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

[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

[magictooth]

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

No, it doesn't disappoint nor does it surprise. I'm not asking you to do anything you don't want to do. I presented a logical and easy to do experiment but you refuse.

Your reply here is a pathetic cop-out. In any case, E-Stat, you still didn't answer my original question: why is it that you believe that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

[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

[FLZapped]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove,

rw

Not being a researcher, true, nothing to prove, false. -Bruce

[E-Stat]

In any case, E-Stat, you still didn't answer my original question: why is it that you believe that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

I have never seen a DBT published which found audible differences between stereo components described as "dynamic contrasts", "tonal color", "imaging", "soundstage reproduction" or any of the many other attributes we as audiophiles listen for.

With music DBTs don't seem to be sensitive enough to differentiate anything but gross differences. Those differences are described as loudness, or large band frequency response differences such as brightness or boominess.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results. For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

[musicoverall]

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

I have never seen a DBT published which found audible differences between stereo components described as "dynamic contrasts", "tonal color", "imaging", "soundstage reproduction" or any of the many other attributes we as audiophiles listen for.

With music DBTs don't seem to be sensitive enough to differentiate anything but gross differences. Those differences are described as loudness, or large band frequency response differences such as brightness or boominess.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results. For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

Thanks for this quote. Very well said. As I posted elsewhere, blind testing seems pointless to me and now I see a possible explanation why. This makes a lot of sense.

[magictooth]

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing

...For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

Please note the bold that I put in your quote.

Hmm, so an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller is expounding his theories about how the neural pathways interact. That's great science there. Reading the above makes me wonder how we can even walk and talk at the same time.

Has this POV ever been vetted in a professional journal? Is it the Lancet? No, the NEJM? No, how about a specialized journal that most people wouldn't read?

I don't really understand how if you are using your "right brain" function, that it automatically shuts off your "left brain" and that you can't switch back and forth instantaneously. I thought that the neural impulses travel pretty much at the speed of electricity. The only case where this above POV might be applicable is in severe epileptics who've had the surgery to separate both halves of their brains.

Even in the extreme epileptic case, I have serious doubts as to whether there'd be any mental deficit related to "switching between" right and left hemisphere activities.

The idea that for subtle differences, a blind test is not accurate is garbage as well. If it were true, you wouldn't find a convergence of test results to 50% (ie guesswork as to which component is being listened to). His beliefs have yet to be proven. I would be happy to see a real proof on the subject if only to shut everybody up about this debate.

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

[E-Stat]

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

Null Hypothesis

We approach music appreciation very differently, Mr. Tooth.

rw

[magictooth]

Null Hypothesis

We approach music appreciation very differently, Mr. Tooth.

rw

Not really we don't. I listen to music especially violin music with a very critical ear. I listen for subtle nuances that most people who haven't played the instrument to a high level would never appreciate. When I have auditioned cables, I haven't been able to distinguish a difference when hearing these nuances in a blind setting. In a sighted setting, I "have" been able to determine which cable it is that I am listening to.

As for why companies don't do it. Well, why doesn't Monster commission a study? They're paying what 1M or is it more for renaming Candelstick Park. A study would be way less than that.

As for your reason that the companies don't commission a study because nobody wants to see it, well, that's just some people saying that they like the reality that they are living in, even if it is just an illusion. This is not a good reason not to have a study.

[E-Stat]

Not really we don't. I listen to music especially violin music with a very critical ear. I listen for subtle nuances that most people who haven't played the instrument to a high level would never appreciate. When I have auditioned cables, I haven't been able to distinguish a difference when hearing these nuances in a blind setting.

Congratulations.

rw

[magictooth]

Congratulations.

rw

Nice sidestep of the question I posed earlier. Let me rephrase for you:

E-Stat, is the foundation for your belief in sighted testing based solely on the say so of one especially forward thinking audio reviewer? Do you have any other reason for believing that sighted testing is equivalent to or better than blind testing (other than your own admitted sighted testing experiences)?

[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

[magictooth]

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

rw

LOL, another sidestep of a reasonable question (as asked a couple of posts up).

