Blind Listening Tests are Flawed

[proffski]

He would say that of course.

Of course blind tests don't work because you can't tell whats being tested, so how can you tell if its a $1,000 cable or a $1 one? As these guys found out: http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/

Someone who does not agree: http://seanolive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

And someone else: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

What about the $1000,000 challenge? Plenty more out there if you google the subject.

http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html

 

[steve_1979]

"I don't understand how it works, therefore it must be wrong."

Is this what audiophools think to themselves?

 

[TrevC]

Thread translation: Someone had made claims for their hearing that they won't be able to demonstrate if they were ever tested, therefore such tests are flawed.

Interesting article here.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Even the humble 128k mp3 will do just fine for the compressed crud that most people listen to, because the artifacts are over 50db down. Comparable with vinyl.

 

[TrevC]

He would say that of course.

Of course blind tests don't work because you can't tell whats being tested, so how can you tell if its a $1,000 cable or a $1 one? As these guys found out: http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/

At line levels the red and black freebies will invariably sound exactly the same as any given 10 grand one because an interconnect is a completely non-critical application. Virtually any old wire will do the job.

 

[Overdose]

He would say that of course.

Of course blind tests don't work because you can't tell whats being tested, so how can you tell if its a $1,000 cable or a $1 one? As these guys found out: http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/

At line levels the red and black freebies will invariably sound exactly the same as any given 10 grand one because an interconnect is a completely non-critical application. Virtually any old wire will do the job.

..but that's absurd! How can a cheap thin wire possibly be as good as a well marketed, expensive high end one? People don't pay all that money for nothing do they?

 

[Trefor Patten]

Oh for goodness sake all of you. Put your toys back in the box if you are not going to play nicely! If it sounds better to you and you have the money buy it. If you don't have the money, or it does not sound better, don't buy it. It is not life and death. Just play some music and enjoy it. If your £100 mains cable/interconnect/etc, etc, etc gives you £100 worth of enjoyment then it is worth it. Personally I find all equipment sounds a lot better after a glass of single malt (I would say which one, but they make enough money to pay for their own advertising). It improves the sound stage and the listenability of all systems, blind or sighted at home or at a friend's. I have repeated this effect on may occasions and it never fails. :cheers:

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Yr links prof are an interesting read. And I, like many others I guess, have read a few. Real testing, as opposed to opinion, seems to be taboo in this 'industry/hobby'. Marketing seems to be allowed to rule science & common sense. Homeopathy has its parallels here. Placebo vs expectation bias. That is not to say that those medicines don't help some nor that expensive bits of hifi don't sound better. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. I can live with opinions of nice sounding speakers etc but when I am told an expensive hdmi cable has solid bass or smooth this and that I just wonder how much validity can be given to any of these people.

 

[Broner]

He would say that of course.

Of course blind tests don't work because you can't tell whats being tested, so how can you tell if its a $1,000 cable or a $1 one? As these guys found out: http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/

Someone who does not agree: http://seanolive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

And someone else: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

What about the $1000,000 challenge? Plenty more out there if you google the subject.

http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

 

[TrevC]

Oh for goodness sake all of you. Put your toys back in the box if you are not going to play nicely! If it sounds better to you and you have the money buy it. If you don't have the money, or it does not sound better, don't buy it. It is not life and death. Just play some music and enjoy it. If your £100 mains cable/interconnect/etc, etc, etc gives you £100 worth of enjoyment then it is worth it. Personally I find all equipment sounds a lot better after a glass of single malt (I would say which one, but they make enough money to pay for their own advertising). It improves the sound stage and the listenability of all systems, blind or sighted at home or at a friend's. I have repeated this effect on may occasions and it never fails. :cheers:

I always play nicely. It's the audiophile cables that come in toy boxes, BTW.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Maybe some folk dont like to see others ripped off. Viewing figures of consumer programmes would confirm this. Would we shout about fake goods, slimming pills, magic energy saving plugs etc? Yes I would/do. If all we did was to sit and listen then this forum would be dead!

