[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:52:11 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 25, 12:02=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:56:41 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. =
A
proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, an=
d
sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

Problem is, people write reviews and make pronouncements based upon these
nebulous feelings about the sound of things.

Why is that a problem? That is the nature of subjective review be it
audio, food, movies or anything. *It is subjective.* The readers ought
to know that. If they don't the problem isn't the reviews....

Worse, some lass than scrupulous
or even well meaning but misguided individuals make and sell products of
dubious worth to audiophiles who have no way of ascertaining whether or n=
ot
they've been duped.

"Worth" like so many other things is actually subjective. If an
audiophile thinks something was worth his or her money it's hard to
argue. The point is to have fun no? If someone is having fun hard to
argue value.

In these cases, only double-blind tests can tell whether
the "differences" heard between components are, in reality, the result of
expectational/sighted bias (if you just spent $4000 for a pair of 1-meter
interconnect cables, believe me, they are going to sound MUCH better than=
the
cables that they replace - even if they are, in actuality, identical in
sound), or, if those differences are real. =A0

Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly=
.

No one is suggesting any such thing. But, others have conducted such test=
s,
and the results have been published and are, in many cases, available on =
the
internet. One should avail themselves of these test results where possibl=
e.

Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
undesirable results.


If you notice, I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about DBTs and was answering a
poster who thinks that expecting the average audiophile to conduct DBTs is
"silly".




I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
likely feel differently.

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
re
is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
for
determining which of the two is "better".

No. DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
there are audible differences than when there are not audible
differences. Think about it.

I have. Double blind tests show that difference either exist or do not WHEN
biases are removed. Seems to me we are saying the same thing. Remove the
sighted or expectational biases, and even "true believers" can see the truth
of these so-called "differences" (although many still won't admit it).


For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listenin=
g
is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener=
.

Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not for
determining which is better.

That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
evaluations of perceptions.

I dunno, when sighted tests find differences that DBTs show not to exist,
then I would say that it's good at revealing whether or not the differences
are real or imagined. In other words, we're saying the same thing, you just
like the way you word it better 8^)


I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
purchase, either.

For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
rom
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.

That will not eliminate bias effects at all.

Who said it did?