Blind listening comparisons

[Geoffcin]

Fortunately audio is different than wine in that you cannot quantify the quality of the latter empirically, while the former is easily quantified.

[tube fan]

Fortunately audio is different than wine in that you cannot quantify the quality of the latter empirically, while the former is easily quantified.

you are QUITE mistaken if you think audio quality is EASILY quantified. How can you explain JA's measurements of the AR SCi60 amp, vs his appreciation of the same unit playing, you know, actual music over, you know, actual components. ONLY through the average measuring AR amp did the speaker sound great. And that is JA, the god of hopelessly meaningless measurements!!!

[tube fan]

Geoffcin, what you and others (e.g., TTT) don't understand is that human hearing is MUCH more sensitive to the thousands of factors involved in music reproduction. Whatever, if YOU cannot rate a given piece of equipment blind, then, you are just buying numbers (meaningless in this case) vs YOUR blind ratings. I have enjoyed dozens of my friends rate $15 wines over their "favorite" (bought just on the high rating by Parker) wines. I doubt YOU would rate your favorite ss amp over many, lower priced tube amps, but only if listened to blind.

[Raj J]

Greetings to all for 2011 and may you have a new year full of promise and desired results!

good on you tube fan!
hey fellow audiophiles and enthusiasts if the guy (or girl...) wants to listen and test blind - then so be it! that's the way he/she wants to evaluate audio gear so let them for crying out loud! afterall it's their dollars not yours, what's all the fuss about?

yes of course we would generally like to have something visually appealing (specially those with the wifey factor...) as well as something sounding good as it looks! but that's us, and so we will buy something that WE feel is a good deal by both parties involved in the transaction and you go home feeling it was a good buy indeed.

ah! but wait till you do a blind test at one of those shows or at a friends place - I'll be dammed if it really sounds better than what you just purchased! I am afraid our tube fan is right ladies and mostly gents out there, we also do buy what is visually appealing or striking; something that excites us and therefore should sound great. we also tend to think just because it looks stunning, built like a rock or with exquisite materials it should sound top-notch! but infact some sound like a load of bollocks! and there are some that do live up to all those good looks indeed. but what the hec, aren't these high-end systems supposed to caress our ears, in which case why bother with the looks? we are all human afterall & supposed to have good hearing... therefore if someone chooses equipment doing blind tests good for them! I hope they are truly happy with their purchase at the end of the day.
enjoying YOUR music on YOUR SYSTEM is what it's all about, and if he/she is enjoying exactly that, then that's about it!
cheers, Raj J

[tube fan]

I fortunately have a great wife who let's me put my speakers and audio equipment wherever I want. My huge Fulton J speakers look OK (at best). My wife also lets me play my music at realistic (similar to live) levels.

BTW, the new 3.7 speaker looks stunning! Valin loved the 1.7, and the 3.7 might be even better.

[Ajani]

Geoffcin, what you and others (e.g., TTT) don't understand is that human hearing is MUCH more sensitive to the thousands of factors involved in music reproduction. Whatever, if YOU cannot rate a given piece of equipment blind, then, you are just buying numbers (meaningless in this case) vs YOUR blind ratings. I have enjoyed dozens of my friends rate $15 wines over their "favorite" (bought just on the high rating by Parker) wines. I doubt YOU would rate your favorite ss amp over many, lower priced tube amps, but only if listened to blind.

There are several factors to consider here:

1) Some audiophiles can indeed hear and appreciate differences between cheaper and more expensive gear... They buy expensive gear because it sounds better to them (whether that is always natural or an acquired taste is an interesting question, IMO)

2) Another set of audiophiles only think they can hear differences, but would likely be embarrassed in blind tests...

3) Yet another set buy expensive gear for the same reasons many persons buy a BMW, expensive bottle of wine or a Rolex: to show off their wealth and status...

The problem being that all types exist on audio forums and all 3 will claim that they buy the more expensive gear because it sounds better... When only 1 of the 3 types actually buys it for that reason...

[tube fan]

There are several factors to consider here:

1) Some audiophiles can indeed hear and appreciate differences between cheaper and more expensive gear... They buy expensive gear because it sounds better to them (whether that is always natural or an acquired taste is an interesting question, IMO)

2) Another set of audiophiles only think they can hear differences, but would likely be embarrassed in blind tests...

