Audiophile objections to blind testing - an attempt from a layman

[eq1849]

Unfortunately, no less so than your original assertion.

Would you entertain that a given set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when TAKING A TEST for format differentiation purposes and that a possibly different set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when casually LISTENING TO MUSIC for enjoyment purposes?

 

[BS5711]

Would you entertain that a given set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when TAKING A TEST for format differentiation purposes and that a possibly different set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when casually LISTENING TO MUSIC for enjoyment purposes?

I would entertain that biases, expectations and other psychological factors that can and do impact listening perceptions are involved regardless of whether you are doing a short term A/B test or a longer term listening experience.

 

[eq1849]

I would entertain that biases, expectations and other psychological factors that can and do impact listening perceptions are involved regardless of whether you are doing a short term A/B test or a longer term listening experience.

You didn’t answer the question.

 

[BS5711]

You didn’t answer the question.

That was because I don’t have any interest in having further conversation about it.

You seem to have the standard audiophile mindset of having an unproven reason to explain perceiving audible differences between music files when the science that developed those music files indicates there should be no audible difference.

I am never going to change that mindset and you will never change mine so we would be just wasting time talking about it.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Well that was convincing…

What do you want me to say? The characterization you’re applying to the “sound” of 16 vs 24 bit is one that could only come from *fundamentally* not understanding how digital sound reproduction works. It’s really that simple.

 

[eq1849]

That was because I don’t have any interest in having further conversation about it.

You seem to have the standard audiophile mindset of having an unproven reason to explain perceiving audible differences between music files when the science that developed those music files indicates there should be no audible difference.

I am never going to change that mindset and you will never change mine so we would be just wasting time talking about it.

What do you want me to say? The characterization you’re applying to the “sound” of 16 vs 24 bit is one that could only come from *fundamentally* not understanding how digital sound reproduction works. It’s really that simple.

The more bits, the more accurate the signal as the voltage is simply measured in smaller gradients.

 

[colonelkernel8]

The more bits, the more accurate the signal as the voltage is simply measured in smaller gradients.

I assure you that’s not how it works.

 

[gregorio]

Well that was convincing…

So, he presented an assertion without supporting reliable evidence but that does broadly align with the science/facts. You present assertions without supporting reliable evidence that does not align with the science facts and you don’t find the former convincing but you do find the latter convincing?!

Would you entertain that a given set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when TAKING A TEST for format differentiation purposes and that a possibly different set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when casually LISTENING TO MUSIC for enjoyment purposes?

Yes, if you provide reliable evidence that there is a “different set of cognitive functions engaged”. However, even if that were the case, it would NOT support your claim, you would have to provide reliable evidence that this (supposed) different set of cognitive functions “when casually listening to music” actually results in higher sensitivity and more accurate and reliable results compared to taking a controlled test. You might possibly manage the first but the second will be a huge problem for you because we already have a significant body of reliable evidence that demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion! Which of course is exactly why DBT/ABX is the gold standard of listening tests. If there were reliable evidence that “casually listening to music” was more accurate or reliable for discerning differences then that is exactly what science would do. Simple logic and common sense dictates that it would be stupid to go through all the bother and cost of designing and running an DBT/ABX test if “casually listening to music” provided more accurate and reliable results!

You’re effectively claiming that millions of highly educated scientists have got it wrong for more than a century but that you and some other audiophiles with no education, except that provided by audiophile marketing, have got it right. And, your nonsense claim is somehow “convincing” even though you have no reliable supporting evidence?

The more bits, the more accurate the signal as the voltage is simply measured in smaller gradients.

No, the more bits the more accurate the data but NOT the more accurate the signal (output signal). The accuracy of the (output) signal is effectively perfectly accurate, regardless of the number of bits, what changes with bit depth is dynamic range (the noise floor), not signal accuracy. If this were not the case, then SACD (which is just one bit) would result in an horrifically inaccurate signal compared to 16bit, not to mention that Shannon’s proven theory of communication would have to be wrong and therefore there is no digital/computer/information age. You’re not really claiming that are you? If you are, then that’s just plain nuts, considering you’re using a computer and the Information Age to write and post your responses, and if you’re not claiming that, then your understanding of digital must be wrong!

G

 

[BS5711]

The more bits, the more accurate the signal as the voltage is simply measured in smaller gradients.

Yeah … nah.

 

[2leftears]

I think the act of taking a blind test itself may alter the senses and confuse.

Doing a blind test may alter the perception indeed, which is precisely what it is supposed to do; eliminate external factors present in a sighted test that may affect our perception. The idea that it changes the actual senses is unproven; it implies that our perception actually feeds back into the physics/biology of our senses; this would be much harder to test.

I understand your reasoning, and it is why audiophiles will likely stick to their choices and tweaks even if in a blind test the difference they think they can hear disappears: they like their perception 'the way it was'.

