Brilliant Art Dudley's article

[Dpod4]

I liked the Air Tight review as well...collision of thread topics, but I owned the earlier (non "s") version of the amp and it was one of my favorite amps on my Devore Nines. Incredible build quality on the Air Tight products.

Interestingly the last blind listening test I did involved an air tight ATC-2 versus the arc ref 40. The constellation centaur has both single ended and balanced inputs and a simple switch on the back toggles between the two. I had my daughter toggle multiple times before dropping the needle so I wouldn't know which amp was playing. She would toggle as I listened. After 5 sessions of toggling I had picked the air tight 4 out of 5 times. I was shocked. That then led me to get the air tight ref 2001 which is even better. All that set into motion because of a blind listening test.

 

[KeithR]

the same people who think double blind is faulty don't understand that break-in is usually ear-related, not gear related.

i like blind testing every once in awhile. its fun. i also like reading Dudley.

 

[BlueFox]

the same people who think double blind is faulty don't understand that break-in is usually ear-related, not gear related.

Any data to support that?

 

[Mark Jones]

I'm not saying gear does not break in, but I agree with Keith. Ours ears break in more than the gear does.

 

[Rayooo]

The last 3000 times or so this subject has been discussed by "us type folks" in/on various other forms/venues..it's always degraded into a "pissing match" in fairly short order.
Nice to see it's remained civil here.....so far..... :lol::lol:

 

[Jerome W]

Well said. I conducted a blind amp shootout about 6 months ago (3 songs chosen by the listeners were used). The results were fascinating. I still remember the guy who is the biggest tube fan you've ever seen, picked the Tube amps last and the two solid state amps first and second. He was convinced the McIntosh 601's (his favorite) were tubes! When the results were revealed, the looks were priceless. The fact he picked his own amps last was also quite revealing.

Yes, yes, yes, different system, different cables, etc. but the blind shootout was still fun to check our preconceived notions.

Harman corp uses blind testing all the time. Their modestly priced F208 speakers beat out some well known speakers costing many times more.

Mike, this is precisely why blind tests, which by essence are based on listenings of a few minutes each time, are biased.
If I make a blind test of all my amps, I may end up preferring my SS amps.
While listening for hours is very different and always makes me want to switch to my tube amps.
Difference between a dip of Pepsi and the full can.
Time Time Time...



Envoyé de mon iPhone à l'aide de Tapatalk

 

[Face]

Mike, this is precisely why blind tests, which by essence are based on listenings of a few minutes each time, are biased.
If I make a blind test of all my amps, I may end up preferring my SS amps.
While listening for hours is very different and always makes me want to switch to my tube amps.
Difference between a dip of Pepsi and the full can.
Time Time Time...

There is no absolute time limit when it comes to blind testing.

 

[MDP]

So far, so good !

Let's not get too pissy about this subject, it remains a passionate subject for sure.

 

[sharkmouth]

Beer, Shiraz & more Shiraz, triple blind listening! :fingers:

 

[BlueFox]

All of my testing has been between new gear and the old versus some swap in/out test, and then choose which sounds better. I was used to how the old gear sounded, and the new gear sounded better. The improvement over time for electronics from burn-in was gradual, but certainly seemed to occur, but I am not betting the house on it. Cables on the other hand would swing wildly from good, bad, to great. I vividly remember listening to my new MIT Shotgun S1.3 XLR interconnects after installing them that day. Maybe 6 hours or so later that night the soundstage suddenly got wider. I just started laughing out loud since it was so unexpected and cool. I recently upgraded my digital cable to the brand new Shunyata Anaconda digital and I commented that after a few days the bass seemed 'soft', but it is solid now.

The only time I have replaced a piece of gear, and it was worse sounding than the previous gear, was with speakers. I remember replacing my PSB Synchrony Ones with Aerial Acoustics 7T, and my reaction was "I paid $10k for this?". Of course, after a week or so the Aerials came into their own, and are much better than the PSBs. However, as soon as I turned the system on with the Magico S5s I immediately said "This is much better".

 

[rbbert]

Hmmm... Why do you say that? He reviews gear like every other guy that gets published in the mags. Is there something you know that the rest of us don't? Seems like a pretty closed minded thing to say.

A few things. He completely misrepresents double-blind testing, for one thing; there is no inherent requirement for rapid switching or short snippet listening. For another, he complains about buying recordings from people who listen to engineers rather than listening to music; just read Steve Guttenberg's "As We See It" in the same issue to see the fallacy of that. He also complains about buying equipment made by engineers rather than from people who really listen; apart from the obvious problems with buying equipment not made by engineers (is there even such a thing??), the most notable audio designer who claims not to listen to his designs is Vladimir Lamm, whose products are a staple of the ultra high-end. There is probably more (I have a vague recollection that there are a few things like this in virtually all his columns) but that should suffice for now.

 

[JBLfan]

Well said. I conducted a blind amp shootout about 6 months ago (3 songs chosen by the listeners were used). The results were fascinating.

