Vision must play it's part, how many people were happy with their system, until they read a poor review 😉
Vision does play a part, nothing wrong with that. As long as you aren't claiming that the visuals are not a factor.
Imho there are quite some misunderstandings and it would help if you´ll cite the relevant texts that led to your impression that the authors wrote/mean that "blinding" makes the tests invalid.
These authors aren´t the ony one, who think that "being blinded somehow changes what we hear", instead that thinks everyone in the field of experimental psychology. (Of course to be precise, i should have written that with high probability what we hear changes ......)
You might argue, that the physiology of the hearing system isn´t affected by "blinding" but even that isn´t granted, although you don´t get less or more hair cells for example.
The human hearing system is a nonlinear system which is partly controlled by the brain and so it´s properties are not independent from the internal mental state.
Imo even more important are the internal mental processes that do the analysis and form the opinion, these are different not only for the "blinded/sighted" conditions, but even different for different controlled listening test protocols (all with the "blind" property).
For some test protocols the mental processes are more involving than for others.
As stated before in other threads, there are different model approaches to handle the different mental processes because even the analysis of test results depends on the differences. (Quite often used is a Thurstonian approach)
Last edited:
The former is very true, the latter is blatantly wrong. 🙂
In a DB situation the only thing that changes is that knowing about the sample identity can not directly influence/provoke the decision. Let´s denote this direct influence as "sight bias".
As said before, there exists a full list of bias effects and form this list some or even all might be in use. For example let´s choose some for the non-DB situation:
Rosenthal effect, Hawthourne effect, habituation error (related to the internal criterion problem), time errors and "sight-bias"
Now implement the "blind" property to remove the "sight-bias" and you get for the DB situation:
Rosenthal effect, Hawthourne effect, habituation error, time errors
I´ve constantly reiterated that people should do more controlled listenening tests themselves and conduct controlled tests with other to get a better understanding of the many problems involved and to overcome the naive impression that getting correct results from controlled tests is an easy task.
Now, iv´e read for the second time that you described the consequences associated with the usage of an ABX-box.
Feeling uncomfortable? That alone should give reason to think about training under the specific test conditions.
Rosenthal effect should be removed by unsighted tests, as you can't have high or low expectations when you don't know what you are listening to.
Hawthorne effect is a consequence of doing a test, any test.
Habituation error should be absent because you don't know what you are listening to, and changes are usually discrete not continuous. Habituation could be a factor if you run a test involving people twiddling a 'niceness' knob.
We can't remove all biases, but we know that sight-bias (or, equivalently, knowledge bias) is a strong influence so if we can remove that it should improve results from tests aimed at hearing. This assumes, of course, that we believe that audio equipment is intended to provide a physical stimulus for the ears and it is that stimulus alone which we are interested in. Those who believe something else (including JC's 'professors') must develop their own tests based on vitalism or whatever else it is they believe.
Hawthorne effect is a consequence of doing a test, any test.
Habituation error should be absent because you don't know what you are listening to, and changes are usually discrete not continuous. Habituation could be a factor if you run a test involving people twiddling a 'niceness' knob.
We can't remove all biases, but we know that sight-bias (or, equivalently, knowledge bias) is a strong influence so if we can remove that it should improve results from tests aimed at hearing. This assumes, of course, that we believe that audio equipment is intended to provide a physical stimulus for the ears and it is that stimulus alone which we are interested in. Those who believe something else (including JC's 'professors') must develop their own tests based on vitalism or whatever else it is they believe.
They don't trust their own hearing and judgement of the qualities and characteristics of their systems components. Reading a poor review describing a negative characteristics simply confirms what they have been hearing all along, and now are willing to believe that the fault actually exists. All of the positive reviews of the same component(s) with the faults conveniently left out(Classic Stereophile), can instill a believe that there is no actual faults. The listener is hearing the fault(s), add a strong belief(based on the review) that the fault(s) can't possibly exist, He/She will live with hearing the fault(s) with a mental block that alleviates the disdain. Eventually you trust what you are hearing and sell the component🙁
Exactly! been there a few times, glad i went diy in the end.
I once compared a few CD players i had in my collection.
Rotel RCD-06 which i didn't like much - review speak would say it was dry or mechanical sounding.
Inca Tech Katana - sounded nice and warm but not exactly engaging. It was a Chinese Jungson with mods, the guy who did the mods couldn't solder very well and i had to replace the laser after 2 years! It did play the few HDCD's i had quite well though but not worth the £600.00 it cost me. Nice wooden remote though.
