[xolp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif xolp: A DBT is invalid if it a: Sets out only to prove a point, not find the truth, b: hasn't tested the listening ability of the subjects beforehand, c: cannot demonstrate that a measured positive result can be obtained during the test with the subjects, d: doesn't measure the differences between the things being tested (and compare those measurements to, say, the measured hearing ability of the subjects), and e: Cannot eliminate all points of failure (which is related to a, b, c and d). That doesn't mean to say that there haven't been credible ABX DBT tests done though.

I agree completely Currawong. Proving that there are absolutely no audible differences is impossible given that there may be exceptional, hypergolden eared audiophiles lurking in a remote corner of the earth. Using instrumentation in place of ears, as mentioned by QQQ, is a whole other can of worms that i prefer not be add to this discussion.

As such, I think the double blind test is more useful on the personal level. After all the purpose of this site is to maximise our aural pleasures. Given a limited amount of cash, the DBT allows an individual to judge if he/she can perceive a difference between one tier and the next, and allocate funds accordingly between source, amp, phones/speakers and interconnects.

 

[mike1127]

This subject sometimes brings up the two extremes, which I think are not very thoughtful positions.

1. On one side, we have people who dismiss attempts to understand perception as though they were complaining or protesting the "unfair" test.
2. On the other side, we have people who say there is no need to do any blind testing because "it's all about enjoying the music."

I'm somewhere in-between. I think we need to seriously consider doing blind tests because there is a lot of money at stake. If I have a choice of two devices A (costing $5000) and B (costing $1000) I would like to know if they sound identical.

On the other hand, with only a little thought and personal observation, one can see how difficult it is to compare devices with subtle differences. (Note: by "subtle" I don't mean "unimportant": a subtle difference could be one that gets me much more involved with the music.) There are many, many reasons for this difficulty; but in this thread I'm focusing on the idea that music is a special sensory experience (different from food and wine) in that listening to music is an activity over time, and that we potentially bring all of ourselves to that activity: our cognitive, emotional, and spiritual selves.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This subject sometimes brings up the two extremes, which I think are not very thoughtful positions. On one side, we have people who dismiss attempts to understand perception as though they were complaining or protesting the "unfair" test. On the other side, we have people who say there is no need to do any blind testing because "it's all about enjoying the music." I'm somewhere in-between. I think we need to seriously consider doing blind tests because there is a lot of money at stake. If I have a choice of two devices A (costing $5000) and B (costing $1000) I would like to know if they sound identical. On the other hand, with only a little thought and personal observation, one can see how difficult it is to compare devices with subtle differences. (Note: by "subtle" I don't mean "unimportant": a subtle difference could be one that gets me much more involved with the music.) There are many, many reasons for this difficulty; but in this thread I'm focusing on the idea that music is a special sensory experience (different from food and wine) in that listening to music is an activity over time, and that we potentially bring all of ourselves to that activity: our cognitive, emotional, and spiritual selves.

The only person who can do a blind test that will help you is you. Have fun testing.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This subject sometimes brings up the two extremes, which I think are not very thoughtful positions. On one side, we have people who dismiss attempts to understand perception as though they were complaining or protesting the "unfair" test. On the other side, we have people who say there is no need to do any blind testing because "it's all about enjoying the music." I'm somewhere in-between. I think we need to seriously consider doing blind tests because there is a lot of money at stake. If I have a choice of two devices A (costing $5000) and B (costing $1000) I would like to know if they sound identical. On the other hand, with only a little thought and personal observation, one can see how difficult it is to compare devices with subtle differences. (Note: by "subtle" I don't mean "unimportant": a subtle difference could be one that gets me much more involved with the music.) There are many, many reasons for this difficulty; but in this thread I'm focusing on the idea that music is a special sensory experience (different from food and wine) in that listening to music is an activity over time, and that we potentially bring all of ourselves to that activity: our cognitive, emotional, and spiritual selves.

Good points.

Why would someone buy "equipment" simply on measurements and also on someone else's blind listening tests?
Seems to me that people should try equipment and set up their own DBT using their own ears.

We have awards, numbers for sales, for good and great music, a measurement, so why do people try music that has not been considered of the best?
If the masses determine what is good it must be, right? Just as Harry and John have determined through DBT that you can't hear the difference in equipment and cables.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif xolp: A DBT is invalid if it a: Sets out only to prove a point, not find the truth, b: hasn't tested the listening ability of the subjects beforehand, c: cannot demonstrate that a measured positive result can be obtained during the test with the subjects, d: doesn't measure the differences between the things being tested (and compare those measurements to, say, the measured hearing ability of the subjects), and e: Cannot eliminate all points of failure (which is related to a, b, c and d). That doesn't mean to say that there haven't been credible ABX DBT tests done though.

