Blind Testing

Zbells, go read more and post less. Thank you.

 

Ahh, the certainty of youth raises it's amusing head once again. Lol.

 

You can tell me you don't understand this place...

"professional".....lol

 

But guys he capitalized FACT, which is a scientific method Isaac Newton himself used.

 

Ithinkblindtestsareawonderfulideabutbeforethatlevelmatchingisevenmorefundamentaland...

Wait a minute! What was this thread actually about?

Sometimes hijacking is good, often it isn't. @Zbells, you could start another thread if you must.

 

Yeah, Newton did double-blind observations of gravity all the time.

 

Another materials for "How to win friends and influence people".
RDAC spawn two non-performance-related argument thread within a day, would it be the new record?

 

@Zbells

Among the current three rdac reviews, I think only Torq did blind testing (b-ABX). The other two (Marv and Hands) probably did not ... based on their histories. While I respect all these three guys, the presence of b-ABX had NO impact on my rdac quality prediction.

I bet only a little portion of randos from other (differently cultured) communities are concerned with it. If you're really concerned, that's fine. Go elsewhere or let money talk (also elsewhere).

 

Damn, y'all are like a cult here. I do believe you all know audio very well and perhaps I went about trying to make a point the wrong way, but I also hold true that blind testing is the the most objective way to review the characteristics of a product or anything really. I've done a lot of work in polling, and while it's not the same thing as reviewing an audio product, bias is real and rampant (although maybe not on sbaf ). You're obviously welcome to your own opinions. With that I will take your advice and leave you to it...

 

Blindness would be among the ramifications of letting multiple apples fall on your head from a great height, really. After all, what are findings if they're not repeatable?

EDIT:
@Zbells, I'm typing this up while procrastinating on a report due tomorrow so pardon me if I come across as terse. Also, I stepped barefoot on a puddle of piddle left behind by the new puppy, so I'm perhaps somewhat irritable.

What I find detestable about Audio Enthusiast-Oriented Objectivity™ is that it's founded on hubris. Confidence is nice, but there's a fine line between that and plain obliviousness. Look, I was one of those asshats too, and I admit it was in part fuelled by jealousy and a lack of money (i.e. "I can't afford all that crap so hearing how it's all nonsense helps protect my fragile ego!").

Science is evolving, and part of why I chose to stick around this forum in particular, apart from the kindness of many members, is that many here understand that while audio gear measurements have come a long way from the 1900s there's a lot yet we've to learn, not merely the refinement of extant instruments but perhaps also the creation of instruments to measure things in domains yet unknown.

YES that leads to a great deal of nervosa. YES that invites immoral snake-fornicators peddling oil. YES it makes me want to strangle a unicorn getting into the same old discussions ad nauseam, which is probably why more senior members don't even bother anymore. Still, ignoring the fact that unsighted listening tests introduce their own biases and proclaiming it to be the one true way is ultimately to your detriment.

All the above is, of course, spoken from the context of my limited experience. If you're happy with an ODAC or D30 or E10K or what have you, then by all means, more power to you. If anything, it's an enviable position to be in, not thinking there's more to chase out there in terms of improving one's sound system.

 

You’re not taking into account various known auditory and psychoacoustic factors, not to mention all the shit that anyone with experience can tell you we don’t know. Blind testing without prior knowledge of it’s pitfalls and misdirections makes it less reliable than sighted listening.

It is presumption to believe it is the end all and be all of acoustic analysis. It is a flawed tool in a toolbox full of flawed tools. The best results in my limited experience have been achieved when all those tools are employed, along with a broad set of ears, by someone who is shrewd and able enough to make use of such a diverse set of data effectively.

Audio, at our current level of understanding, is as much an art as a science. One day, that will likely change.

Read more, experiment more, post less.

 

Oops.

 

How would blind testing even benefit in a direct comparison?! I think you don't understand the point of blind testing at all. It is to eliminate bias. If you know what products you're comparing, you can't remove bias. You can't do it.

If you're comparing the EC ZDS to the DNA Stratus, you can make sighted comparisons that will be infinitely more helpful to a reader who has heard one or the other. They have a point of reference, having heard one of them already. For example: Which one has better treble, which has better extension, which one has more of a sweet sound, etc... These are quantifiable differences that can easily be made sighted, where listening "blind" doesn't make half of two shits worth of difference.

Listening blindly to two products may reveal which product YOU prefer more, with YOUR biases somewhat being removed from it, but that's largely inconsequential to a comparison review because the other people's preferences will never match up exactly to yours. Neither will the listening environment, or perhaps the rest of the audio chain. Furthermore, I say somewhat removed, as you KNOW which 2 amps you're comparing, thus you can't remove bias completely. Period. It cannot be done.

So, here's the thing. At 50000 feet, the idea of a blind test sounds like a good idea, but it's largely bullshit when you examine it with a microscope. I'm sorry your preconceived notions are that blind testing is the only valid way to get a good comparison, but it is devoid of true logic and is largely reddit propaganda IMO.

 

...enjoy your listening fatigue

 

Yep, proponents of ABX testing usually do not understand it. It's for removing personal bias and listening expectations, nothing more.

 

OK, you nailed what it, as I understand it (I don't do it: too lazy) is about, contrary to what people think it is about.

Blind testing is actually the ultimate subjective test. It allows your hearing to get on with its job without interference .

And sorry. I really tried hard not to add to the Zbells-has-landed other conversation in this thread. It is not that it is a bad conversation, it is just in the wrong place (plus Zbells seems not to realise that... yep, we know all that already).

I won't do it again. (well, not in this thread).

 

Interesting fact, if Newton had applied the double blind methodology like a "professional" scientist, he'd have immediately discovered general relativity, not that embarrassingly inaccurate inverse square law shit.

 

This thread has really disturbed me. I don't know how I'll recover from Zbells truth-bomb.

I'm going to need to do some soul-searching.....