Most "controlled" testing doesn't take into account how we hear. That's the way I see it.
The other day I was working with a relay in a circuit. It was buzzing but I couldn't hear it. I'd turn my head left or right and I'd hear a buzz. I couldn't figure out where it came from and thought it was in my head. Why would I think that ... well, I've heard a lot of sounds in my head, but that's another story.
Anyway, I turned the circuit on a few times, and wasn't sure if it was the circuit or not. I came back later that day and turned it on. Now I could make it out fine, and didn't have to turn my head at all. It was clearly coming from the relay.
I've had this experience often with new sounds. It's called habituation.
It take weeks of listening for the ear to unravel small differences in audio. Most blind tests don't take this into account, cause they don't know about it, don't care, or don't believe it, probably.
John
The two DACs had a 1:10 price difference. As long as the two DACs were sitting there on the counter, the preference was 80% vs 20% in favor of the expensive one.
As soon as the DACs were moved behind the counter, out of sight, the preferences were 22% vs 78%, in favor of the cheap one.
There more to it, but I'll let you digest this first
jan didden
Yes, it's a condition reflex. But, that doesn't mean there wasn't an audible difference.
Beliefs have a powerful effect on how we hear, as you know Jan. And, I know that well.
Who determines what is real and what are False Gods? How is it being determined? By ones' belief system?
So, John, how does a sighted test take into account how we hear, knows about it, cares about it, believes it?
jan didden
Agreed and agreed. But if the difference in seeing or not completely reverses our audible preferences, how on earth can anyone trust a sighted test?
jan didden
Last edited:
Yet in the 30 years or so I've been involved with audio, and the millions of posts I've read from others on forums since the mid-80's, I don't recall anyone ever saying it took weeks of listening before they could discern any difference between components or cables.
se
It doesn't take weeks to discern that there are some difference. It may take weeks to pinpoint the benefit, or drawbacks, of those differences.
I just think a blind test needs to be done over a extended period of time. If you change the conditions in which a person is used to listening ( i.e. hide the components ) it changes how we hear and you can't expect the listener to do as well on a test.
We learn sounds and how we respond to sounds is all about beliefs formed from past experience. We may have a new experience that changes our beliefs.
I think a blind test has to allow a person to learn the just the sounds ( say sound A and sound B ) for a period of time with the components hidden. After people spent weeks with the components learning the sounds, if they hear a difference, then test to see if they really can identify this difference.
Last edited:
And tests have been done over extended periods of time. As I mentioned previously, Tom Nousaine set up ABX systems in a number of people's homes and they had them for periods of months to years.
se
How can violinists, pianists and other musicians trust sighted tests in choosing musical instruments?
Not the intent, just frustration. It is my OPINION that the effects of exotic passive components are highly overstated and yes using them makes you feel good even I do it sometimes (they can be very pretty).
I just have more faith in extended listening impressions that you do. I mean why does CD sound is so great, then why do so many people seem unhappy with it.
Why is it that Sony made a high end $1200 bluray player a few years ago with very low noise and low distortion that I couldn't listen to. Hurt my ears! Hurt my dad's ears but he kept listening to it cause he has this thing for Sony, and just attributed to break in and kept listening. He eventually habituated to the sound, and it no longer bothered him. He grew to like it.
Does Sony have bad engineers? It technical specs would blow away the LP.
This is a player that Robert Harley said had a bright tonal balance in a review ( months after we had bought it ) but still gave it a good review.
My mom uses it upstairs now with the TV. I've tried a number of times to listen to it, but I don't try to listen to it anymore because it makes my ears worse.
If CD is perfect, then why does live music sound so good to me with no fatique, where cd can't. Why don't SACD's played back on the same player affect me the same way?
Well, I just trust my listening impressions for the most part. Peoples ears are different. Some are more sensitive to some sounds than others.
John
It's not only a question of large audience. To my view, what's much more important is the experience that each one of the people being tested have with high end audio systems.
Also, any ABX system used should be tested for its' possible own effects first, prior to any test conducted by using it.
This same effect has been discussed concerning certain occult and labor intensive agricultural practices. There is a sense of simply caring more about the product and you can not separate that out of the result. Even then there are winemakers that claim in double blind tests they can taste the effects of homeopathic soil treatments.
Last edited:
Beautifully said, John.
In that context, let me say this: I did find CD player I enjoy listening to, but I don’t enjoy it as much as vinyl records.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.