testing of food and wine - the audio industry remains stuck in the dark ages in this regard."
 

"In summary, the sighted and blind loudspeaker listening tests in this study produced significantly different sound quality ratings. The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material. In other words, if you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. It’s time the audio industry grow up and acknowledge this fact, if it wants to retain the trust and respect of consumers"

 

[castleofargh]

oh come on...  it's one of those old issues from the past. nobody at the end of 2016 would ever consider minimizing the importance of blind testing in audio.
 
TOS
Quote:

Discussion of blind testing is only allowed in the Sound Science forum.

 

[watchnerd]

 

 
BWHAHAHAHA

 

[zareliman]

No matter how much you read and analyze stuff, your eyes remain deaf and should be treated like so when referring to audio experience.

 

[spruce music]

  No matter how much you read and analyze stuff, your eyes remain deaf and should be treated like so when referring to audio experience.

So your audio philosophy is head in the sand??

 

[watchnerd]

  No matter how much you read and analyze stuff, your eyes remain deaf and should be treated like so when referring to audio experience.

 
I can't even parse what you mean by this. Are you saying our eyes do or do not affect our audio perception?

 

[zareliman]

   
I can't even parse what you mean by this. Are you saying our eyes do or do not affect our audio perception?

They affect it but they shouldn't.

 

[castleofargh]

sight is one of the problems, the brain always favors information from the eyes over other senses. my leg itches, I'll look at it, if I see a spider I'll go mad for no reason(hermagerdddd, sperder!!!!!), but if I see nothing I'll just scratch the area and move on. if I hear a roar but see nothing, I'll look for the origin of the sound with my eyes. now if I see a tiger and hear no sound, I won't second guess what I saw and hurry toward a place with a solid door. ^_^
the Mcgurk effect is also a consequence of the same brain priorities clearly showing how sound is not necessarily heard as it is if the eyes have "something to say".
and it's all like that, the brain just trusts and uses the eyes more. I don't mind people thinking that because they'll get fooled anyway, we should embrace the biases as part of the experience instead of trying to remove them. it's miles away from getting an objective truth, but it's a legitimate choice to embrace our own subjective truth. now what's absolutely stupid are the reviewers who like to tell us they have enough experience to put the look and other preconceptions aside. those are really ignorant people and a plague for the hobby.

 

[zareliman]

 
So your audio philosophy is head in the sand??

My best audio listening moments are in a pitch black room with minimal noise (usually headphones for less noise).
Not claiming it's THE best setting, just the one I prefer.

 

[TheoS53]

 
So your audio philosophy is head in the sand??

I think what he meant is that our eyes have no way of processing sound (i.e they are deaf), and should be treated as such by taking them out of the equation when comparing sound products

 

[icebear]

  Not new, but I recently re-read a great post by Dr. Sean Olive of Harman Labs:
 
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
 
Some standout quotes:
 
"

While double-blind protocols are standard practice in all fields of science - including consumer testing of food and wine - the audio industry remains stuck in the dark ages in this regard."
 

"In summary, the sighted and blind loudspeaker listening tests in this study produced significantly different sound quality ratings. The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material. In other words, if you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. It’s time the audio industry grow up and acknowledge this fact, if it wants to retain the trust and respect of consumers"

 
LOL

 
How much is trust and respect worth at the bottom line?
They are in the business to sell products and many of them, this isn't about trust, has never been, will never be...

Don't tell me anyone is surprised.

 

[watchnerd]

   
LOL

 
How much is trust and respect worth at the bottom line?
They are in the business to sell products and many of them, this isn't about trust, has never been, will never be...

Don't tell me anyone is surprised.

 
Acquiring new customers is hard and expensive.  It's much more cost efficient to keep selling new, "better" stuff to your existing fan base (see Apple).
 
If "trust" means "brand loyalty" then that brand equity is worth a lot.

 

[icebear]

   
Acquiring new customers is hard and expensive.  It's much more cost efficient to keep selling new, "better" stuff to your existing fan base (see Apple).
 
If "trust" means "brand loyalty" then that brand equity is worth a lot.

I agree with your last sentence, however the first part is exactly the crucial point

.
 
There is no objective ruling on what is "better" and marketing is doing everything to sell the same music content as "better" once again in a new format, claiming all things are better now until the next generation of "better" comes along ... and it will be coming, that is for sure. Existing recordings have been produced, the rights have been sorted out (in most cases I guess) and repacking and reselling the same content all over again guarantees the best profit margin with the least amount of effort.

 

[Me x3]

What about "The Dishonesty of Blind Listening Tests"?

 

[watchnerd]

  What about "The Dishonesty of Blind Listening Tests"?

 
Catchy title.
 
Where's your data?