Blind listening verses Sighted Listening..good read

[3db]

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/0...o-product.html

[markw]

I'm not one of 'em, but I'm sure they will show up shortly to try to refute this article.

[3db]

I'm not one of 'em, but I'm sure they will show up shortly to try to refute this article.

How can they refrute an article from a musician with a PHD in acoutics? Let them try but you know as well as I that its just their sight opinions )

[Kevio]

I'm not one of 'em, but I'm sure they will show up shortly to try to refute this article.

They have already arrived. Read the comments following the article. Visit other audio forums and search for this link.

[markw]

They have already arrived. Read the comments following the article. Visit other audio forums and search for this link.

I don't see anything that can honestly invalidate his conclusions. I see an attempt that is quickly squashed, though.

[noddin0ff]

Seems to imply to me that, for the sighted market, improvements in marketing and product aesthetics will provide more 'bang for the buck' to consumer than sonic design improvements. Methinks Bose may be right after all.

[3db]

Seems to imply to me that, for the sighted market, improvements in marketing and product aesthetics will provide more 'bang for the buck' to consumer than sonic design improvements. Methinks Bose may be right after all.

Unfortunately I ahve to agree with you. They are marketing machine but the science in sound is a crock full of buffalo doodoo.

[Pat D]

Seems to imply to me that, for the sighted market, improvements in marketing and product aesthetics will provide more 'bang for the buck' to consumer than sonic design improvements. Methinks Bose may be right after all.

It may well offer more bang for the buck to some manufacturers!

[Hyfi]

So this is only about speakers, and most people think that just because a speaker is bigger, it automatically sounds better. Not true at all. My tiny Dynaudio 42s will outperform many floors tanders and if done blindly would win the votes.

Also, noted was the question of what was the reference for all comparisons? There seemed to be none so which speaker sounded better....than what?

I'm pretty sure you can hear a difference between Synergistic Research $800 speaker cables vs $200 Tara Labs weather your looking or not.

Each of the speakers they tested would also sound different between cables and sources which could account for the blind choices if the synergy between source and smaller speakers was in reality better than with the towers.

None of these tests seem to cover all the bases and leave themselves open to question.

[3db]

So this is only about speakers, and most people think that just because a speaker is bigger, it automatically sounds better. Not true at all. My tiny Dynaudio 42s will outperform many floors tanders and if done blindly would win the votes.

Also, noted was the question of what was the reference for all comparisons? There seemed to be none so which speaker sounded better....than what?

I'm pretty sure you can hear a difference between Synergistic Research $800 speaker cables vs $200 Tara Labs weather your looking or not.

Each of the speakers they tested would also sound different between cables and sources which could account for the blind choices if the synergy between source and smaller speakers was in reality better than with the towers.

None of these tests seem to cover all the bases and leave themselves open to question.

Blind testing of speakers implies level matched output as well as using the same source through out the test. The only variable will be the speaker being auditioned.

What I find interesting is that were no difference between audiophiles and audiophytes and they both liked disliked the same speakers during the blind test and that only sighted tests swayed the results. Coincident? I don't think so.

[Hyfi]

Blind testing of speakers implies level matched output as well as using the same source through out the test. The only variable will be the speaker being auditioned.

That was my point, the $3500 pair was not a good match for the sources but when looking at them you would assume they must sound better. There are plenty of smaller less expensive speakers that would rival many of the mega buck floorstanders. If you saw a 11 inch box next to a 4 foot tall box, wouldn't you assume the bigger is better?

[3db]

That was my point, the $3500 pair was not a good match for the sources but when looking at them you would assume they must sound better. There are plenty of smaller less expensive speakers that would rival many of the mega buck floorstanders. If you saw a 11 inch box next to a 4 foot tall box, wouldn't you assume the bigger is better?

eliminate the souce problem by running the tests thru a powerful SS amp pre-amp combo that will be used for all speakers. Its just the speakers being tested and not the source.

[RGA]

eliminate the souce problem by running the tests thru a powerful SS amp pre-amp combo that will be used for all speakers. Its just the speakers being tested and not the source.