My brother and I did some blind tests a few years back...suffice to say we also surprised ourselves with the results. I enjoy non blind comparisons as well but recognize there is a difference.

 

[Alpinist]

I'm not saying gear does not break in, but I agree with Keith. Ours ears break in more than the gear does.

Mark,

I totally agree with you. I also believe in double blind testing. It removes all the pre-conceived notions and biases in the comparison process. I don't understand how this could be a bad thing.

Ken

 

[rbbert]

...I also believe in double blind testing. It removes all the pre-conceived notions and biases in the comparison process. I don't understand how this could be a bad thing.

Ken

It can be a bad thing because it is quite difficult to design and perform a good double-blind test for audio components. Drawing conclusions from a poorly designed and/or performed DBT is no better than guesswork.

 

[dlb2]

I'm not a fan of any type of blind testing whatsoever. If I'm gonna sit and look at my gear while I listen it better be attractive too.

Let's see, if a Cambridge Audio amp performs a little better in some test than say a McIntosh piece, guess which one is staying in my house...

 

[Jerome W]

A few things. He completely misrepresents double-blind testing, for one thing; there is no inherent requirement for rapid switching or short snippet listening. For another, he complains about buying recordings from people who listen to engineers rather than listening to music; just read Steve Guttenberg's "As We See It" in the same issue to see the fallacy of that. He also complains about buying equipment made by engineers rather than from people who really listen; apart from the obvious problems with buying equipment not made by engineers (is there even such a thing??), the most notable audio designer who claims not to listen to his designs is Vladimir Lamm, whose products are a staple of the ultra high-end. There is probably more (I have a vague recollection that there are a few things like this in virtually all his columns) but that should suffice for now.

I do not agree on a few things.
Art does not say that blind tests last a few seconds. But the point is : they never last more than one day.
When you listen to an amp one day long, your conclusions are often different than after 2 hours. And most blind tests are made by switching after each tune or at for a complete recording.
Now let's say you make a blind test of component A and B while listening a full day for each unit. This test is biased by the fact that we are not in the same state 2 days apart and our auditive memory is not good after a few minutes. Forget about days.
The best way to know which unit fits you best, is to listen to one unit during 2 to 4 weeks. Then switch to the other. And see how it goes. Blind tests are impossible for long periods.

Talking about music lovers / pure engineers, Art relates to some audio designers obsessed so much by science that they forget to listen. Typical example : Alan Shaw.
Although the guy designs one of the best speakers of the world, he will tell you that "decently made amps" sound the same. For example, a McIntosh MC225 tube amp CANNOT sound different than a NAD 3020 !
He just forgot to listen.
Art expressed himself badly on this point.
Music lovers who design audio gear are also engineers. They just did not forget to listen.



Envoyé de mon iPhone à l'aide de Tapatalk

 

[rbbert]

Hmmm, which seems more likely, an admittedly very good writer (like Art Dudley) expressing himself poorly in print, or his saying exactly what he means but what he means is wrong?

 

[BlueFox]

I'm not a fan of any type of blind testing whatsoever. If I'm gonna sit and look at my gear while I listen it better be attractive too.

Let's see, if a Cambridge Audio amp performs a little better in some test than say a McIntosh piece, guess which one is staying in my house...

Hopefully, not the McIntosh. They have the patent on ugly gear

 

[radioactive]

I agree. True Scientific Method based Double Blind Studies are not really possible when it comes to an arbitrary outcome such as "Sound Quality". For one, the test/study must be repeatable (i.e., you take the same data and technical details of the test and document them such that any other scientist can reproduce your exact experiment and get the exact same results). Second, there is no objectivity in such Studies/Tests.

Ironically, one thing we all agree on is this: "Sound Quality" is something not everyone agrees on -- it's somewhat arbitrary -- what one person thinks sounds great, another may completely dislike. [And some like it for month and change it all out with new gear, and do it all over again -- I won't name names, but it's true :audiophile: ]

Double Blind Studies/Tests can be useful to help people understand what they like and why. For example, it can show (shatter really) your preconceived notion that all tubes or all solid state sound the same. What it doesn't do is prove that amp X sounds better than amp Y.

This is why audiophile forums are great places. We can all discuss what we like about something and perhaps share things in a way that enhances each other's experiences (group hug everyone).

Bryan

It can be a bad thing because it is quite difficult to design and perform a good double-blind test for audio components. Drawing conclusions from a poorly designed and/or performed DBT is no better than guesswork.

 

[mep]

Hopefully, not the McIntosh. They have the patent on ugly gear

Here we go with the "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" dealio. While I happen to agree with you, there are certain other people (make that lots of certain other people) who sport some wood when they see McIntosh gear. I happen to think the early McIntosh gear looks better than the current gear because McIntosh is using too many different shades of green and blue that clash to my eyes. But then, some people think the Shindo 604 speakers look like a thing of beauty and all I can think of is a Russian Babushka.