Blind comparisons of speakers, amps, and DACs...

[TheOctopus]

Many modern instruments do sound better to some, but to play them, is totally different. My modern horns have great action, a biting sound and to many initially, sound better, because, IMO, they sound brighter. Manufacturers know that when someone is trying new horns for only a short period in the store, the brighter ones sell.’ I would argue, over a long duration, myself and others prefer my vintage horns. My 1936 original lacquer Selmer Balanced Action has a glorious sound with classic action. Anything pre-WW2 has that airy, big fat open sound. Ben Webster plays this horn if anyone is interested in what I mean. Oh, and ditto for mouth pieces. My 1920’s mouthpieces are wonderful. Modern ones are more closed with more bite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mike, a preference is obvious, there is always a preference. It was the same with elite violinists. Problem being they preferred the sound of a different violin when blindfolded, proving they cannot recognize the true sound of a violin they had a strong preference for when eyes were part of the involved senses. We do tend to hear what we see.

 

[TheOctopus]

I love listening to my tubes. Of course the sound is great from the PrimaLuna triodes driving the Harbeths in my room that allows those speakers to effortlessly integrate and fill it with unrestrained effort from the 30w of Triode power. I glance at glowing tubes and I appreciate the silky smooth mids, the well behaved, delicate and supple upper octave air from the soft dome tweeter, even the bass, although not full range and not plumbing the depths of the lower octaves, is satisfyingly full and well articulated.

I also forgot and not once… which amp I turned on a few hours before since I also had my Luxman Class A in the same rack and I was reveling in all the tube magic… Only to glance at the rack and realize it was my Luxman SS class A not tubes playing… Never fails, that instant I start doubting the Class A as still being somehow slightly less musical than the EL34 Triodes… Never fails and only a moment before the sound was glorious and tooobey

 

[Mike]

Mike, a preference is obvious, there is always a preference. It was the same with elite violinists. Problem being they preferred the sound of a different violin when blindfolded, proving they cannot recognize the true sound of a violin they had a strong preference for when eyes were part of the involved senses. We do tend to hear what we see.

That “test” was very short. Playing, listening, longevity, build quality are just part of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[rbbert]

Not to the scientifically literate. Since late 1700s.
They are the defacto standard in science, including for the meds you take, the phone you use, the orchestras you may/may not listen to, etc, etc..
Heck, even the military uses them now.


IOW you have never done a valid blind listening test and are completely ignorant of how they are performed. The "second" is the minimized switching time, not the listening time, which has no limit. It could be for days.
Fact of the matter is, blind listening tests are great for determining sound>"trust" ears. They are terrible for the reality of fully sighted, tactile, biased, "experience"...which is exactly what everyone here does with their equipment, etc.
Two entirely separate things. Nothing wrong with the latter at all, whatever makes one most happy.

There is a huge difference between blind tests of perception (taste, smell, vision, audio, touch) and DBT's used in biomedical and other "hard science" research, where there is data gathered without "human" input. The first have "data" gathered through subjective filtering; the second are far more objective.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

There is a huge difference between blind tests of perception (taste, smell, vision, audio, touch) and DBT's used in biomedical and other "hard science" research, where there is data gathered without "human" input. The first have "data" gathered through subjective filtering; the second are far more objective.

What non-strawman claimed they were all exactly the same?
What relevance does that have to the efficacy of blinding for human perceptual testing?

 

[cmarin]

I took the time to read the Science article that investigated whether elite violinists could tell the difference between highly valued historic violins (e.g., Stradivarius) and high quality modern violins.

I wasn’t very careful in reading this long thread, so I’m hoping I’m correct in stating that the conclusion some here try to make, based on the Science study and other scientifically rigorous experiments that prove humans can’t tell the difference between test notes played at even relatively small time intervals apart, is that audiophiles can’t really tell the differences between components and are simply fooling themselves into thinking they do.