3) Yet another set buy expensive gear for the same reasons many persons buy a BMW, expensive bottle of wine or a Rolex: to show off their wealth and status...

The problem being that all types exist on audio forums and all 3 will claim that they buy the more expensive gear because it sounds better... When only 1 of the 3 types actually buys it for that reason...

And, thus, another reason for blind listening tests. And even then, the number who fit in class 1 approaches 0 as a limit!

[Ajani]

And, thus, another reason for blind listening tests. And even then, the number who fit in class 1 approaches 0 as a limit!

The audiophiles in Class 1 won't benefit from blind testing, as they will be able to identify the more expensive gear and will select them regardless... Just as many real wine connoisseurs would always select the more expensive wine...

The audiophiles in Class 2 would benefit from blind testing... though of course, they would probably also benefit from regular hearing tests... Something too few of us do regularly enough... It is rather silly (if you really think about it) to drop $30K on a stereo, based on your excellent hearing, if you've not had a hearing test...

The audiophiles in class 3 could care less about blind testing, as audible benefit was not the real reason for their purchases anyway...


IMO, only the posers in class 2 would benefit from blind testing as it might humble them...

What's the aim of blind testing in HiFi? To eliminate sighted bias (so picking the expensive gear because you know it is more expensive)? So take this scenario: An audiophile, who can genuinely hear differences, prefers a Mark Levinson No. 532H (300 Watt) amp in a sighted test over an Emotiva XPA-2 (300 Watt) amp. If he was to then test those 2 amps in a blind test he'd still be able to identify the Levinson. So if he really selected the Levinson based on price bias in the sighted test, he'd do the same in the blind test...

[Nasir]

Dear me, this IS heavy. After a couple of glasses of ANY wine, I just want to sit down on something cosy and listen to ANY HIFI system.... just as long as the music is good!!!
In our apartment, the Cardas, WASP or any other method of speaker placement is quickly rejected in favour of " It´s either you or the speakers " REPLACEMENT method.
Since I have yet to be replaced, one presumes that my speakers are eye pleasing and do not encrouch on the invisible frontiers of the 3 cats free running around space.
In other words, my speakers please the eyes and the ears, do not have to be banished to a listening room full of room treatments with the only ONE person sweetspot!! Maybe one day, when I can afford it, I might have it that way.
As for a persons individual biases, it will always overpower even the most scientific of tests. And if you are not allowed to see what you are listening too, then the immediate impact will outweigh any and all qualities that the system would have shown over time. No one wins!!!

[tube fan]

The audiophiles in Class 1 won't benefit from blind testing, as they will be able to identify the more expensive gear and will select them regardless... Just as many real wine connoisseurs would always select the more expensive wine...

The audiophiles in Class 2 would benefit from blind testing... though of course, they would probably also benefit from regular hearing tests... Something too few of us do regularly enough... It is rather silly (if you really think about it) to drop $30K on a stereo, based on your excellent hearing, if you've not had a hearing test...

The audiophiles in class 3 could care less about blind testing, as audible benefit was not the real reason for their purchases anyway...


IMO, only the posers in class 2 would benefit from blind testing as it might humble them...

What's the aim of blind testing in HiFi? To eliminate sighted bias (so picking the expensive gear because you know it is more expensive)? So take this scenario: An audiophile, who can genuinely hear differences, prefers a Mark Levinson No. 532H (300 Watt) amp in a sighted test over an Emotiva XPA-2 (300 Watt) amp. If he was to then test those 2 amps in a blind test he'd still be able to identify the Levinson. So if he really selected the Levinson based on price bias in the sighted test, he'd do the same in the blind test...

Trust me, if you think "real wine connoisseurs" could consistently (much less ALWAYS) pick out the expensive wine, you are, let's be polite, A TOTAL FOOL!!! If you pick the expensive audio component, great! But don't be so sure sure you would!

[E-Stat]

Trust me, if you think "real wine connoisseurs" could consistently (much less ALWAYS) pick out the expensive wine...

