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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[markw]

Ultimately, in spite of all the whining about the inadequacies of the test, the simple fact is that the different results between sighted and blind listening, even for preference only, is very, very telling.

Wiggle all you want. There ain't no escaping that simple fact.

[kexodusc]

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

[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.

[02audionoob]

My speakers look very nice with their cherry veneer. I have now lost all faith in their ability to produce music.

[mlsstl]

E-Stat wrote: 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?

The answer to the issue of blind testing heavily depends on who is doing the test and for what purpose.

If I'm simply choosing a home stereo, ultimately I'm just going to buy what I like. The influence of appearance, brand, price, exclusivity and so on will remain an active part of my daily use of the equipment. In fact, if snobbery is one of my primary goals - conscious or unconscious - then blind testing can actually be an unwanted affront if it reveals info at odds with my beliefs.

OTOH, if I'm a researcher or designer who is truly looking for superior audio performance, blind testing becomes far more important since it helps eliminate non-audio biases. After the desired performance is obtained, if the marketing folks wish to gussy things up to appeal to those non-audio biases, fine. But many serious designers are going to want to know the true performance of their product unencumbered by a hodge-podge of psychological factors.

That said, blind tests can be useful at the consumer end. While it is difficult to design a test procedure that is easy to use, one can still do simple things that move toward reducing the effect of bias. While it can be a blow to the ego to find out that a long-held belief isn't quite as credible as you thought, such knowledge, once absorbed, can help an audiophile redirect his efforts toward things that will get him better results.

The catch in all of this is our ego which is incredibly defensive about what we believe. That exhibits itself through the following mechanism. When we hear a "fact" that agrees with our belief, it is accepted immediately and uncritically - there will be no examination of the test procedures for points of weakness.

However, if the "fact" challenges what we believe, we'll get out our extra powerful microscope and start examining the test process for anything and everything that can be used to invalidate the results. One sees that repeatedly from the offended parties anytime results from a blind test are posted in an audio forum.

However, none of this is a surprise. It just proves that audiophiles are human. ;-)

[RGA]

Ultimately, in spite of all the whining about the inadequacies of the test, the simple fact is that the different results between sighted and blind listening, even for preference only, is very, very telling.

Wiggle all you want. There ain't no escaping that simple fact.

Does it tell us anyone with one wit of logic would not already know. Most audio shoppers are male - most males shop with their eyes - in every aspect of life males are visually motivated - in women we choose, sleek car lines, and audio equipment certainly would not be different. We're also ego driven - more money makes the man - certainly true of Money first capitalist countries - namely but certainly not limited to Americans.and Asian countries which are communist in name only but follow capitalism more than Americans could ever dream of. Compared to where I live in China - America is pure socialism!

No one needs a blind test to illustrate these truths. What a blind test does not prove is that A and B sound the same, it does not prove anything "outside" the test environment specifically.

For instance you could listen to A and B (Whatever product) sighted and prefer A and then blind fail to choose A - if the test mattered a damn then when you went back to sighted you would "believe" they sounded the same. But if you still prefer A then you're stuck because the REAL valid usual experience is sighted - and if A you deem better to you then it's better to you and you buy it. DBT's in audio score real low points in the area of validity - it is 100% irrifutable psychologuically true - the engineers may not get it but they're not scientists and there are so many holes in their 16 trial test that is laughable to anyone with a grade 9 science education. The test is great - the conclusions drawn are astoundingly bad.

[Jimmy C]

[QUOTE=RGA]Does it tell us anyone with one wit of logic would not already know. Most audio shoppers are male - most males shop with their eyes - in every aspect of life males are visually motivated - in women we choose, sleek car lines, and audio equipment certainly would not be different.

I can remember bringing a few friends to Audio Den here on Long Island, (still there...audioden.com) when they had a much smaller store at their beginning. $h!t... going back almost 30 years. My friend Joe Low (yup... his real name... try telling that to the Police) looking at the window display, and said: "I like those"!

He was referring to an early Polk, not sure of the model no., 10C maybe? about a 10" drone on the bottom, two side-by-side 6" or so mid-woofs, and a tweeter on top. He didn't even listen to 'em yet!

Actually, they did sound pretty good at the time, but...

Yes, we shop with our eyes.

[E-Stat]

OTOH, if I'm a researcher or designer who is truly looking for superior audio performance, blind testing becomes far more important since it helps eliminate non-audio biases....However, none of this is a surprise. It just proves that audiophiles are human. ;-)

As are researchers. There is a decided bias in Harman's tests using their "shuffler". Sean Olive responded to a post I made over at AA. The response will be quite interesting.

Response to Sean Olive

FWIW, I've never been swayed by exotic wood finishes or fancy multi-colored piano finish paints. My main speakers have steel frames painted in flat black Polane polyurethane. The Polks in the HT are likewise painted black although a more glossy black. The double New Advents in the garage have the utility vinyl finish. I couldn't give a $hit about bubinga wood or "X" cabinet material.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

I'm with you E-Stat. I don't give a damn what a speaker looks like. The sound is the only thing that matters to me.