I have no problem with this, but a sighted test is no basis for spreading as fact the idea that there is actually an audible difference in the sound. That is no different from being able to consistently tell apart a Pepsi Coke from a Coca Cola if every time you look at the label first, and then claim they have different flavour profiles because you can taste a difference. Maybe they have, and maybe you can, but such a sighted test is meaningless as 'proof'.

I think the best is Long Term sighted listening.

For your preferred perception, possibly. As a test to ascertain if audible differences actually exist, absolutely not.

In the long term, for me, 16 is flatter and less clear. 24 has more weight and clarity.

That type of terminology is never clear to me, but my gut feel would be that you are not listening at properly level-matched volume, because I can interpret that terminology to be similar to the difference I experience when I play the exact same 16 bit audio file at two even slightly different volumes.

16 bit with compression sounds better than dynamic 16 bit to me, possibly because it utilizes the more resolute bits.

You lost me with that one I'm afraid; 'utilizes the more resolute bits'... ??

Without clarification of what you mean by that, I can't tell if you actually know how digital audio works.

 

[eq1849]

Yeah … nah.

In the top bit, the top 6dB of the signal, there are approximately..

16bit 32,000 steps
24bit 8,400,000 steps

Doing a blind test may alter the perception indeed, which is precisely what it is supposed to do; eliminate external factors present in a sighted test that may affect our perception. The idea that it changes the actual senses is unproven; it implies that our perception actually feeds back into the physics/biology of our senses; this would be much harder to test.

I understand your reasoning, and it is why audiophiles will likely stick to their choices and tweaks even if in a blind test the difference they think they can hear disappears: they like their perception 'the way it was'.

I have no problem with this, but a sighted test is no basis for spreading as fact the idea that there is actually an audible difference in the sound. That is no different from being able to consistently tell apart a Pepsi Coke from a Coca Cola if every time you look at the label first, and then claim they have different flavour profiles because you can taste a difference. Maybe they have, and maybe you can, but such a sighted test is meaningless as 'proof'.


For your preferred perception, possibly. As a test to ascertain if audible differences actually exist, absolutely not.


That type of terminology is never clear to me, but my gut feel would be that you are not listening at properly level-matched volume, because I can interpret that terminology to be similar to the difference I experience when I play the exact same 16 bit audio file at two even slightly different volumes.


You lost me with that one I'm afraid; 'utilizes the more resolute bits'... ??

Without clarification of what you mean by that, I can't tell if you actually know how digital audio works.

I for example failed a blind taste test between extremely similar red wines, where in isolation and casual drinking I can taste subtle differences, but back and forth I fail to differentiate. Same with beer. Same with 2 dark sodas.

After smelling several colognes I notice I have a hard time differentiating between them, then I cannot smell anything at all, as I go “nose blind”.

People claim to hear benefits in high resolution but in blind tests they fail to differentiate.

what you think all of this indicates?

 

[eq1849]

So, he presented an assertion without supporting reliable evidence but that does broadly align with the science/facts. You present assertions without supporting reliable evidence that does not align with the science facts and you don’t find the former convincing but you do find the latter convincing?!

Yes, if you provide reliable evidence that there is a “different set of cognitive functions engaged”. However, even if that were the case, it would NOT support your claim, you would have to provide reliable evidence that this (supposed) different set of cognitive functions “when casually listening to music” actually results in higher sensitivity and more accurate and reliable results compared to taking a controlled test. You might possibly manage the first but the second will be a huge problem for you because we already have a significant body of reliable evidence that demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion! Which of course is exactly why DBT/ABX is the gold standard of listening tests. If there were reliable evidence that “casually listening to music” was more accurate or reliable for discerning differences then that is exactly what science would do. Simple logic and common sense dictates that it would be stupid to go through all the bother and cost of designing and running an DBT/ABX test if “casually listening to music” provided more accurate and reliable results!

You’re effectively claiming that millions of highly educated scientists have got it wrong for more than a century but that you and some other audiophiles with no education, except that provided by audiophile marketing, have got it right. And, your nonsense claim is somehow “convincing” even though you have no reliable supporting evidence?

No, the more bits the more accurate the data but NOT the more accurate the signal (output signal). The accuracy of the (output) signal is effectively perfectly accurate, regardless of the number of bits, what changes with bit depth is dynamic range (the noise floor), not signal accuracy. If this were not the case, then SACD (which is just one bit) would result in an horrifically inaccurate signal compared to 16bit, not to mention that Shannon’s proven theory of communication would have to be wrong and therefore there is no digital/computer/information age. You’re not really claiming that are you? If you are, then that’s just plain nuts, considering you’re using a computer and the Information Age to write and post your responses, and if you’re not claiming that, then your understanding of digital must be wrong!

G

We have been over this countless times, the DA converter output is a function of finite binary code, is it not?

I believe SACD dsd64 is 1 bit with 2.8 million samples, where the signal simply goes up or down a step between samples, unlike PCM where the bit depth stores unique sets of values that pertain to specific voltage, and SACD in 5.6, 11.2 megahertz, or PCM with higher bit depth and sample rate will give smaller and smaller measurements.