So why would an *expensive* wine taste better anyway? I'm a scotch fancier and the differences between blends, single malts and more expensive cask strength and single cask variations have clear distinctions that easily account for the differences. Similarly, I couldn't care less about an audio component's price - I'm more interested in the topology, quality of parts used and strength of power supply. As another long term Audio Research fan, you can easily see why their current models are better than ones from the 80s and 90s. I trust you are aware of the ARC database site.

rw

[Ajani]

Trust me, if you think "real wine connoisseurs" could consistently (much less ALWAYS) pick out the expensive wine, you are, let's be polite, A TOTAL FOOL!!! If you pick the expensive audio component, great! But don't be so sure sure you would!

Perhaps my wording is not clear, so let's see if a rephrase helps:

Real wine connoisseurs could consistently identify the more expensive wines... Now whether they always prefer them is another issue...

The point is not that you must prefer the more expensive wine or audio equipment but that you'd be able to identify it...

Now let's take you as an example: Why don't you trust yourself to audition sighted? Do you find that you pick different products when you can see the brands versus when you can't? The fact that you believe cheaper gear can sound better than more expensive ones, suggest you are probably not as prone to sighted bias as you believe... Perhaps if you trusted yourself more, you'd pick the same gear (whether cheaper or more expensive) in a sighted test as you would in a blind one...

Note: "TOTAL FOOL" can never be polite (though it is a funny insult), however if you want to avoid having posts edited by Mods and what comes after that I'd suggest not handing out insults to other forum members... Insults never aid a discussion...

[Feanor]

So why would an *expensive* wine taste better anyway? I'm a scotch fancier and the differences between blends, single malts and more expensive cask strength and single cask variations have clear distinctions that easily account for the differences. Similarly, I couldn't care less about an audio component's price - I'm more interested in the topology, quality of parts used and strength of power supply. As another long term Audio Research fan, you can easily see why their current models are better than ones from the 80s and 90s. I trust you are aware of the ARC database site.

rw

You're referring to THIS site which is one of the better vintage sites and most interesting. (Wow -- I see they've got advertising nowadays.)

Speaking of what's on the inside, it brings to mind computers. People have asked me why I like to assemble my own, I tell them I'd rather know thebrands on the inside, than what brand is on the outside.

[Ajani]

So why would an *expensive* wine taste better anyway? I'm a scotch fancier and the differences between blends, single malts and more expensive cask strength and single cask variations have clear distinctions that easily account for the differences.

So essentially you'd be able to identify differences between them whether you could see the label or not.... Whether you prefer the most expensive or not would be a matter or taste...

Similarly, I couldn't care less about an audio component's price - I'm more interested in the topology, quality of parts used and strength of power supply. As another long term Audio Research fan, you can easily see why their current models are better than ones from the 80s and 90s. I trust you are aware of the ARC database site.

rw

Looking at the internals seems a much better judge of quality than price tag....

Just to be difficult (devil's advocate, I suppose): What if you listened to two products and clearly preferred the one with lower quality parts, power supply & topology? Would you still purchase the one with the better internals?

[tube fan]

Ajani, you are NOT getting it. Recall the NYT tasting I mentioned earlier: in the morning everyone (all wine "experts") tasted and rated the wines knowing which was which. The French were rated first, Oregon next, and California last. When the EXACT same wines were tasted blind, the California wines came in first, followed by the Oregon ones, with the French wines being last. I have been to several blind tastings where "experts" gave widely different scores to the same wine. Recall Robert J Reina's article on the ARSi60 integrated amp ($4,000). He actually preferred the $4,000 integrated over his $20,000 pre and power amp separates in the bass. As he put it: "over a wide range of recordings, I felt that the VSi60 bettered the Audio Valve/Ref 110 combo in every aspect of bass articulation and definition. But this made no sense to me. Why would a higher-powered amp with a similar circuit topology, bigger transforms, and better parts produce a bottom end slightly inferior to that of the baby integrated?"

Of course, I often listen sighted (like at the CAS). However, by focusing on and rating the music, rather than rating the audio components themselves, I am (yes, IMO) able to overcome some of the bias involved in listening sighted.

[Ajani]

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much here...

