[1] On a side note, if two things sound the same, best chances are you'll like their sound the same in the long run.
[2] I really don't care if you preferred A or B during a blind or sighted test. That alone says very little to me, because preference is subjective and it's not a measure of true sound quality and maybe I'm not even searching for true sound quality anyway.
[3] You are the only one here judging the "validity" of a stated preference.
1. Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? Just looking at many of the forums here on head-fi, your assertion appears entirely false. The cables forum for example would be a veritable ghost town if your assertion were true.
2. Ah, that explains a great deal! I'm quite different to you apparently, if someone gives their subjective opinion on say the audio performance of a speaker, then what I personally expect is a subjective opinion on the audio performance of that speaker. I do not want a subjective opinion on the audio performance of a speaker which in actual fact has little or absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the speaker's audio performance but is instead effectively a subjective opinion on the speaker's visual (and/or resultant cognitive) performance, an opinion which is based on say one or more of the many cognitive biases! I agree with @HotIce and you that a blind preference test on the audio performance of a speaker is a preference and is therefore entirely subjective. I also entirely agree that it is not an accurate measure of sound quality (and I don't think anyone here would disagree with those assertions)
but at least a blind test massively increases the chances of an opinion based on the speaker's actual audio performance rather than on some other factor unrelated to audio performance. This is where "validity" and "dishonesty" come in. It is invalid and dishonest to state a subjective preference for the audio performance of a speaker if in fact it's not, if it's actually a preference dictated by some visual (or resultant cognitive) attribute!
3. You don't really believe that do you? You do realise this isn't the cable forum? For someone who has apparently studied physics at university and is not some "random cable guy", you're actually doing a very good impersonation of a random cable guy!
G
1- You'll like them the same in the long run if you let sight biasing aside. That's what I've meant.
2- One thing is to talk about objective performance of certain speaker/headphone, 1%THD in the bass @ 100Hz, FR, etc. The other thing is giving subjective impressions of the product's sound quality. Those are two different things.
I might not put that much confidence in subjective opinions regarding performance (or in other words, pure sound quality) because I understand as you do, preference is important when judging by ear.
I don't think you can say: "a blind test massively increases the chances of an opinion based on the speaker's actual audio performance rather than on some other factor unrelated to audio performance." as a general fact because only one case is needed to prove you wrong and you'll find many. Under certain conditions a blind test won't increase massively the chances of an opinion based on actual performance.
I've wrote examples before, sometimes blind or sighted yield the exact same results, then picking blind instead of sighted changes nothing. When things are different enough as it's the case with tons of speakers and headphones, once you've heard it, you probably know how it looks like anyway. I know how DALIs sound and I know how FOCALs sound, going blind changes nothing because it's obvious which is which. I'm against the "blind is always better" way of thinking. Some of you seem to want that.
Your use of the word dishonesty differs from Olive's words I've cited a few posts back. I think it's very clear at this point I was referring to that definition of being dishonest.
With regards to your definiton, I agree of course.
Although we should keep in mind that stating preference for a speaker (in general) is a relatively complex matter because it depends on the recordings, the room, the listening levels and our mood at the time of testing. In that sense it's important to understand in objective terms what the results of the test mean, avoiding unjustified extrapolations.
Stating preference for speaker A over B and C in room X using recordings E, F and G at ZdB average on certain moment in time can say very little (objectively speaking) about your preference in other room, with other recordings, at different listening levels, or even about keeping everything (room, recordings, listening levels) and changing your listening position in the room. As you can see on Olive's results, even a change on the speakers position can make you change which one you prefer.
Your preference is linked to the conditions of the test and thus extrapolations are dishonest.
The one you preferred during the test is not "the one you prefer" or "the one with best sound quality", it's only the one you preferred during the test.
3- Not sure what you mean, preference has little or even nothing to do with objective performance. Some people enjoy high levels of second order distortion in the bass, that's their preference and we can not say their preference is invalid. You might prefer your wife/girlfriend over a top model and I'm not the one to say your preference is invalid. Objectively speaking a top model might be closer to the ideal woman according to social stereotypes, but that doesn't invalidate your preference.
sorry but you've been missing the point of many arguments just to keep the ball rolling on "sighted isn't perfect, and neither is blind". which is obvious as nothing is ever perfect aside from math sometimes. then you blame others for missing your own point that's a captain obvious point. the topic's subject isn't perfection vs sighted test, it's one listening test vs another listening test trying to answer a question about preferences between audible sounds. meaning the test conducted to answer that question should ideally be about preferences and sound. not about objective truth, not about price tags and colors. you brought up unrelated stuff and then get dissatisfied when we don't care for it. yes thank you we know those are listening tests not universal facts proven 100% through objective means. it's about some humans and they're listening to music. I have no idea who you're trying to convince, but trust me they know.
basically the article and related paper are about trying to make people more aware of the flaws of sighted tests and the need for controls if we want to improve reliability. which is the scientific method for noobs. more controls, less variables, so that we can better check for errors and have better reliability. the basics of doing an experiment and the antithesis of sighted tests. that's the absolute objective evidence you desire to show that sighted tests is the worst BTW. if you care even a little about the scientific method, then you see how sighted evaluation lacks all the requirements for an experiment we can use.
We all know blind is better than sighted for experiments like Olive's.
That arcticle is 7 years old and the topic of blind being normally more accurate than sighted in this kind of tests has been around since I can remember, so it's not news anyway. (It's obvious as you would say)
I've pointed out some of Olive's words I didn't agree with, as they suggested sighted was dishonest for the wrong reasons.
If I lead an obvious (7 yeard old based article, about one of the most discussed and trivial topics around) post to discuss about the dishonesty of blind testing (read, how blind testing can fail to achieve some objective targets) which is pretty much an undiscussed topic around here, then I happen to be captain obvious... I don't think so.
Anyway, if you want to keep talking again and again about the same old trivial stuff (blind better than sighted, cables do nothing, 24 bit audio is nonsense, etc.) just go ahead. Science is not about repeating Einstein laws forever and pointing Newton was wrong as much as we can as a religious practice. Science is about going ahead thinking about the limitations of our current understanding of reality and how to overcome those limitations.
Many of those who write around here are yet to measure a single thing in their lives.
If you want this to be a Sound Science forum then I think this thread shows this forum is in the wrong path.
That's why more often than not, people with interest in Sound Science tend to leave Head-Fi and reach other sites.