Rega Apollo - Engaging sound with loads of detail but fussy about discs and quite often had error's reading them. Shame cos otherwise it would have been worth the almost £500.00 it cost me.
A Philips twin deck CD recorder which sounded quite decent all round, biscuit tin build quality but what do you expect for £220.00?
I tried them all with a Musical Fidelity DAC and they pretty much sounded the same, i'd never pick one over the other in a blind test but the Rega did seem a tiny bit better at the time.
I sold them all bar the Philips unit which aint worth selling, it lives in a cupboard somewhere gathering dust.
When i compared them to FLAC files playing through the same MF DAC i decided that was the way to go.
I shudder to think about all the amps i wasted money on over the years.
I once compared a few CD players i had in my collection.
Rotel RCD-06 which i didn't like much - review speak would say it was dry or mechanical sounding.
Inca Tech Katana - sounded nice and warm but not exactly engaging. It was a Chinese Jungson with mods, the guy who did the mods couldn't solder very well and i had to replace the laser after 2 years! It did play the few HDCD's i had quite well though but not worth the £600.00 it cost me. Nice wooden remote though.
Rega Apollo - Engaging sound with loads of detail but fussy about discs and quite often had error's reading them. Shame cos otherwise it would have been worth the almost £500.00 it cost me.
A Philips twin deck CD recorder which sounded quite decent all round, biscuit tin build quality but what do you expect for £220.00?
I tried them all with a Musical Fidelity DAC and they pretty much sounded the same, i'd never pick one over the other in a blind test but the Rega did seem a tiny bit better at the time.
I sold them all bar the Philips unit which aint worth selling, it lives in a cupboard somewhere gathering dust.
When i compared them to FLAC files playing through the same MF DAC i decided that was the way to go.
I shudder to think about all the amps i wasted money on over the years.
Just found out that some serious research has been done to uncover the issues behind ' identical CDs sounding different' .
"The Numerically-Identical CD Mystery: A Study in Perception versus Measurement."
It's a serious read but worth it if you are interested in this.
Jan
"The Numerically-Identical CD Mystery: A Study in Perception versus Measurement."
It's a serious read but worth it if you are interested in this.
Jan
Interesting article. In the following 20 years, has anyone come up with a more positive result?
I just read it too, thanks Jan.
SY; parts of it sound to me a lot like what we've said over and over in past threads. That if the data is identical, the only source of a real audible difference has to be the playback mechanics. Does reading the medium cause noise that is carried to the output?
SY; parts of it sound to me a lot like what we've said over and over in past threads. That if the data is identical, the only source of a real audible difference has to be the playback mechanics. Does reading the medium cause noise that is carried to the output?
And, even more importantly, is that noise or other variation significant? It's easy to measure things that can't be heard. This paper would suggest "no" but I'd be interested in any follow-up work.
That's one part of the story. The other part is that the evidence of actual audible difference was pretty scattered.
Some tests seemed to show it was there, but the listening test by the two trusted listeners alluded to at the end completely overthrew (is that good English?) it again: they were more wrong than right.
Jan
Some tests seemed to show it was there, but the listening test by the two trusted listeners alluded to at the end completely overthrew (is that good English?) it again: they were more wrong than right.
Jan
Very interesting, with a strong correlation in reduced noise when using an external DAC.
Which is not really surprising.
Which is not really surprising.
The noise is due to the servos and motors, it is very low on the all in one machines, this shows how little noise is getting down a cable to an external DAC.
Having seen the insides of quite a few CD players of all price ranges, I am not surprised some have this noise, cheap minimal layer PCBs, a couple looked like single sided CEM boards, not the best way to go for signal and power integrity... Hopefully these days they aren't as bad!!!
Having seen the insides of quite a few CD players of all price ranges, I am not surprised some have this noise, cheap minimal layer PCBs, a couple looked like single sided CEM boards, not the best way to go for signal and power integrity... Hopefully these days they aren't as bad!!!
The original Shiga Clone was a 2 sided pwb. I don't doubt a number of the mods were to clean up the power supply coupling of noise.
Studio Zèy
Studio Zèy
Jakob2
Sorry, I missed your post on the first read through.
To answer your question, yes I have.... Many times.... This will be the first time with coin flips to determine a predetermined sequence of which transport will be spinning and of the "X" , same CDT spinning several repeat times. I always just let the guy spinning the transports have control of ABX switching. My Son and I have done blind ABX testing several times. And not just on transports....
Jim
Never mind...
That´s good news. So you are already accomodated to these tests and the specific ABX-protocol.
Which number of trials and successes do you normally use?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.