In reply to this post, the comment is taken out of context - as you well know. The reason behind this comment is that if, as you so firmly believe, sighted testing is as good as blind testing, then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

[E-Stat]

In reply to this post, the comment is taken out of context - as you well know.

I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.

The reason behind this comment is that if, as you so firmly believe, sighted testing is as good as blind testing, then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.

rw

[musicoverall]

Please note the bold that I put in your quote.

Hmm, so an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller is expounding his theories about how the neural pathways interact. That's great science there. Reading the above makes me wonder how we can even walk and talk at the same time.

Has this POV ever been vetted in a professional journal? Is it the Lancet? No, the NEJM? No, how about a specialized journal that most people wouldn't read?

I don't really understand how if you are using your "right brain" function, that it automatically shuts off your "left brain" and that you can't switch back and forth instantaneously. I thought that the neural impulses travel pretty much at the speed of electricity. The only case where this above POV might be applicable is in severe epileptics who've had the surgery to separate both halves of their brains.

Even in the extreme epileptic case, I have serious doubts as to whether there'd be any mental deficit related to "switching between" right and left hemisphere activities.

The idea that for subtle differences, a blind test is not accurate is garbage as well. If it were true, you wouldn't find a convergence of test results to 50% (ie guesswork as to which component is being listened to). His beliefs have yet to be proven. I would be happy to see a real proof on the subject if only to shut everybody up about this debate.

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

I can't speak for all "yeasayers" but I certainly am not discussing science - I'm discussing music and listening. I view that as more of an art than a science. I believe Mr Kuller would agree, hence there is no need for any scientific journal articles.

Have you ever watched, say, a basketball game for pleasure? Then have you ever served as a statistician for a game? You watch it entirely differently. Just an example of how the right brain and left brain work differently while performing the same activity. I can tell you that listening to music for pleasure and listening for component differences is totally different. One is pleasurable, the other is hard work!

As for proof of cable sonics (or proof against), I think those that care about such things are the ones that need to have at it. Why in the world would cable companies go to all the time and expense to perform the experiments you're recommending? They're already convinced of cable sonics! They don't need the proof you seem to require. I can appreciate your POV (even if it seems I don't and even though I don't agree) but cable companies wouldn't appreciate your willingness to spend THEIR money for YOUR satisfaction i.e proof.

Personally speaking, when I feel the need to test every sensory perception I have, such as the tastes of my favorite foods, colors, and other experiences, I'll blind test cables. It's that simple. I either trust my senses or I don't - and I do. BTW, your turntables do not sound different until you blind test them, according to your beliefs.

[magictooth]

I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.


Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.

rw

You need to reread the posts. It is pretty clearly delineated what I was referring to. If you can't get it after a couple more tries, well we probably shouldn't be talking about it anyways.

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph (and entire point of view on this subject), this is another self serving pile of junk. This is the classical "my hypothesis makes sense for my point of view, hence it is correct." Take another example: religious leaders condemn a homosexual lifestyle as leading to the moral decay and the descent into the seething morass of the general population. It makes sense if it fits your view of the world. Is it proven? Or how about some people who spout off about video games leading to an elevated level of violence these days. It makes sense because there's lots of violence in some games and that has to rub off on the players. Has this been proven?

The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

[magictooth]

I can't speak for all "yeasayers" but I certainly am not discussing science - I'm discussing music and listening. I view that as more of an art than a science. I believe Mr Kuller would agree, hence there is no need for any scientific journal articles.

Have you ever watched, say, a basketball game for pleasure? Then have you ever served as a statistician for a game? You watch it entirely differently. Just an example of how the right brain and left brain work differently while performing the same activity. I can tell you that listening to music for pleasure and listening for component differences is totally different. One is pleasurable, the other is hard work!

As for proof of cable sonics (or proof against), I think those that care about such things are the ones that need to have at it. Why in the world would cable companies go to all the time and expense to perform the experiments you're recommending? They're already convinced of cable sonics! They don't need the proof you seem to require. I can appreciate your POV (even if it seems I don't and even though I don't agree) but cable companies wouldn't appreciate your willingness to spend THEIR money for YOUR satisfaction i.e proof.

Personally speaking, when I feel the need to test every sensory perception I have, such as the tastes of my favorite foods, colors, and other experiences, I'll blind test cables. It's that simple. I either trust my senses or I don't - and I do. BTW, your turntables do not sound different until you blind test them, according to your beliefs.