At the risk of being ridiculed here, I’m not sure I agree with that conclusion based on the Science article. If I read the Science article correctly, it tells me that trained “elite” musicians can CONSISTENTLY as a group judge a “better quality” component, even when better is subjectively defined by each judge, as long as the judges were unaware (blind”) of which instrument they were testing.

That result is remarkable to me.

The results doesn’t tell me that elite musicians can’t tell differences between instruments. It tells me they CAN tell them apart, and can do so consistently, as long as they don’t know what type of instrument is being played.

If we were to try to extend those results to the audiophile world, It tells me that experienced audiophiles could possibly and consistently judge the differences between components even when each of us uses our own subjective measure of what is ”better”, as long as we are blind as to which component is being “played”.

Now THAT is an interesting supposition!

As opposed to throwing our hands up in the helpless belief we can never really ever agree on what componentes sound better, even if we are blind to the component being played, because we all hear differently.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

If I read the Science article correctly, it tells me that trained “elite” musicians can CONSISTENTLY as a group judge a “better quality” component, even when better is subjectively defined by each judge, as long as the judges were unaware (blind”) of which instrument they were testing.

But some scientists and violinmakers question whether Strads and other "Old Italians" really have superior acoustic qualities. For decades, blind comparisons have shown that listeners cannot tell them from other violins, and acoustic analyses have revealed no distinct sonic characteristics. In 2014, Claudia Fritz, a musical acoustician at Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, and Joseph Curtin, a leading violinmaker in Ann Arbor, Michigan, reported that in a double-blind test with 13 modern instruments and nine Old Italians, 10 elite violinists generally preferred the new violins to the old.
Now, the team has shown that listeners also prefer new instruments—at least when considering a specific small set of fine violins

It was clearly a "preference" test, not a Just Noticeable Difference/"Any difference" type test. Hence the simple A/B format, like for example, Harmans speaker "preference" tests. The devices sound different and the test is to determine what those who "trust ears" and "just listen" preferred, the "audiophile" violin, or the "midfi" one. The results were pretty funny.
THE reason for self assessed golden earred audiophiles to avoid these type tests at all cost.
Once again, no one listens "blind" (Not known) at home. So it's the entire perceptual experience, not just "sound". Please proceed accordingly, for whatever makes one happiest.

cheers,

AJ

 

[TheOctopus]

In a perfect world, hearing the violin sighted and then blindfolded and recognizing it as such, would be the expected result. Same with the golden audiophile ears. That’s not the case, is it…. Our senses are tied together stronger than we think to create the reality of the consciousness.

Even the wine snobs/experts confused white wine for red wine when blindfolded and sighted. Oops.

The Legendary Study That Embarrassed Wine Experts Across the Globe | RealClearScience

 

[CPP]

Hahaha

Anyone has James Randi contact number Handy , i could use a Million right about now before the empire collapses on itself ...!



Regards

Randi died October 20, 2020, guess ya missed out on that $$

 

[rbbert]

What non-strawman claimed they were all exactly the same?
What relevance does that have to the efficacy of blinding for human perceptual testing?

The degree of subjective filtering involved makes these tests much less objective than DBT's in areas not involving human perception. For me, so much less objective that there is limited real-world applicability; YMMV.

 

[puroagave]

the one an only relatively high-level ABX test I was present for was at a Bay Area Stereophile show in '91. John Atkinson himself ran the comparison between a VTL tube amp and Adcom GFA 555. the room was packed. I was standing at the rear near the exit. The attendees sitting near the front could discern what was going on far better. this is totally anecdotal but by my recollection based on a random sample of attendees asked, most got it right something like 60-70% of the time. I drew an even 50 no better than guessing I suppose. In my defense I was so far back, frankly it all sounded alike. I don't believe Stereophile tried this stunt again, in hindsight it proved nothing.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

The degree of subjective filtering involved makes these tests much less objective than DBT's in areas not involving human perception.

Ok, we've got that Red herring out of the way. Now on to the subject of human perceptual testing, violins, orchestra members, audio components, cel phones, etc....

For me, so much less objective that there is limited real-world applicability; YMMV.