Ajani, you are NOT getting it. Recall the NYT tasting I mentioned earlier: in the morning everyone (all wine "experts") tasted and rated the wines knowing which was which. The French were rated first, Oregon next, and California last. When the EXACT same wines were tasted blind, the California wines came in first, followed by the Oregon ones, with the French wines being last. I have been to several blind tastings where "experts" gave widely different scores to the same wine.

Those "experts" are what I call posers... If they were really experts then they would be able to tell the differences in a blind test...

Recall Robert J Reina's article on the ARSi60 integrated amp ($4,000). He actually preferred the $4,000 integrated over his $20,000 pre and power amp separates in the bass. As he put it: "over a wide range of recordings, I felt that the VSi60 bettered the Audio Valve/Ref 110 combo in every aspect of bass articulation and definition. But this made no sense to me. Why would a higher-powered amp with a similar circuit topology, bigger transforms, and better parts produce a bottom end slightly inferior to that of the baby integrated?"

Now that's a case of a reviewer not having sighted bias... So he would not need blind testing...

Of course, I often listen sighted (like at the CAS). However, by focusing on and rating the music, rather than rating the audio components themselves, I am (yes, IMO) able to overcome some of the bias involved in listening sighted.

Which ties back to my point: IMO, persons (like you) who are willing to be honest with themselves don't need to listen blind... Blind testing is best for showing up the "Fake Golden Ears" and the "Wine Conno-Posers"... If you're not prone to believing that more expensive must be better, then knowing the price tag is not going to have much (if any) impact on your decision...

[tube fan]

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much here...



Those "experts" are what I call posers... If they were really experts then they would be able to tell the differences in a blind test...




Now that's a case of a reviewer not having sighted bias... So he would not need blind testing...



Which ties back to my point: IMO, persons (like you) who are willing to be honest with themselves don't need to listen blind... Blind testing is best for showing up the "Fake Golden Ears" and the "Wine Conno-Posers"... If you're not prone to believing that more expensive must be better, then knowing the price tag is not going to have much (if any) impact on your decision...

These were top rated wine experts. Yes, in the opinion of the NYT. IMO, you VASTLY overrate the number of true expert tasters. I have been to many blind tastings where winemakers from top wineries failed to pick out their own wine (out of 6 or 8). I bet many engineers of audio equipment would similarly fail to pick out their own gear.

[Ajani]

These were top rated wine experts. Yes, in the opinion of the NYT. IMO, you VASTLY overrate the number of true expert tasters. I have been to many blind tastings where winemakers from top wineries failed to pick out their own wine (out of 6 or 8). I bet many engineers of audio equipment would similarly fail to pick out their own gear.

Note: I never said there were a lot of real experts...

I have no doubt that a large number of wine experts and golden ear audiophiles are either posing or delusional...

So let me ask this question:

Do you think that someone posing as a wine expert or golden ear audiophile would more likely a) change their choice as a result of a blind test and admit that they can't tell the difference or b) blame the test conditions and not do anymore blind tests?

If you're willing to do regular blind testing as you do, then chances are high that you don't need them...

[tube fan]

Note: I never said there were a lot of real experts...

I have no doubt that a large number of wine experts and golden ear audiophiles are either posing or delusional...

We agree that a large number of wine "experts" or audio "experts" are not really experts. However, I think true blind tests would reveal that the number of true experts would approach 0 as a limit.

You ARE correct, IMO, that I am not influenced much by price, brand, or format in my own ratings. For example, at the CAS, I was hugely impressed by the Audio Note room, despite the fact that they played only digital, and I always hate digital. However, the sound was like no digital I have ever heard. First, it had real tonal accuracy. Voices, male or female sounded like they were in the room. The high end was extended, but not harsh (a real shock). One CD of a 15 piece jazz group sounded almost exactly like what I heard dozens of times at SF's Pearls on Monday nites: great detail but warm when the playing required it. Plus the system loaded the room properly: by that I mean that the 15 piece band seemed to be in the room, rather than sound coming from speakers. No one in my area carries Audio Note equipment, so it's going to be difficult for me to audition their equipment.

[Raj J]

We agree that a large number of wine "experts" or audio "experts" are not really experts. However, I think true blind tests would reveal that the number of true experts would approach 0 as a limit.