Why wouldn't the companies want to pander to my type? If half of audiophiles are yeasayers and half are naysayers that's a huge pick up in business if they can prove a thing because now the naysayers will be buying their product. I have money to spend. If by spending $2k or more on cables would make a noticeable improvement to my systemt then I'd be willing to spend it. However, I need proof in a scientifically verifiable form.

I think a lot of sighted testing problems comes down to the listener wanting to hear the differences when they know that there should be differences. I remember in many of my sighted cable tests, that I would notice the intake of breath of the flautist or the clarinetist clacking on his reed slightly for "the first" time with the new cables, but then when I went to listen with the other cables where these miraculous sounds were absent - whoops they were there all along - I just didn't pay attention to them until I was really listening for the differences. This doesn't mean the sounds were more clear with the new cables; more likely it was me trying a little bit harder to justify a difference in the cables.

My TTs sound different in both blind testing and sighted testing. If cables sound so different they should also sound different in both blind and sighted testing. As of right now, they sound different only when doing sighted testing.

[Monstrous Mike]

The orignal post showed an example, regardless of how unscientific, of how senses and observations can be skewed. Further, there are hundreds of examples of this from all aspects of life.

Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong.

Yes, I've interpreted my observations incorrectly on many occasions. Sometimes I am aware of it, like when I watch an illusionist, sometimes I am not, like when I grab the wrong beer in the pub.

Conclusions are tricky business and the brain will tend to push us towards the conclusion that we desire. If you are not aware of that or think you can always control it, then you will reach more incorrect conclusions than you should.

[E-Stat]

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph...

It simply answers your last objection.

...then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

I guess I need to repeat the relevant part of Kuller's comments that preclude your concern.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results.

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw

[magictooth]

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.


When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw

For your first part, I've repudiated your claims that blind testing is effective for one type of test but not another. You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.

For the rest, Monstrous Mike just stole my thunder in the other thread. I was going to say (and will say) that while I am doing most of the inquiring, I certainly can empathize with how Copernicans and Galileans felt in the Inquisition times. The hard headed religious judges and censors of the time would not listen to reason, but said that it was God's way or the highway.

You say that you and several audio reviewers share conclusions about the audibility of differences in components. What does this have to do with a sighted test being better than a blind test? It sounds mostly like there's a bunch of old boys sitting around scratching each others' backs. There isn't one iota of sense in what you have just told me.

It's the same scenario as I laid out above with regards to certain religious zealots or anti-gaming big mouths. You (and they) want to fit a conclusion into a hypothesis without first obtaining results. Normally a hypothesis is proposed, test results obtained, and a conclusion drawn.

As well, I've indicated from the start that it is not the cost, but rather the sighted environment that is the determining factor in whether you can hear a difference.

[E-Stat]

You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.

Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.

I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s.

rw

[musicoverall]

Why wouldn't the companies want to pander to my type? If half of audiophiles are yeasayers and half are naysayers that's a huge pick up in business if they can prove a thing because now the naysayers will be buying their product. I have money to spend. If by spending $2k or more on cables would make a noticeable improvement to my systemt then I'd be willing to spend it. However, I need proof in a scientifically verifiable form..

... and scientific proof from a cable company will cause you to buy products which by your own blind tests are not differentiated from one another???? Is your position that science and science alone will tell you what you hear? I'm sorry but I just can't subscribe to such a theory.

[magictooth]

... and scientific proof from a cable company will cause you to buy products which by your own blind tests are not differentiated from one another???? Is your position that science and science alone will tell you what you hear? I'm sorry but I just can't subscribe to such a theory.

Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.

[magictooth]

Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.

I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s.

rw

Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here? A concession that the basis sighted testing in audio is as flimsy as a fashion model's lingerie?

BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.

[musicoverall]

Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.

So what you're saying is that under blind test, you could not hear a difference between Cable A and Cable B. But if the Cable A company proved to you that you were wrong, you'd buy Cable A - even though you previously couldn't hear a difference.

Thanks, but I'm going to stick with buying those differences I can hear rather than differences I'm told to hear... or told I can't.