That's vague, please explain why human perceptual testing is much less objective/limited real-world applicability.
Examples already linked for orchestras, violins, "vital fluids", etc. Please cite you counter science supporting your contention.

 

[Mikado463]

the one an only relatively high-level ABX test I was present for was at a Bay Area Stereophile show in '91. John Atkinson himself ran the comparison between a VTL tube amp and Adcom GFA 555. the room was packed. I was standing at the rear near the exit. The attendees sitting near the front could discern what was going on far better. this is totally anecdotal but by my recollection based on a random sample of attendees asked, most got it right something like 60-70% of the time. I drew an even 50 no better than guessing I suppose. In my defense I was so far back, frankly it all sounded alike. I don't believe Stereophile tried this stunt again, in hindsight it proved nothing.

wow, just think, it's 30 years later and your hearing is that much further in the hopper !

From your explanation it proved that at best the audience was just so-so in telling the difference between a tube amp and SS one !

all in good fun !!

 

[puroagave]

wow, just think, it's 30 years later and your hearing is that much further in the hopper !

From your explanation it proved that at best the audience was just so-so in telling the difference between a tube amp and SS one !

all in good fun !!

I was present with a room full of well-seasoned audio society members that couldn't tell a turntable was running 20% too fast (which is a lot) until a musician walked in and noticed it right away. I take everything with a grain of salt. Clearly this sport is more about emotion and feelings than anything. This is fine by me because my day job is all about facts and figures; which is the last thing I want to think about when I fire up the system.

 

[rbbert]

Ok, we've got that Red herring out of the way. Now on to the subject of human perceptual testing, violins, orchestra members, audio components, cel phones, etc....

That's vague, please explain why human perceptual testing is much less objective/limited real-world applicability.
Examples already linked for orchestras, violins, "vital fluids", etc. Please cite you counter science supporting your contention.

my point is simple; there is no convincing scientific evidence either supporting nor refuting DBT's for perception involving individual senses. GIGO. Unless one is blind, or deaf, or anosmic our senses never work individually for perception, and for those individuals lacking one or more senses it is well known that there is a compensatory increase in sensitivity of those remaining.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Another variable, and important to consider. How intently or much attention is the listener doing. I've walked into a room and told the owner their sound is in mono, it was, they didn't even notice.

I personally am a very intent listener. I have friends who sometimes will have me over to listen to their systems after they have changed something, they don't tell me, they want to see if I notice. I often do so it's something that continues, LOL Another reason I can't buy into the lack of musical memory.

I was present with a room full of well-seasoned audio society members that couldn't tell a turntable was running 20% too fast (which is a lot) until a musician walked in and noticed it right away. I take everything with a grain of salt. Clearly this sport is more about emotion and feelings than anything. This is fine by me because my day job is all about facts and figures; which is the last thing I want to think about when I fire up the system.

 

[TheOctopus]

Another variable, and important to consider. How intently or much attention is the listener doing. I've walked into a room and told the owner their sound is in mono, it was, they didn't even notice.

I personally am a very intent listener. I have friends who sometimes will have me over to listen to their systems after they have changed something, they don't tell me, they want to see if I notice. I often do so it's something that continues, LOL Another reason I can't buy into the lack of musical memory.

 

[kzhtoo]

It seems you want one for yourself more.

 

[TheOctopus]

It seems you want one for yourself more.

Oh I would but I’ve read they can resonate and interfere with listening sessions that require intense concentration to hear all the new cables and tweaks. No serious audiophile would want to compromise the findings that need to be shared with the rest of the members in various forums. Imagine someone buying a cable based on my faulty interpretation. I would feel really bad

 

[kzhtoo]

Oh I would but I’ve read they can resonate and interfere with listening sessions that require intense concentration to hear all the new cables and tweaks. No serious audiophile would want to compromise the findings that need to be shared with the rest of the members in various forums. Imagine someone buying a cable based on my faulty interpretation. I would feel really bad

Thought you just enjoy music and can’t hear these audiophile mumbo jumbo.

I can get one for you. Do let me know where you normally get these for yourself.