The problem is that some us think that powerful SS amps suck ass are low resolving amplifiers and make a homegeneous presentation - and in blind test most low impedence high power power amps are viewed to "sound the same." Even the top SS makers in blind level matched auditions prefer tube amps http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

Having said that - certainly people are swayed with their eyes and certainly people buy based on looks, impressive technologies.

Hi-Fi Choice magazine does level matched blind auditions with panels of reviewers grading the speakers - I would not put all my stock in a blind test because there is always a minority who "chose the other one" and unless you yourself are in the test then you will never know if you were in the majority or the minority. Claiming to be an audiophile does not mean you have better hearing than the average non audiophile - so that point of interest to me is not a point of interest since to be quite frank - many audiophile own expensive gear that is no better than a lot of less expensive gear - claiming to be an audiophile based on dollars spent is alltogether different. High negative feedback amplfiers are not quality amplifiers IMO - and I can't think of a single exception that I have heard.

[E-Stat]

The only variable will be the speaker being auditioned.

While it may be the only *variable*, that does not mean that the results of the test aren't affected by the particular choice of amplifier and cable used. My experience has shown that system matching is critical for optimum results. Which is why I find it difficult to get excited over any single component because it may or may not be the best solution across multiple systems.

The amplifiers I use with the electrostats do not fare as well on my vintage speakers. Conversely, the amplifier I use with them doesn't do as well with the stats. Which is why I don't contribute much to the "which speaker should I buy with this amplifier" sort of question. My approach is to begin with the speaker and buy the best suited amp and speaker cable.

rw

[3db]

While it may be the only *variable*, that does not mean that the results of the test aren't affected by the particular choice of amplifier and cable used. My experience has shown that system matching is critical for optimum results. Which is why I find it difficult to get excited over any single component because it may or may not be the best solution across multiple systems.

The amplifiers I use with the electrostats do not fare as well on my vintage speakers. Conversely, the amplifier I use with them doesn't do as well with the stats. Which is why I don't contribute much to the "which speaker should I buy with this amplifier" sort of question. My approach is to begin with the speaker and buy the best suited amp and speaker cable.

rw

I respectively disagree with you but before I go on, I would not buy spekaers soley on DBT because their is the WAF which is probablyu one of the biggest factors in purchasing speakers, espcially large floor standing types.

I disagree with you that with a poweful solid state amp that cable matching and speaker matching is critical. I beleive all SS and all cables/interconnects sound the same and that
can be easily tested thru a DBT test. Hence the value in DBT.

Speakers are very subjective and one either likes the sound or doesn't. I don't see much value there but for things such as SS amps and cables, a DBT would finally dispell that myth.

[E-Stat]

I disagree with you that with a poweful solid state amp that cable matching and speaker matching is critical.

With how many electrostatic speakers (with their unusually demanding reactive load) have you compared amplifiers?

rw

[Pat D]

Each of the speakers they tested would also sound different between cables and sources which could account for the blind choices if the synergy between source and smaller speakers was in reality better than with the towers.

Can you provide any evidence for that assertion?

[Hyfi]

Can you provide any evidence for that assertion?

Sure, come over to my house and let me rotate 2 pairs of speakers each with 87db and 4ohm rating and also rotate a Counterpoint NPS-400 and Oddysey Stratos amp.

The Counterpoint can drive the Clearfields (early Von Schwiekert's) much better than a pair of Dynaudio 82s of same ratings. The Stratos can drive them both without issues.

Then I can blindfold you and switch between the large Clearfields and a pair of Dynaudio 42s. I'm guessing that you would choose the Danes unless you saw the two pair sitting side by side. Then your brain would have told you that the huge floor standers had to sound better than the little tine speakers. I can also rotate a pair of JM Labs Tantal 509s that also sound incredibly big for their size. Same reaction if you saw them first.

Both smaller sets of speakers can be driven with ease by the Counterpoint where both floor standers have a little trouble.

Amp and speaker matching does have it's place. They never told us any specs for the speakers. Could the bookshelves been 89DB and 8ohm where the large ones were 87DB and 4ohm? This is not a credible test to me. Then again, maybe the people in the test did not like deep extended bass, not everyone does. I'm sure many people would prefer the Dynaudio 42 0r 52 over the 82 because they don't like bass but everything else the 82s have is there.

[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

[kexodusc]

I wonder what physically blind people think about all these tests?