mike1127
Member of the Trade: Brilliant Zen Audio
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2005
- Posts
- 1,114
- Likes
- 25
I "believe" (so to speak---I'm not a "true believer") in small subjective differences between components and cables, the kind that science says shouldn't exist. Yet I'm somewhat embarrassed by the rarity of blind listening among audiophiles like me. If anyone out there is doing and passing blind tests of, say, cables, please let me know.
If you look at wine tasting, for example, it is common that testers drink a wine in an unmarked glass. We know that the placebo effect is real. We know that the preconception you bring to something will affect how you experience it. Why, then, do audiophiles not insist on doing most evaluative listening blind? (Again, if there are some who do, please let me know.)
One major reason, of course, is the difficulty. It's a lot harder than pouring wine into an unmarked glass.
Also, some of us who've done blind tests (I count myself here) feel confused during the test, like we "lost our way." I had a friend help me with a few cable tests, and I got the first few trials correct, but started to feel uncertain after that, and ended up doing no better than chance.
I had a thought about this recently, since upgrading to a much better source (added the Flat Cap to my Naim CD5x) and a much better headphone amplifier (the DNA Sonett).
I am finding myself much more involved with the music... really hearing and feeling at a gut level the nuances of the playing.
I noticed something interesting when, after a listening session, I took a drive and listened to some of the same music on my car stereo.
I was much more involved with it.
Having heard in my home system the exciting emotions, the expert nuances of playing, and so forth, I brought those experiences through my imagination to the low-resolution playback. If had never heard the high-resolution version, I wouldn't have been able to bring that much of a gut response to the low-resolution version.
Let me say more about getting "involved" with music. I mean we are not passive listeners, but respond to music with activity. That activity could include small body movements (even movements too small to observe), visual and auditory imagination, emotions, and probably a lot of things we don't have English words for.
I think this creates a major problem in doing comparisons. (And by the way, I'm not arguing for the validity of sighted testing here---I speak of comparison under any conditions.) If I listen to device A, followed by device B, who knows what new levels of activity carry over from A to B?
I do think small differences are real, though, and they make a difference in the long-term. If device A really fires up my imagination, then I am going to start bringing some of that to every other listening experience. But if I replace A by some inferior device B, even if I don't notice at first, eventually I'll have less of a gut response.
I suspect that initial impressions are often accurate as well.
The problem with statistically controlled testing is that it involves neither "initial impressions" nor "long-term listening." (Although it could perhaps be designed to do so.) For a test that doesn't take a ridiculous length of time, you have to switch between devices fairly rapidly, allowing for "imagination contamination."
If you look at wine tasting, for example, it is common that testers drink a wine in an unmarked glass. We know that the placebo effect is real. We know that the preconception you bring to something will affect how you experience it. Why, then, do audiophiles not insist on doing most evaluative listening blind? (Again, if there are some who do, please let me know.)
One major reason, of course, is the difficulty. It's a lot harder than pouring wine into an unmarked glass.
Also, some of us who've done blind tests (I count myself here) feel confused during the test, like we "lost our way." I had a friend help me with a few cable tests, and I got the first few trials correct, but started to feel uncertain after that, and ended up doing no better than chance.
I had a thought about this recently, since upgrading to a much better source (added the Flat Cap to my Naim CD5x) and a much better headphone amplifier (the DNA Sonett).
I am finding myself much more involved with the music... really hearing and feeling at a gut level the nuances of the playing.
I noticed something interesting when, after a listening session, I took a drive and listened to some of the same music on my car stereo.
I was much more involved with it.
Having heard in my home system the exciting emotions, the expert nuances of playing, and so forth, I brought those experiences through my imagination to the low-resolution playback. If had never heard the high-resolution version, I wouldn't have been able to bring that much of a gut response to the low-resolution version.
Let me say more about getting "involved" with music. I mean we are not passive listeners, but respond to music with activity. That activity could include small body movements (even movements too small to observe), visual and auditory imagination, emotions, and probably a lot of things we don't have English words for.
I think this creates a major problem in doing comparisons. (And by the way, I'm not arguing for the validity of sighted testing here---I speak of comparison under any conditions.) If I listen to device A, followed by device B, who knows what new levels of activity carry over from A to B?
I do think small differences are real, though, and they make a difference in the long-term. If device A really fires up my imagination, then I am going to start bringing some of that to every other listening experience. But if I replace A by some inferior device B, even if I don't notice at first, eventually I'll have less of a gut response.
I suspect that initial impressions are often accurate as well.
The problem with statistically controlled testing is that it involves neither "initial impressions" nor "long-term listening." (Although it could perhaps be designed to do so.) For a test that doesn't take a ridiculous length of time, you have to switch between devices fairly rapidly, allowing for "imagination contamination."