 

[visionary]

Oh for goodness sake all of you. Put your toys back in the box if you are not going to play nicely! If it sounds better to you and you have the money buy it. If you don't have the money, or it does not sound better, don't buy it. It is not life and death. Just play some music and enjoy it. If your £100 mains cable/interconnect/etc, etc, etc gives you £100 worth of enjoyment then it is worth it. Personally I find all equipment sounds a lot better after a glass of single malt (I would say which one, but they make enough money to pay for their own advertising). It improves the sound stage and the listenability of all systems, blind or sighted at home or at a friend's. I have repeated this effect on may occasions and it never fails. :cheers:

Hang on though, do you think you get a wider sound-stage with an Islay malt or a Speyside?

 

[professorhat]

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

We just need someone now to mention Hitler / the Nazis and this thread will be done (surprised it took 6 pages though).

 

[TrevC]

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

We just need someone now to mention Hitler / the Nazis and this thread will be done (surprised it took 6 pages though).

You just did. Why, I have no idea. Do tell.

 

[professorhat]

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

We just need someone now to mention Hitler / the Nazis and this thread will be done (surprised it took 6 pages though).

You just did. Why, I have no idea. Do tell.

Clicky

Randi is to cable threads what Hitler is to fourms in general.

(for the lawyers - purely in terms of, eventually, given enough time, Randi will be mentioned in a cable thread. I make no other associations between Randi and Hitler )

 

[TrevC]

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

We just need someone now to mention Hitler / the Nazis and this thread will be done (surprised it took 6 pages though).

You just did. Why, I have no idea. Do tell.

Clicky

Randi is to cable threads what Hitler is to fourms in general.

(for the lawyers - purely in terms of, eventually, given enough time, Randi will be mentioned in a cable thread. I make no other associations between Randi and Hitler )

Do you have anything sensible to offer in this discussion?

 

[professorhat]

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

We just need someone now to mention Hitler / the Nazis and this thread will be done (surprised it took 6 pages though).

You just did. Why, I have no idea. Do tell.

Clicky

Randi is to cable threads what Hitler is to fourms in general.

(for the lawyers - purely in terms of, eventually, given enough time, Randi will be mentioned in a cable thread. I make no other associations between Randi and Hitler )

Do you have anything sensible to offer in this discussion?

I thought it was immeasurably sensible to attempt to point out the sheer lunacy of having this discussion again. I mean, imagine what we could achieve if we all put this time towards something productive.

Still it's just a pipe dream of mine, and I do realise the hypocritical nature of my last statement, given I'm well aware of the pointlessness of my own additions.

 

[Covenanter]

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

We just need someone now to mention Hitler / the Nazis and this thread will be done (surprised it took 6 pages though).

You just did. Why, I have no idea. Do tell.

Clicky

Randi is to cable threads what Hitler is to fourms in general.

(for the lawyers - purely in terms of, eventually, given enough time, Randi will be mentioned in a cable thread. I make no other associations between Randi and Hitler )

Do you have anything sensible to offer in this discussion?

I thought it was immeasurably sensible to attempt to point out the sheer lunacy of having this discussion again. I mean, imagine what we could achieve if we all put this time towards something productive.

Still it's just a pipe dream of mine, and I do realise the hypocritical nature of my last statement, given I'm well aware of the pointlessness of my own additions.

Given that a lot of this forum is currently taken up with threads where people list equipment they have owned in the past, this thread in comparison is quite interesting!

Chris

 

[professorhat]

 

[BigH]

Hang on though, do you think you get a wider sound-stage with an Islay malt or a Speyside?

Sounds a better idea, blind testing single malt wishies, much more fun than cables.

How many glasses before you become flawed or is that floored?

 

[davedotco]

Profanity on a forum like this is never funny - it's banal and inane.

EDITED

This thread is like a load of virgins talking about sex.

People who do not understand the math telling us why Nyquist-Shannon is wrong, people who have never taken a third party conducted blind test telling us why they are flawed, people who do not understand the scientific definition of theorem or the implementation of anti-aliasing filters all having their say, pointless.

There really are only two things you need to know about blind testing, they are....

Blind testing of hi-fi equipment, scientifically rigorous enough to prove anything is very rare indeed, it is even possible that the scale of such testing could skew the results so badly as to render them meaningless. This argument will go on forever.

