Sighted Testing IS King!! Silly me - all those years wasted...

[E-Stat]

So there you have it. Blind testing is for the BIRDS. Sighted testing is KING!!!!

Please explain the relevance of a "loaded" taste test evaluated in a manner of seconds to extended listening tests of components devoid of any stated obvious differences where the "information content" is far greater.

rw

[magictooth]

Please explain the relevance of a "loaded" taste test evaluated in a manner of seconds to extended listening tests of components devoid of any stated obvious differences where the "information content" is far greater.

rw

I would guess that you have to be kidding, but I will spell it out for you in plain(er) English.

The following are the rough equivalencies that I see in my flavour test and an IC test.

I made one batch of salsa = IC that conducts well
I divided the batches into 2 containers = one IC packaged as $10 pair; other IC packaged as $200 pair.
I told people that one was regular = I tell a listener that this IC costs $10
I told people that the other container has 2x chilies = I tell a listener that this IC costs $200
I told people that the other container was hotter = I tell a listener that this IC sounds better

The results:

People say that the "hot" salsa is indeed hotter after I've told them it should be hotter = a listener says that the IC sounds better after they've been told it should sound better.
Nobody chose the "mild" salsa as hotter or the same = nobody chooses the $10 IC as sounding the same or better than the expensive one.
People say that one salsa is a bit hotter = some people saying that the expensive IC made the sound more open, airy, etc by a bit
People say that one salsa was WAY hotter = some people saying that the expensive IC made a night and day difference to their system's sound

One other thing that I forgot to say in my original post was that some people said that one salsa tasted better than the other. I forgot that part, and maybe you think that is important. I suppose it is possible for us to infer another result:

People say one salsa tastes better than the other = listener says that one IC is better than the other.

As an aside you are WAY, WAY, WAY off base if you are saying that sound has more interpretive variables than taste. Hearing uses one cranial nerve (VIII); taste uses at least three (I, VII, and IX). At the very least hearing and flavour evaluation are equal, and in all likelihood, taste requires more interpretation than hearing.

As well, E-Stat, you don't address why REAL researchers use blind testing. In the case that I presented from the real world, the parallels are unmistakable. For migraine sufferers, unknown trigger (stimulus) -->nociceptors fire (neural reaction) --> pain is felt (interpretation of stimulus). For listening, sound waves hit the ears (stimulus) --> vestibulocochlear nerve fires (neural reaction) --> hearing (interpretation of stimulus). If sighted testing is the cat's meow, why bother to cut 100 people for no reason?

In any case, just to make my point a bit clearer:

I made a single batch of salsa and then divided the contents in two. By simply telling people that one batch should taste different than the other, 13 out of 13 people said that they could tell that there was a difference in the salsa WHEN IF FACT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. The parallel of this exercise with audio listening tests is that I can very likely take a useable IC, re-badge it, and in a sighted listening test get you to think that it sounds better than an identical other IC.

[E-Stat]

The parallel of this exercise with audio listening tests is that I can very likely take a useable IC, re-badge it, and in a sighted listening test get you to think that it sounds better than an identical other IC.

Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw

[Rycher]

I like salsa, and I like it hot. My wife likes it hotter, my daughter likes it mild, and my best freind can eat chipotle chiles by the whole - one after the other. Each of our ranges of "hot" are irrelevent as we have varying degrees of taste. My freind also has a bit of bad eyes, but he swears to me that my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing.

[musicoverall]

my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing.

That would be a DDT - a double deaf test - since it's dealing with the eyes, wouldn't it?

[Rycher]

That would be a DDT - a double deaf test - since it's dealing with the eyes, wouldn't it?

LOL, thanks for making my morning!

[magictooth]

I like salsa, and I like it hot. My wife likes it hotter, my daughter likes it mild, and my best freind can eat chipotle chiles by the whole - one after the other. Each of our ranges of "hot" are irrelevent as we have varying degrees of taste. My freind also has a bit of bad eyes, but he swears to me that my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing.

Sorry, let me point out to you that the salsa was IDENTICAL.

[Rycher]

Sorry, let me point out to you that the salsa was IDENTICAL.

Not in my reference. If my daughter was to eat the salsa that I consider mild, it would burn her mouth to high heaven, same as if I was to eat the chipotle chiles - I would destroy my abdomen, but my buddy thinks it's as mild as butter. My point is that we all taste different salsa's differently, just as we all hear things differently and see things differently. That's why we also have certain preferences to manufactures of equipment. If they all sounded the same (something that just as in cables all manufactures "could" build the "same" reference amp, etc.), then there would'nt be so many brands. Some engineer could make one reference design for, let's say an amplifier, and one maker would build it. All other designs would be snake-oil as they would deviate from the reference. I think manufacturers diliberatly make their equipment, and cables, to sound different (whether it be pleasing to one and terrible to another, it would still be "their signature sound"). Am I too far off here?