A) No, as long as the protocol is fair and the results reported fairly it does not matter what the motive is, if the data is faked or the protocol flawed that is a problem but many experiments are started by those who hypothesise what the answer will be in advance , sometimes they are surprised by the results (as I have been myself) but as long as it is done rigourously with a sensible protocol a prejuduce need not make the results flawed.

B) Arguable, if you have a big enough sample and chose a wide variety of listener types you need not do this, however many blind tests do choose to test listeners abilities such as Meyer and Moran who still found that all subjects regardless of lstening ability had the same random level of detection.

c) Sorry you are quite wrong on this one. Say I set up a test to blind test listeners ablities to detect the difference between 0.001% distortion and 0.0005% distortion. This is a massive difference between two stimuli one is twice the magnitude of the other or 6db greater yet I suggest that you would not be able to find anyone capable of detecting this difference. If no difference can be detected then saying you have to be able to detect a difference is wrong.

D) Mostly agreed, at least you should measure the differences if possible. But even if you cannot a long set of negative or positive blind tests can still tell you something quite important. If a $0.77c cable is indistinguisable from a $139 cable that they measure identically is pragmatically less important than the inability to discriminate between them. Actually you have already quantified one important difference between them namely $138.23

 

[ILikeMusic]

I'm not sure that the thread premise is even correct. Any 'difficulties' in blind testing methodology can be overcome with even a small amount of effort, unless of course you simply choose not to try.

.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure that the thread premise is even correct. There are no inherent 'difficulties' in blind testing that cannot be overcome, unless you choose to create them. .

Aside from the smarmy tone of your post, what's your proposal for overcoming the difficulty I explained?

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure that the thread premise is even correct. Any 'difficulties' in blind testing methodology can be overcome with even a small amount of effort, unless you choose not to. .

I think they do exist but you are in an alternate universe where every human being is exactly the same.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure that the thread premise is even correct. Any 'difficulties' in blind testing methodology can be overcome with even a small amount of effort, unless of course you simply choose not to try. .

Is this the fourth edit of your post? It keeps changing.

Your original statement was:
"I'm not sure that the thread premise is even correct. There in no 'difficulty' in blind testing, unless you choose to create one."

 

[olblueyez]

Quit while your behind Mike. Then we wont have to talk about you in front of your back!

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Aside from the smarmy tone of your post, what's your proposal for overcoming the difficulty I explained?

I apologize for the tone. But I'm not going to try to dissect 'imagination contamination' as it seems to me to be just another in an endless series of roadblocks thrown up to distract from the fact that a subject can't tell a difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez I think they do exist but you are in an alternate universe where every human being is exactly the same.

The limitations of human hearing are exactly the same in both our universes.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif The limitations of human hearing are exactly the same in both our universes.

Your right, its different for everyone. Like I said, come back when you have something better than that.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I apologize for the tone. But I'm not going to try to dissect 'imagination contamination' as it seems to me to be just another in an endless series of roadblocks thrown up to distract from the fact that a subject can't tell a difference.

I'm not trying to block valid blind testing. I'm as interested as die-hard "objectivists," because I really hate the thought of spending thousands of dollars on stuff that doesn't make a difference. I'm happy to have plain old ugly $0.30 wire connecting things if it doesn't make any difference.

But: did you read and consider what I wrote? I observed myself enjoying music. I noticed something about how that works in me. Have you observed yourself listening to music? What do you notice?

Do you think how we listen to music has relevance to blind test methodology? I do. Why wouldn't it? Given that anyone can listen to music in just about any way imaginable, why wouldn't that need to be understood and controlled to a certain degree if we want to conduct a valid blind test?



EDIT: regarding "imagination contamination," a really good piece of evidence it actually exists is how many musicians have crappy stereos and LOVE them. I have spoken with and observed these musicians listening to music. It appears that they spend so much of their time around live music that they are empathic to the intentions of the recorded music. They "hear through" all the distortion and mind-meld with the musicians. Note---there are also some musicians who are very discriminating in audio. For some reason it seems to go both ways. They are either remarkable insensitive to recorded sound, or remarkably sensitive.

 

[olblueyez]

So you have 30 cent wires but would have us spend lots of time and money proving that cables do make a difference instead of you upgrading your cables to find out for yourself?

He gets a beanie

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your right, its different for everyone. Like I said, come back when you have something better than that.

Hi Olblueyez,

I am somewhat sympathetic to your point of view, but I am sympathetic to the need for blind testing as well. I think this is a valid, serious topic of discussion. Do you not care if you are overspending on things that don't make a difference?

-Mike