Blind Listening Tests & Amplifiers

[Rob M]

I just had a conversation with a colleague who'd been to the east coast for a conference, and it sounded very familiar. She works on classroom discourse (how students and teachers talk to each other, and how that affects education) and at this conference there was a huge fight between two camps, call them the quants and the quals. The quants record and transcribe student/teacher interactions, count the number of times relevant linguistic things happen, and do statistical analyses to show what's going on. This is in contrast to the quals, who instead work from in depth case studies and their own experience as teachers.

The quals say the quants are missing the point: language is much too rich and complex to be reduced to a few numbers. The quants on the other hand argue that the quals can always come up with anecdotal evidence to "prove" whatever they want.

Apparently the fights between these camps are getting pretty ugly (by scientific standards). The field used to be all quals (it's only recently that computers have gotten powerful enough for quantitative linguistics to be possible) and they resent the quants coming in and challenging their authority. And on their side, the quants enjoy being iconoclasts and sometimes fail to recognize the depth of wisdom and experience that the quals bring to the table.

Any of this remind you of anyone?

[Nelson Pass]

Reminds me of the wine industry.

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Reminds me of the wine industry.

Oh, no........not you as well?

Cheers,...and I mean it,

[nw_avphile]

Originally posted by SY
Inside a sealed box, there's a switch (very high quality) and two pairs of high pass filters, with the corner frequency being rather low (like 10 Hz). One pair is made from cooking-grade components, steel leads, low price, too easy to get and pay for to be any good, but measurably OK. Call it "Radio Shack," if you like. The other pair is super-duper fashion-audio parts, preferably hand-made by Japanese monks...

That would be an interesting experiment! Of course, some might want to take apart the box so it would have be "tamper proof"

And do you think some might suggest the switch, no matter how high quality, would mask their difficulty in determining which switch positions are which? This certainly happens in the ABX comparisons that use an ABX switcher (although they're very high quality relays instead of switches).

You may also run into widespread refusal to even take the challenge among the true GoldenEars. Again, same thing happens with blind equipment or cable challenges. Your method, however, has the advantage they can't blame time pressure or "testing stress" if they accept the challenge and don't do well.

[nw_avphile]

Originally posted by Rob M
The quants record and transcribe student/teacher interactions, count the number of times relevant linguistic things happen, and do statistical analyses to show what's going on. This is in contrast to the quals, who instead work from in depth case studies and their own experience as teachers....

Any of this remind you of anyone?

It depends on what you're comparing. If you're talking about analytical measurement with instruments versus listening, I agree with you. If you're talking about sighted (biased) listening versus blind (unbiased) listening, It's not very analogous. Both of the latter are subjective in nature, one is just under controlled conditions that remove the psychological bias.

For the wine lovers here, it's no different than blind wine tasting which is still entirely subjective. That's certainly different from sending the wine off to a chemistry lab for analysis and basing your conclusions on those results.

All that said, blind listening obviously cannot replace sighted listening. It's only another tool to be added to the audiophile's toolbox. My main point here has been to try and convey it can be a very eye and ear opening tool--even used just once.

[SY]

Originally posted by nw_avphile

That would be an interesting experiment! Of course, some might want to take apart the box so it would have be "tamper proof"

In theory, yes, one has to take all kinds of precautions. But this is a simple test, and hopefully, the people participating are honest and (my own criterion) are people who are actually amateurs, in the original sense of the word. Elementary tamper-resistant measures should be sufficient; if I were sending it to Uri Geller, I might be considerably more elaborate. And I'd ask The Amazing Randi for advice (one more plug: everybody, RUN out and buy a copy of Randi's Amazing book, "Flim-Flam"). I will also avoid sending the box to people who are likely to try measurements- that's a cheat that I'm not sure how to overcome without using at least two active buffers and some means of thermal stabilization.

And do you think some might suggest the switch, no matter how high quality, would mask their difficulty in determining which switch positions are which?

No doubt, especially if the test gives a null result. But if these "huge" differences are smaller than the degradation of a pair of high-quality switch contacts, anyone who is convincable will be convinced. Believe me, I have personal experience in that regard.

You may also run into widespread refusal to even take the challenge among the true GoldenEars. Again, same thing happens with blind equipment or cable challenges. Your method, however, has the advantage they can't blame time pressure or "testing stress" if they accept the challenge and don't do well.

Several people here who claim to be able to hear these differences have volunteered. I bet Peter will, too. I sincerely admire them for their open-minded approach and their willingness to put their beliefs to a fair test.

[jcarr]

>if we took the same amplifier circuitry and "hid" it in four different high-end large well known chassis and let a group of GoldenEars audition them under whatever non-blind conditions they wanted, I have no doubt they'd all hear plenty of differences between them. I'd further suggest their opinions would align around the external appearance of the amplifier.<

As a manufacturer, I normally use the reverse procedure, which is to put a variety of circuitry into the same chassis designs.

jonathan carr

[nw_avphile]

Originally posted by SY
Several people here who claim to be able to hear these differences have volunteered. I bet Peter will, too. I sincerely admire them for their open-minded approach and their willingness to put their beliefs to a fair test.

Sounds like something worth doing then! I'll see what I might have to contribute to the cause on the high-end side (no, I won't send him my Wondercaps fdegrove!).

[fdegrove]

Hi,

(no, I won't send him my Wondercaps fdegrove!).

Haven't changed them yet for something less wondercrappy?

[nw_avphile]

Originally posted by fdegrove
Haven't changed them yet for something less wondercrappy?

They're still in that amp (I think?), but it's had a lonely life sitting in the corner for a while now. It needs a good home...

Anyone want to buy a 220w/ch Borbely/nw_avphile mosfet hybrid cheap? It's a very musical amplifier, stunning 3-dimensional deep and wide soundstage, ethereal highs, tube-like midrange, enough bass slam to make your neighbors envious, it sounds far better than 90% of power amps out there!