More informal blind testing, properly level matched, will show anyone who takes part just how small the differences in hi-fi components are when evaluations are made using just our ears. Any reasonably compedent, third party conducted test will show this and it is pretty clear that few of the contributers to this thread have ever taken part in such a test. Such tests are not rigorous enough to prove anything, but they are enlightening for those taking part.

It depends on what you wish to prove from the outset. There are quite a bit of hifi enthusiastics here who know that they can hear the difference between a couple of cables. A blind test does prove whether their claims are justified. Also, if you take together all the available reports of the blind tests that have been executed, a very, very clear pattern starts to emerge indicating that the species that can hear the difference between two proper cables has yet to evolve.

Sort of....... :?

In order to prove that something is or is not so in hi-fi you have to devise tests that are, indistbutably accurate.

This is extremely difficult, the hardware and the methodoly needs to be clearly thought through, practical difficulties such as 'is the sysyem good enough' or 'does the introduction of a switching box cause a bigger difference than the items under test', are plentiful, just a couple of obvious examples that need to be resolved

The test needs to be carried out 'double blind' and repeated a sufficiant number of time for the results to be meaninful, all in all a formidable task for anyone not well versed in such a process.

This is what I meant when I said that there are very few, if any, documented tests that are scientifically rigorous enough to prove anything.

Informal blind testing, where only the basics are observed, ie blind and at matched levels, do not prove anything by the above standards but they are a wonderful way of showing the ordinary enthusiast just how similar components are when evaluated by ear only. I have taken part in such tests, from the early Hi-Fi Choice 'blind group tests' to recent evaluations where a quality analogue signal was passed through 4 consecutive digital processors and compared to the original.

All very sobering indeed.

 

[Alec]

Didn't know that James Randi was also involved in this. Brilliant

We just need someone now to mention Hitler / the Nazis and this thread will be done (surprised it took 6 pages though).

You just did. Why, I have no idea. Do tell.

Clicky

Randi is to cable threads what Hitler is to fourms in general.

(for the lawyers - purely in terms of, eventually, given enough time, Randi will be mentioned in a cable thread. I make no other associations between Randi and Hitler )

Do you have anything sensible to offer in this discussion?

I thought it was immeasurably sensible to attempt to point out the sheer lunacy of having this discussion again. I mean, imagine what we could achieve if we all put this time towards something productive.

Still it's just a pipe dream of mine, and I do realise the hypocritical nature of my last statement, given I'm well aware of the pointlessness of my own additions.

Given that a lot of this forum is currently taken up with threads where people list equipment they have owned in the past, this thread in comparison is quite interesting!

Chris

I agree, yet I also agree with the good Prof.

 

[Alec]

No, see, he looks a bit Gestapo, but he's not Hitler...

 

[TrevC]

I think you are confusing the amount of data that can fit on a CD to its dynamic range.

One of the reasons they limited the resolution to 16/44 was because of capacity. If they could have gone higher they almost certainly would have.

I very recently bought Bee Gees The Record compilation, and both CDs are packed with over 78 minutes of audio. My CD player was definitely noiser than usual. This had to be down to the longer length. Also, Too Much Heaven, while not harsh, was not sounding as smooth as I expected. I'm not saying this is absolutely because of the longer length, but I'm suspecting so.

The CD medium was in no way perfect.

The length of a CD has no effect on sound quality.

 

[manicm]

One of the reasons they limited the resolution to 16/44 was because of capacity. If they could have gone higher they almost certainly would have.

I very recently bought Bee Gees The Record compilation, and both CDs are packed with over 78 minutes of audio. My CD player was definitely noiser than usual. This had to be down to the longer length. Also, Too Much Heaven, while not harsh, was not sounding as smooth as I expected. I'm not saying this is absolutely because of the longer length, but I'm suspecting so.

The CD medium was in no way perfect.

With respect, this is a nonsense. I have several CDs that go beyond 75 minutes, none of which results in this issue on playback. None.

No, this is not nonsense, it is my experience - both discs run over 78 minutes and my CDP was noisier than usual - are you saying I'm imagining that? It may not hold true on your player but it is on mine.

 

[manicm]

Profanity on a forum like this is never funny - it's banal and inane.

EDITED

Indeed