You ARE correct, IMO, that I am not influenced much by price, brand, or format in my own ratings. For example, at the CAS, I was hugely impressed by the Audio Note room, despite the fact that they played only digital, and I always hate digital. However, the sound was like no digital I have ever heard. First, it had real tonal accuracy. Voices, male or female sounded like they were in the room. The high end was extended, but not harsh (a real shock). One CD of a 15 piece jazz group sounded almost exactly like what I heard dozens of times at SF's Pearls on Monday nites: great detail but warm when the playing required it. Plus the system loaded the room properly: by that I mean that the 15 piece band seemed to be in the room, rather than sound coming from speakers. No one in my area carries Audio Note equipment, so it's going to be difficult for me to audition their equipment.

greetings from down under! speaking of under, we are experiencing some major floods in Queensland... hope they get out alright! rains seem to have subsided finally.

Now, why doesn't everyone just go back home and listen to your music eh?
blind folded or not... who cares! you all talk too much and listen less.
enjoy your music ANYWAY you like dudes!

by the way, tube fan -Audio note is an excellent product if partnered well. I have had some experience with an Audio note preamp partnered with some huge monoblocks from Melos - the sound was very tubey and seemed to have a level of listener fatigue. then the very same preamp was partnered with Carey monoblocks CAD-se series, and sounded much more relaxed and less annoying. (although overall the system was still annoying due to a pair of massive horn speakers from Avant garde, Trio's) the room was probably just right for an oversized guinea pig! yes, the room was small as a shoe box!

have you considered conrad johnson gear? if you want that true 3-D effect on a live scale give it a try. to me it is the absolute sound! you can listen for endless hours...
and you know what, now it's 6pm, and I am out the office heading to the gym. and then of course some outstanding music from 10pm to 4am, and still can't get enough!
cheers, & enjoy that music!
have a good one! RJ

[Ajani]

You ARE correct, IMO, that I am not influenced much by price, brand, or format in my own ratings. For example, at the CAS, I was hugely impressed by the Audio Note room, despite the fact that they played only digital, and I always hate digital. However, the sound was like no digital I have ever heard. First, it had real tonal accuracy. Voices, male or female sounded like they were in the room. The high end was extended, but not harsh (a real shock). One CD of a 15 piece jazz group sounded almost exactly like what I heard dozens of times at SF's Pearls on Monday nites: great detail but warm when the playing required it. Plus the system loaded the room properly: by that I mean that the 15 piece band seemed to be in the room, rather than sound coming from speakers. No one in my area carries Audio Note equipment, so it's going to be difficult for me to audition their equipment.

Perhaps it's time you change that view, as you've now heard a digital system sound amazing...

[E-Stat]

What if you listened to two products and clearly preferred the one with lower quality parts, power supply & topology? Would you still purchase the one with the better internals?

Never run into that situation, but I have compared two equivalently well built and priced amplifiers where one had decidedly "prettier" cosmetics - and I clearly preferred the sound of the other. Witness my VTL amps...

rw

[E-Stat]

You're referring to THIS site which is one of the better vintage sites...

Yes. You'll note it is not limited to their vintage products. You'll find the latest REF40 line stage with its 2 lb each teflon coupling caps and a 40 lb power supply befitting a power amp .

rw

[tube fan]

Never run into that situation, but I have compared two equivalently well built and priced amplifiers where one had decidedly "prettier" cosmetics - and I clearly preferred the sound of the other. Witness my VTL amps...

rw

I bet (a lot!) that you have NEVER actually, you know, actually rated components blind!!!

[E-Stat]

I bet (a lot!) that you have NEVER actually, you know, actually rated components blind!!!

Sorry. You would lose that bet. The tests have been of the single blind category, however, since true double blind testing (where both the tester and the person giving the test don't know the answer) most often requires the addition of specious boxes which can affect the outcome in unpredictable ways. True science requires a known control - not unproven assumptions. I've asked my wife (a university professor accustomed to proctoring exams) to switch cables with me out of the room and such that she and I enter and leave the room from different doors to eliminate possible cueing. She recorded the results.

On the other hand, you might be interested in this post of mine from a couple of years ago. Here is a computer based DBT that eliminates the issues that arise from adding boxes. To a certain extent, it is as much a test of the equipment you use which was not stellar in my case. TAH was able to better my results. In any event, you might find it fun to play!

rw