I see the issue with ABX blind testing

All acoustician are fraudster because they trust their trained ears and do not only takes measures...

There is a big difference between hearing an unknown piece of gear from an unknownm system in unknown room condition and hearing the same piece AFTER you embed it right mechanically, electrically and acoustically in your room ..

After doing that i trust my ears without the need of double blind test ABX device , those who think otherwise had never embed their system properly or they are deaf and so untrained they dont trust their own feelings and perception...

They need to know for sure if what they feel can be approved by others and verified as perfect even if it means negate what they hear and prefer what the measuring tool say...Why not? they are fee to do so but by depreciating the way others do it for ideological reason then ? 😊

People are contaminated by corporations safe guideline or sometimes propagandap    ....Double blind test are one like randomised trials over clinician observations... Useful in industry useless in my room and i prefer a free doctor to big pharma...

@tonywinga lmao

Pshshsh, who conflates a deer hunt with the OP topic - wild goose chase - anyway!? 😉

soix

8,553 posts

04-12-2024 at 08:46pm 

“Professing those perceptions to be “consistent, clear, and repeatable” for others is, however, either in honest error or purposefully misleading.”

@benanders So, you’re saying I’m not hearing what I’m hearing despite hearing it consistently after multiple back-and-forth comparisons?  

That’s definitely not what I “said,” @soix  . Demonstrable difference and perceived difference are not necessarily the same thing. If cables aren’t being demonstrated to have difference (whether through properly arranged listener pref studies or measurements or some option I’m unaware of), then there’s no evidence to support a perception of difference. That doesn’t mean something perceived as being different is not real. It simply means there’s insufficient reason to assume it would apply in any other situation, since so many other variables will change at the same time.

It’s really sad some people need studies to tell them what they can and can’t hear.  

Well, I tend to think it keeps some things more predictable and interesting. Emotions like sorrow tend to get in the way of objectivity. 😉

I’d submit it’s misleading (and arrogant) for you to maintain that using your ears is an error and misleading based on some study somewhere.  

Again, no one here has suggested that. What works for you works for you. But professing what you perceive should apply to others’ perceptions and/or use cases? Better off having some evidence.

Pretty sure most people here have been able to discern differences between two products,

Absolutely. As aforementioned, can be demonstrable or can be perceived (or can be both), so can be real or can be imagined (cannot be both); this gets muddled when some folks who don’t consider the discrepancies discuss everything they perceive as though it were demonstrable (= evidentially supported).

So like I said, whether or not it’s intentional, that style of presentation can be misleading.

but I guess you need to be told what you can hear rather than being able to objectively judge something for yourself.  Sad.  Deaf ears indeed.

But professing what you perceive should apply to others’ perceptions and/or use cases? Better off having some evidence.

I don't find that people do that. For the most part I've found that those who think cables make a difference will detail their experience and explain which cables they have liked and why. I don't find that they tell me that my experience will be the same. Those who feel cables are snake oil often do so without trying the cables being discussed and do think that their perception should apply to everyone.