2. misc-audio
  3. 1030465862

Have You Ever Put Your Golden Ears to the Test??

First let me say that I'm not one of the naysayers that Twl refers to in his thread about "Sonic Relativism", so please no attacks. I have no agenda.

I'm just curious if any of you have (or would be willing to) put your ears to the test in the way of a blind comparison. If so, what were the results? It can be quite rewarding to know that you can discern differences between things such as cables, DACs, etc.

I was at a good friend's house this weekend and we decided to do some blind comparisons of CD vs. SACD. We had three discs of various types of music (Friday Night in San Francisco, Keb' Mo and Harry Connick Jr.). I sat in the sweet spot and my friend switched discs playing one cut from each disc CD/SACD at random.

I could discern the CD from the SACD every time, but I have to say that the differences were more subtle than I expected. Of course, I'm no scientist so my methods may be open for scrutiny. I'm just curious how many of you try similar tests?

I always find it interesting when people say that they "heard" a cd player (or other component) and it was really great or really crappy or not very exciting. This almost always refers to having heard it at a dealer. How do they know they didn't "hear" the other components? What's the point of reference? The only way to really listen to components or accessories is within the confines of a "reference" system. For most of us that simply means our own system. And even then, the only way to confirm that we're hearing what we "think" we're hearing is to do some sort of blind test.

So...How many of you have put your ears to the test? If you haven't...Would you? If not...Why not?
danheather
cwlondon
1,210 posts
 
This question strikes fear in the hearts of audiophiles, perhaps because it takes some of the fun away or suggests that we have all spent way too much money on audio gear.

I have been interested in this hobby for many many years and consider myself very keen and reasonably experienced.

So I was horrifed several years ago when I found it very very difficult to hear the addition of a Linn Numeric DAC to a Linn Karik in a friends CD setup, even when played through Mark Levinson amps and Watt/Puppies -- and this wasn't even blind. Perhaps this is a bad example, but this was an expensive, Stereophile Class A/B product that supposedly changed the world of CD playback.

Still, I think I can hear a lot and I know what I like. Having agonized over the double blind question, my conclusion is that there is nothing to be ashamed of in placebo effect.

If we perceive that tweaky voodoo mods and/or esoteric gear makes the music sound better, than it does! And if the pleasure that we derive from that experience exceeds the expense and effort that we invest in creating it, than it's a good and worthwhile thing. I suppose that's why we are all here.

But I would guess that far more golden eared audiophiles would fail double blind tests than they would care to admit.
danheather OP
108 posts
 
I don't know what would be more embarassing...learning that (through blind tests) you prefer Bose 901s over your _____(your favorite boutique brand here)...or that you like Miller Genuine Draft over _____(your favorite micro-brew here).

As Newbee pointed out...I think that we all agree that (in most cases) there ARE differences...just perhaps not the same preferences that we might have supposed.
jond's avatar
jond
5,817 posts
 
Brad,
As someone in the wine trade I have to say that blind tasting is one of the hardest and most humbling things to do. I think beer would be a bit easier than wine but still hard. As far as prefering a beer you previously disliked, I'd say you had one beer too many.
On the subject of blind listening, who has the time! I barely get enought time just listening too my system, much less scientifically evaluating components or, God help me, cables. As long as I enjoy the way my system sounds, I'm happy. At least until I see another shiny toy I must have!
inpepinnovations1e75
395 posts
 
Newbie, the objective advocates would like you to understand that if all beers, water and wine tested the same (which they don't), they would taste the same. Of course one can tell the difference (to a point) when products are different i.e. more acid, less sodium and these differences can be detected.

ABX tests aren't to determine your good taste. People claim to hear differences and I believe them. What I don't believe is that there is a difference just because they hear one. Example, the same wire is compared to itself and one hears a difference. Of course that wasn't fair, I tricked him/her! Of course there are different sounding wires (and amplifiers), but these are designed in to please a certain segment (customers) and I am not sure that I want products that are not flat in frequency response or that possess other distortion products.

There is are limits to how much a human ear/brain can resolve differences in perceived sound and ABX tests tell one what those limits are. This is essentially the fear of those criticising these objective tests - that it will be revealed that their hearing isn't any better than anybody elses when it comes to detecting differences, although it (the hearing) might be better educated enabling the person to describe the difference, if any exists.

Salut
notamemberd6aa
1 posts
 
I think that the comparison to wine is appropriate. Just like wine, one's ability to discern differences in audio increases with ones experience. I can't tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and the best wine because I don't drink much. When I was in high school, my stereo sounded great compared to my clock radio. Over time, however, as I developed more experience with audio, I found that I needed more. I can now easily tell the difference between equipment and will pay for what I think is better. I won't, however, pay $200 for a bottle of wine because I can't tell the difference.
More to discover