Blind listening verses Sighted Listening..good read

[E-Stat]

Good read

Here's another more techie version by the same author: AES Report. I think it is important to understand what the finding mean - and what the findings of other blind tests don't mean.

1. This was a preference test of speakers with easily measured tonal differences.

2. The purpose of the test was to calibrate the trained listeners so that in house experts could be used for future product development instead of costly trials using larger audiences. Note the comment concerning the consistency of the preferences between the trained and untrained listeners. That information was gold to them.

3. You'll note that considerable effort was made to access the *performance* of the listeners.

"The combination of training and experience in controlled listening tests clearly has a positive effect on the listener's performance"

Indeed. Anywhere from 3 to 27 times better! Some even had perfect scores requiring some statistical fudging.

4. I think everyone is in agreement that the room makes a difference. With some speakers, more than others. Here is their "speaker shuffler"

While each speaker is rotated to the same position, this device really only works fairly with monopole box speakers. Dipoles will not get an optimum environment since their rear radiation contributes to their sound. Distance to back wall and the amount of reflections must be carefully optimized.

5. Null results in blind testing are the absence of a conclusion. Despite this, many argue that null tests *prove* one thing or another. This they do not. Nor should the results of tests between components "A" and "B" be automatically extrapolated to "C", "D","E", "F", etc. or - components that didn't even exist at the time of the test. This fallacy is used by Roger Russell with his wire links.

rw

[Kevio]

Here's another more techie version by the same author: AES Report. I think it is important to understand what the finding mean - and what the findings of other blind tests don't mean.

This looks like a different study to me. It may be based on the same data but the important findings of the originally posted study are:

1/ You get different results if you do a trial sighted vs. blind.
2/ As we all know, placement affects a speaker's sound. Sighted listener did not hear these changes as readily as blind listeners.

I think it is difficult to dispute finding 1 (though some do try). The pro-sighted argument is that finding 1 is the due to sighted testing being more accurate because having your eyes open gives the listener more "context" or somesuch. Finding 2 appears to deflate this explanation.

[E-Stat]

I think it is difficult to dispute finding 1 (though some do try).

Rather than trying to dispute it, the more important question is how can anyone reasonably use the information? If you are swayed by luxurious wood finishes or big boxes, then do your auditioning twice? Duplicating the shuffler arrangement is virtually impossible unless you use their system. Which also eliminates the possibility of using dipolar speakers as well.

Given the number of speakers with really exotic wood finishes and mirrored piano finish paints of various colors, I certainly don't dispute the cosmetic attraction of certain speakers to some folks. In my case, there is no danger of anyone accusing my speakers of having fancy finishes. The U-1s use tubular steel frames painted with Polane Dead Flat Black polyurethane. Very industrial looking. Similarly, the Polks in the HT are also painted black although the wife might like something *prettier* since they live in the den. The thirty year old Advents in the garage have the vinyl cabinets and are a bit worse for the wear living in that environment.

rw

[Kevio]

Rather than trying to dispute it, the more important question is how can anyone reasonably use the information?

If you want to select purely the best sounding speakers, audition with your eyes closed. If you'd rather choose the speakers you like the best, go ahead and peek.

But I don't see a future with blindfolded retail so I guess that's not practical. To me it says there's more to one's appreciation of audio equipment than the sound. There's finish, manufacturer spiel, peer acceptance, fancy glowing tubes, price, status and more.

In some cases there's even a bit of reverse psychology spun it - my speakers are homely but they sound great!

It's a rich experience.

[Pat D]

While each speaker is rotated to the same position, this device really only works fairly with monopole box speakers. Dipoles will not get an optimum environment since their rear radiation contributes to their sound. Distance to back wall and the amount of reflections must be carefully optimized. rw

That is irrelevant to the actual tests done, which did not involve dipole speakers.

What you have described is definitely one of the biggest disadvantages of dipoles used as main speakers.

[E-Stat]

That is irrelevant to the actual tests done, which did not involve dipole speakers.

I was referring to the 2003 test where they used the "shuffler" with the intent, if not success, of eliminating speaker position as a variable. The shuffler didn't exist for the 1994 test which is why they posted two results for each speaker since there were different outcomes depending upon where those speakers were placed.

rw