Doing a blind test may alter the perception indeed, which is precisely what it is supposed to do; eliminate external factors present in a sighted test that may affect our perception. The idea that it changes the actual senses is unproven; it implies that our perception actually feeds back into the physics/biology of our senses; this would be much harder to test.

I understand your reasoning, and it is why audiophiles will likely stick to their choices and tweaks even if in a blind test the difference they think they can hear disappears: they like their perception 'the way it was'.

I have no problem with this, but a sighted test is no basis for spreading as fact the idea that there is actually an audible difference in the sound. That is no different from being able to consistently tell apart a Pepsi Coke from a Coca Cola if every time you look at the label first, and then claim they have different flavour profiles because you can taste a difference. Maybe they have, and maybe you can, but such a sighted test is meaningless as 'proof'.


For your preferred perception, possibly. As a test to ascertain if audible differences actually exist, absolutely not.


That type of terminology is never clear to me, but my gut feel would be that you are not listening at properly level-matched volume, because I can interpret that terminology to be similar to the difference I experience when I play the exact same 16 bit audio file at two even slightly different volumes.


You lost me with that one I'm afraid; 'utilizes the more resolute bits'... ??

Without clarification of what you mean by that, I can't tell if you actually know how digital audio works.

in my case, I have passed three blind level matched tests with significance. The trick for me was to do a due diligence task while taking the test(to take my mind off the test itself), listen for 10-15 minutes until I noticed the 24 bit “effect”, as described, above, if the effect never appeared it was 16 bit, only take 1 test a day, simply listen to X. But the key I think here is you have to know what the signature is of 24 but over 16, then listen for the effect. If you are going in with negative bias towards 24 bit, then I am not surprised you fail.

 

[2leftears]

I for example failed a blind taste test between extremely similar red wines, where in isolation and casual drinking I can taste subtle differences, but back and forth I fail to differentiate. Same with beer. Same with 2 dark sodas.

After smelling several colognes I notice I have a hard time differentiating between them, then I cannot smell anything at all, as I go “nose blind”.

Strong alcoholic drinks and perfumes of course dull the senses. The equivalent would be saying that after listening to very loud music you struggle to hear subtle differences in sound

People claim to hear benefits in high resolution but in blind tests they fail to differentiate.

what you think all of this indicates?

What it indicates is possible perception bias/confirmation. It certainly does not prove there actually is an audible difference.

in my case, I have passed three blind level matched tests with significance. The trick for me was to do a due diligence task while taking the test(to take my mind off the test itself), listen for 10-15 minutes until I noticed the 24 bit “effect”, as described, above, if the effect never appeared it was 16 bit, only take 1 test a day, simply listen to X. But the key I think here is you have to know what the signature is of 24 but over 16, then listen for the effect. If you are going in with negative bias towards 24 bit, then I am not surprised you fail.

I've never done any such test because I know I don't have the facilities to set it up properly.

Many claim they have done blind level-matched tests, but unless it is an independently conducted and verified test it has no significance, and isn't going to make me dismiss the results of countless scientific tests which indicate the opposite.

I have no negative bias to 24 bit; I wish it would make music sound better, why wouldn't I?

 

[eq1849]

Strong alcoholic drinks and perfumes of course dull the senses. The equivalent would be saying that after listening to very loud music you struggle to hear subtle differences in sound

The brain does seem to have the ability to be adaptive in the senses of scent, hearing and taste, IMO.

What it indicates is possible perception bias/confirmation. It certainly does not prove there actually is an audible difference.

would you make the claim as valid that 2 red wines taste the same or two fragrances smell the same since you failed a blind test?

I've never done any such test because I know I don't have the facilities to set it up properly.

Many claim they have done blind level-matched tests, but unless it is an independently conducted and verified test it has no significance, and isn't going to make me dismiss the results of countless scientific tests which indicate the opposite.

Do you not first have to establish blind listening tests as effective for the means of what you are testing, digital audio formats, etc. and what thresholds are?

 

[eq1849]

Yes, if you provide reliable evidence that there is a “different set of cognitive functions engaged”. However, even if that were the case, it would NOT support your claim, you would have to provide reliable evidence that this (supposed) different set of cognitive functions “when casually listening to music” actually results in higher sensitivity and more accurate and reliable results compared to taking a controlled test. You might possibly manage the first but the second will be a huge problem for you because we already have a significant body of reliable evidence that demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion! Which of course is exactly why DBT/ABX is the gold standard of listening tests. If there were reliable evidence that “casually listening to music” was more accurate or reliable for discerning differences then that is exactly what science would do. Simple logic and common sense dictates that it would be stupid to go through all the bother and cost of designing and running an DBT/ABX test if “casually listening to music” provided more accurate and reliable results!

Can you provide peer reviewed research showing that the same set of cognitive functions are deployed when taking blind listening tests versus casually listening to music?