[magictooth]

Not in my reference. If my daughter was to eat the salsa that I consider mild, it would burn her mouth to high heaven, same as if I was to eat the chipotle chiles - I would destroy my abdomen, but my buddy thinks it's as mild as butter. My point is that we all taste different salsa's differently, just as we all hear things differently and see things differently. That's why we also have certain preferences to manufactures of equipment. If they all sounded the same (something that just as in cables all manufactures "could" build the "same" reference amp, etc.), then there would'nt be so many brands. Some engineer could make one reference design for, let's say an amplifier, and one maker would build it. All other designs would be snake-oil as they would deviate from the reference. I think manufacturers diliberatly make their equipment, and cables, to sound different (whether it be pleasing to one and terrible to another, it would still be "their signature sound"). Am I too far off here?

Yeah, sorry you're pretty far off. If you could reread the entire post, you'll find that I used one batch of salsa and divided it into 2 containers. I merely told them that one was hotter when in fact the salsa was IDENTICAL in each container. When asked, 100% of respondents said that the salsa that I had indicated was hotter, was in fact hotter. The salsa shouldn't have tasted hotter because it was THE SAME salsa. I was introducing bias by telling them that one salsa was hotter when in fact they should taste the same.

[noddin0ff]

Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw

Rather than the obvious short answer rebuttal that short sessions and long sessions are equally subjective...

It seems like the best way to address E-stat's objection would be to allow a lengthy trial period until the listerner is convinced the differences are established in his/her mind. Then proceed to the blind test. Could even have lengthy blind sessions, but they shouldn't be necessary since the differences by then should be obvious to the listener. Listener could even pick most revealing passages.

It would be a lot more informative for both sides of the argument

2cents,

noddin0ff

[magictooth]

Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw

markw gave you a simple yet effective blind testing methodology. I hate to reprint for the umpteenth time, but maybe you didn't read the last X times it's been written out for you.

So E-Stat, why don't you try the following exercise:

1. Select 2 sets of ICs.
2. Teach your wife how to plug the IC from your CDP to your amp.
3. Get her to swap or not swap cords at whatever interval you like. It can be every day, every week, every couple months - whatever you like.
4. Get her to write down which IC she used.
5. You listen to your heart's content and when you've finally determined which pair of ICs you've been listening to for whatever interval YOU choose, then write down your findings.
6. Compare notes at the end of the experiment.

You can do whatever number of trials that you like, but keep in mind that if you do say 25 trials, I think in order to be statistically significant, you'd need to get at least 18-19 correct.

As for the direct answer to your question, the direct relevance is that the mind can do mysterious things. Whether it's over a short 5 second thing or an extended period of time, if you have no reference base, then any findings that you may have are meaningless.

You haven't answered my question either: why do real researchers use blind testing only? There's never a study that uses sighted testing. NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE. That should tell you something in and of itself.

[FLZapped]

Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw

It never ceases to amaze me how you can spin things. Nowhere in the original presentation was there any mention of long term testing, nowhere, so why then could you possibly think it relevant to ask such a question that is entirely without merit......or are you telling us that it takes you that long to convince yourself?

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Nowhere in the original presentation was there any mention of long term testing, nowhere, so why then could you possibly think it relevant to ask such a question that is entirely without merit......or are you telling us that it takes you that long to convince yourself?

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

[magictooth]

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

E-Stat, I posted my reply above, and I see that you've replied to Bruce's comment much later. Do you have anything to say about my comments? Is there any part of that blind test that you can accomplish in your home and at your own pace disagreeable? What about my question with regards to real researchers? Why should they drug and cut up 100 people in the name of science when there really is no need?

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, I posted my reply above, and I see that you've replied to Bruce's comment much later. Do you have anything to say about my comments?

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove, much less publish. Consequently, I'd really rather spend my time listening to music (I'm doing that on my computer right now), watching movies on my new HD video system, riding my motorcycle, and ice skating to conducting cable trials. I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival of new speakers that are to be shipped later this month. When I get them, I plan to immerse myself in hearing my music collection anew.

Sorry if that disappoints you.

rw

[E-Stat]

Why should they drug and cut up 100 people in the name of science when there really is no need?

What an utterly ridiculous comment. Are you trying out for drama class?

rw

[FLZapped]

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

Take as long as you need to convince yourself. That's fine by me, but don't expect that to ever be accepted scientifically.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Cowboy, oh is that funny. Wrong, but funny.

-Bruce