Not really. People have no problems identifying all sorts of things in audio without peeking. Data compression, EQ, frequency response, polar response, level, noise... The controversy, such as it is, comes when things are tested that shouldn't make any audible difference, are claimed to make differences nonetheless, then indeed aren't distinguishable by ear alone.
FWIW, I got my start in sensory testing in haptics, then moved on to organoleptics. The principles are pretty much the same.
FWIW, I got my start in sensory testing in haptics, then moved on to organoleptics. The principles are pretty much the same.
Well, criticism aside, I will just live with my 'phony excuses' when it comes to audio.
Yesterday, I pointed out a news item on a 'scientific' wine tasting that left null results. It often happens the same way with 'scientific' audio difference tests, AND that is why I mentioned it. It it absurd to think that wine differences are NOT detectable by even an average person, and even obvious by a wine connoisseur. In my 'world' the same thing happens with audio 'connoisseurs'.
I am NOT a wine 'connoisseur' but I have tasted my fair share of good wines, and have appreciated them. However, I am a serious drinker, and I drink Cognac. I would very interested in discussing the QPR of cognac sometime, given my limited income, but then this is an audio thread.
I have been subjected over more than 30 years, to a number of ABX or similar double blind tests, that were considered 'scientific' enough to publish in some way, by Dr's Lipshitz et al. ALL had serious flaws, that were ignored during the test, and I was never 'thanked' for my follow-up of their errors. I guess THEIR errors were unimportant, at least to them.
My 'error' is using my ears and those of my associates to evaluate the sonic qualities of a particular audio design. It works for me, but your opinion my vary.
Yesterday, I pointed out a news item on a 'scientific' wine tasting that left null results. It often happens the same way with 'scientific' audio difference tests, AND that is why I mentioned it. It it absurd to think that wine differences are NOT detectable by even an average person, and even obvious by a wine connoisseur. In my 'world' the same thing happens with audio 'connoisseurs'.
I am NOT a wine 'connoisseur' but I have tasted my fair share of good wines, and have appreciated them. However, I am a serious drinker, and I drink Cognac. I would very interested in discussing the QPR of cognac sometime, given my limited income, but then this is an audio thread.
I have been subjected over more than 30 years, to a number of ABX or similar double blind tests, that were considered 'scientific' enough to publish in some way, by Dr's Lipshitz et al. ALL had serious flaws, that were ignored during the test, and I was never 'thanked' for my follow-up of their errors. I guess THEIR errors were unimportant, at least to them.
My 'error' is using my ears and those of my associates to evaluate the sonic qualities of a particular audio design. It works for me, but your opinion my vary.
My audio tests work the same way. Lots of glasses lined up, and you can spit and rinse as often as you like.
No, Eric, I would rather not. The 'atmosphere' here is too intense for effective discussion.
However, you might look at systematic 'scientific' tests of wine differences due to various factors, and you might learn something interesting. Just Google and see. The pattern is similar to audio tests, so far as I can tell.
However, you might look at systematic 'scientific' tests of wine differences due to various factors, and you might learn something interesting. Just Google and see. The pattern is similar to audio tests, so far as I can tell.
LMAO I'll leave him unnamed but John knows who this Irishman is, every listening session started with a six pack (preferably all for him).
Friends Don't Let Friends Drink And Mix Live Sound...
Once the mix and groove is working right and it's intermission time....well that's time to get into the same zone as the audience and enjoy the rest of the night !.
Eric.
Ditto mixing live sound....just ONE drop past the lips and ears change almost immediately.
Once the mix and groove is working right and it's intermission time....well that's time to get into the same zone as the audience and enjoy the rest of the night !.
Eric.
Understood !.
I was just interested in what kinds of flaws are evident in as commonly practised ABX/DBT testing.
Eric.
And do you use double blind tests in your own evaluations or even single blind tests or is not using them one of your errors? BTW, what are your criteira you use for your evaluations? Mine is live music that is not electronically amplified and so far every commercially manufactured and sold audio system I've ever heard came up short except for the two LvR demos I heard by AR in the 1960s. Those were very close.
One thing I do agree with you about is that critical listening and alcohol don't mix. I do not listen nearly as well after consuming it. Other than alcohol I have never taken "recreational drugs" so I wouldn't know about their effects on listening to sound.
Normally I would agree about blind tasting. WS performs single blind tastings for their reports. However, Parker is an unusual case. His integrity seems beyond reproach. Whether his opinions are beyond reproach is an entirely different matter. I don't always agree with him. Frankly I'm very worried about a case of 1990 Pichon Lalande in my cellar. I bought it on Suckling's advice. He rated it 94. Parker hated it. I think he rated it 79 and on more than one occasion (He loved many of the others including the 89 I also have a case of.) I don't know if I should open it or take it to Sotheby's and swap it out for something else.
Soundminded, I have both devised blind listening tests, and participated in other's blind listening tests. I generally do NOT use blind listening tests in my development of audio designs today. I am getting older, and even though I can still hear differences, I have found that listening with double blind is hopeless, and blind, inconvenient.
I just listen and decide. Lately, I had to sort some input IC's and some chassis differences in order to get the JC-3 where it is in listening quality. I have personally found that IF I can hear a difference, and the difference means something important to me, then it usually effects others in much the same way. I do this for a living. I have to know: When to hold them, when to fold them, etc. It is what I do. I am not a gambler, but I am an audio designer, and rather successful at it, according to the rest of the world community.
I just listen and decide. Lately, I had to sort some input IC's and some chassis differences in order to get the JC-3 where it is in listening quality. I have personally found that IF I can hear a difference, and the difference means something important to me, then it usually effects others in much the same way. I do this for a living. I have to know: When to hold them, when to fold them, etc. It is what I do. I am not a gambler, but I am an audio designer, and rather successful at it, according to the rest of the world community.
I think you'd make a better case for there being little or no correlation between quality and price. Certainly some wines taste better to some people than others. There are many very expensive ones which taste awful, they aren't hard to find. In fact they may be the overwhelming majority. More difficult and challenging than finding expensive wine that is pleasing is finding wines that are also pleasing but are inexpensive. That's what I enjoy hunting for now.
I'd think you could make a better case for all amplifiers sounding alike but even I was surprised that at the VTV show in NJ four years ago, I was able to identify the only solid state amplifier at that show blindfolded (didn't know, just guessed until it was confirmed by the demonstrator.) And it reminded me why I was so happy to see the tail end of vacuum tubes forty years ago and never looked back. But even I know not all solid state amplifiers sound exactly the same.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.