geoffkait
Unlike many of the loud voices here, I've actually participated in a few listening tests. These were very much scientific: level-matched, double-blind, with training that preceded the actual test. The results were ... interesting.
To be clear, I think such tests have very limited value to most audiophiles and are mostly a waste their time. But if we are going to discuss listening tests, it should be done without hocus-pocus, and without the requirement to wager $25,000 and include the involvement of lawyers to "protect" us.
I think scientific blind listening tests have very real value to manufacturers, by the way. But I think it's interesting that the best manufacturers use them only as a guide - not an absolute measure of their work.
I’m saying there isn’t such a thing as a valid listening test. I thought I made that clear. The reason is because pitfalls can sometimes be beyond anyone’s controlSorry, we'll have to disagree about that, Geoff. I absolutely think there is such a thing as a scientific, valid listening test. It is not as simple to conduct as some here would have us believe, however. And the results of any one single test are of limited value, especially to an audiophile who's comfortable and reasonably confident in what he hears.
Unlike many of the loud voices here, I've actually participated in a few listening tests. These were very much scientific: level-matched, double-blind, with training that preceded the actual test. The results were ... interesting.
To be clear, I think such tests have very limited value to most audiophiles and are mostly a waste their time. But if we are going to discuss listening tests, it should be done without hocus-pocus, and without the requirement to wager $25,000 and include the involvement of lawyers to "protect" us.
I think scientific blind listening tests have very real value to manufacturers, by the way. But I think it's interesting that the best manufacturers use them only as a guide - not an absolute measure of their work.