The double blind auditions thread

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I'm opening this thread as a repository of double blind audition tests (or experiments, etc.) that you have performed or know about (found on the Internet) etc..
Double blind testing is a standard scientific method for evaluating the impact on humans while avoiding subjective opinions corrupt the data. It is used for evaluating the efficacy of new medicines for example.

Unfortunately double blind auditioning of audio equipment is a controversial topic with some audiophiles.
This thread is for those who believe in its usefulness.
Its purpose is to put in one place for easy access the available info on such tests.

If you have organized a double blind audition test, or participated in one, or have knowledge about one, etc. please post here the details of the test and its results.
Additionally let's discuss any technical aspects of such tests, like the mechanics of organizing one, equipment needed, procedures, etc..
 
Last edited:
Many. I summarize some of them in an upcoming article in Linear Audio. I'd recommend the Audio Amateur article from (I think) 1982 where there was a DBT between two large solid state amps (I think Dynaco and Audio Research), with positive identification. Some great points were made in that article about setting the test conditions properly. One also needs to read Floyd Toole's book (superb hedonic testing of speakers) and Stanley Lipshitz's papers for the late '70s and early '80s.

For me, one of the most interesting (I didn't write about it in the article) was a test of data compression. I was presented with a set of versions of the same tune- some popular contemporary female singer doing "Danny Boy" a capella, can't remember her name- each with a different amount of data compression, and was asked to rank them. The photo accompanying my author bio at Linear Audio was taken while I was doing the test, so you can see the setup. Nice Stax headphones helped! Interestingly, I was able to rank all of the tracks correctly. However, using different, older source material (Dave Brubeck, Take 5), I was unable to do so.
 
One thing that needs to be mentioned is that the purpose of a DBT test doesn't have to be ranking of two or more amplifiers, speakers, compression methods, etc..
We don't need to reach a consensus among listeners about which one is no. 1, no. 2, etc..
In many cases all that is required is to be able to distinguish between at least two systems just by listening to them. That shows reliably that there is a difference between them.
 
I have been privy to a few DBT, all amplifiers sound different IMO, topologies sound different, you can tell, setup is also very important especially speakers and load.

Personally i have never had a situation where all the amplifiers sound the same or where one could not tell the difference.
 
Well, write it up in detail and publish it somewhere so that your tests can be analyzed and replicated. Actually, one of the tests I cited DID show amp differences.

Yes i saw that and I'm no longer involved in the industry so not exposed to or able to perform such test anymore, well apart from my own personal satisfaction,A/B/ testing ..

Amplifiers apart we have been doing a bit with the digital stuff 16/44 vs 192/24 , ripping storing etc. but nothing scientific enuff to satisfy your buds :) one interesting observation arose when testing one Sunday, between the 9 listeners present not DBT , but each had to leave the room and we were never privy to the format being played which was being controlled wireless via Laptop.

The differences are astounding to me and practically everyone present could hear a difference. I was one of 3 (9)who could actually tell the format being played and while all heard a difference when switching , half preferred the noisy 16/44 format...:rolleyes: :)


Audio ... it never ends .........:)
 
Last edited:
I have been privy to a few DBT,

The Stereo Review test wasn't double blind. I'm not aware of any true double-blind audio tests, though there may be some.
As I understand it, a double-blind test is one where the 'researchers' and subjects both are unaware of which treatment is being applied. In most audio tests I've read, the 'researcher' controls the switching, so the test is not DBT.

And, if the listeners are told when the switching occurs, the test becomes even less valid.
 
The Stereo Review test wasn't double blind. I'm not aware of any true double-blind audio tests, though there may be some.
As I understand it, a double-blind test is one where the 'researchers' and subjects both are unaware of which treatment is being applied. In most audio tests I've read, the 'researcher' controls the switching, so the test is not DBT.

And, if the listeners are told when the switching occurs, the test becomes even less valid.

None of that is correct, I'm sorry.

Double blind means that neither the experimenter nor the listener are aware of the identity of the unknown, but the variable being tested may well be known. For example, if I am comparing amblifier A to amplifier B in ABX format, I can certainly know what A and B are, but neither I nor the experimenter know what X is- but we do know that X is either A or B.

Generally, the listener has switching control in that sort of format. In other test formats (e.g., sorting), the listener also has control of which items are being auditioned.

In several decades of sensory testing experience, I have never run across the concept of reduced test validity with knowledge of when switching takes place. Do you have a cite for that?
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.