Blind listening verses Sighted Listening..good read

[Ajani]

To expand upon my earlier post

A quick point:

Sighted bias isn't limited to preferring more attractive, blinged out and expensive gear... Since many people prefer more industrial, utilitarian and plain designs...

I've seen many audiophiles automatically assume that if Products X & Y both cost the same, but X looks really fancy, while Y is plain looking, then Y is clearly the better value for money as all the costs have gone to improving sound quality and not cosmetics... That assumption (which is quite popular in audiophile circles) is a sighted bias and is not always true... and some brands have capitalized on audiophiles making that assumption...

I think Blind Testing is a very useful tool for designers (even planar brands, since I'm sure they can design a speaker selector that doesn't mess up dipole sound, if they want to...) and can also be for reviewers... It has little direct relevance to the consumer as we will buy what we like regardless...

AND

I don't recall making any claim whatsoever about the level of test perfection with Harman's "shuffler." ;-)

However, that is a good example of the hypercritical goggles we often put on when it comes to evaluating test results. Locate any perceived imperfection in the test procedure and then we can discount any info we don't like.

The simple fact is that all tests developed and conducted by humans are going to have their limitations. The "shuffler" is a device that can still deliver useful information to a researcher or designer. A researcher or designer is interested in the results of a test such as that one. And, if they or others desire, it can prove an excellent springboard with which to continue further research by refining the test or attempting to account for the original test's limitations.

And, while we're on the subject, note that I made no claim that blind test should replace all other types of testing. I specifically said that for certain purposes "blind testing becomes far more important." That still leaves plenty of room for good old fashioned subjective evaluation.



This is a classic oversimplification of the wide range of potential psychological biases that can creep into things. Manufacturers can spend hefty sums researching and designing the appearance of a product and even packaging. A good design can influence the way we perceive a product in ways that most of us don't even realize. In fact, if we are not part of the target market, chances are we'll probably scratch our heads and wonder what the heck they were thinking.

While a show-room finish may be attractive to one group of buyers, others may respond to a far more plain-jane approach, or a "technical" look, or industrial and so on. And many smaller boutique manufacturers simply may go with what strikes the owner's fancy or simply what is convenient.

Sometimes we are aware of our bias. Take horn speakers in my case. I've heard lots of them, new and old, over the years and have yet to hear one I'd want for my home system. Yet there are brands I've not heard and their advocates will quickly tell you that their model doesn't suffer from "horn sound." Yet if I knew I was listening to a horn system, my past experience is going to have me on high alert looking for any hint of that defect.

Same thing with metal diaphragm tweeters. In 40 years I've not heard one I've liked so any that are new-to-me start out in a hole.

Those are just the biases I'm aware of. I've little doubt that I have plenty of subconscious influences that are actively at work in far more subtle ways.

For an interesting read on the general subject, check out "A Mind Of Its Own" by Cordelia Fine. Excellent book on the way our brain thinks.

I read an article recently (which I hope to locate and post soon) that addressed reasons/misconceptions why audiophiles are opposed to blind testing:

1) The idea that blind testing shows that all amps sound the same - it does not... If you read articles from mags like The Audio Critic, you'll see these claims... but you'll also see some serious disclaimers as well: Amps must be level matched (OK, that's fine). Amps must perform within their power limit (so speakers must be sensitive enough to suit both the flea watt and mega watt amps - which is not the case in all hifi setups, but is fairly reasonable for the purpose of the test). Amps must have the same technical measurements (Say what? That one is the kicker for me, since once you read enough review measurements, you realize that most amps don't measure the same). So basically if amps measure the same, are used within the their power range and are level matched, then they will sound the same... I don't have much trouble believing that... but that is a VERY different assertion than ALL amps sound the same... What can be debated is whether all amps should measure the same....

Note: the Carver Challenge is an interesting read, that I see as being related to amps measuring the same and sounding the same:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/...ver_challenge/

2) FEAR - Not just fear from a few fraudsters that their Golden Ears won't hold up under real scrutiny (I'm sure many audiophiles can actually hear the differences they say they do), but fear of change and results not being what they intuitively expect... So often we see audiophiles coming up with lots of reasons to invalidate the results of a specific blind test, rather than looking for ways to improve the blind testing and applying it...

3) As I addressed in my original post, some audiophiles think they have no sighted bias simply because they have bland or ugly gear... It may just mean that they automatically assume that the 'blingy' looking gear is just eye candy and not serious HiFi (much like the bias in assuming that a pretty blond girl is dumb)... A brand that made a rep on plain/boring/ugly gear was NAD: All their gear used to have cheap plastic front panels and battleship grey paint... Plastic is cheaper than metal, so clearly that can be seen as a cost saving mechanism (presumably value to the consumer)... But the dull gray paint? Why not just Black or Silver like 90% of HiFi? Is dull grey paint cheaper than black or silver? My guess is that the grey is very distinctive, without looking like an attempt to be stylish... The dull paint job and plastic finish gave the impression that the products were all business.. not a cent wasted on cosmetics...

[E-Stat]

Note: the Carver Challenge is an interesting read, that I see as being related to amps measuring the same and sounding the same:

What I find to be a more interesting read is Carver's comments in the August 2008 TAS about his challenge.

"I should have said, I can make my amplifier sound close...

Well, I have a secret. I cheated. I practiced a lot before I started! There's a lot going on behind the curtain."

rw

[Feanor]

...

I read an article recently (which I hope to locate and post soon) that addressed reasons/misconceptions why audiophiles are opposed to blind testing:

1) The idea that blind testing shows that all amps sound the same - it does not... If you read articles from mags like The Audio Critic, you'll see these claims... but you'll also see some serious disclaimers as well: Amps must be level matched (OK, that's fine). Amps must perform within their power limit (so speakers must be sensitive enough to suit both the flea watt and mega watt amps - which is not the case in all hifi setups, but is fairly reasonable for the purpose of the test). Amps must have the same technical measurements (Say what? That one is the kicker for me, since once you read enough review measurements, you realize that most amps don't measure the same). ....
...

There as the classic amplfier DBT performed by David Clark and reported by Ian Masters in Stereo Review in 1987. The title was, "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?".

And the the usual conclusion attributed to the article is that they do. And yet when you read the article in full it was clear that at least some participants could -- in fact -- reliably distinguish difference between at least some of the ampliers.