2. amps-preamps
  3. 147502-111654

Double blind test- over a month- could this be a reliable test for any equipment?

I am aware there are lots of debate about the merit of the double-blind test.Reading lots of articles online makes me feel overwhelmed and also confusing- you could have a totally opposite view of the same piece of equipment and system.
msnpassion
alexatpos
1,206 posts
 
In my experience, sometimes its possible to hear ’big and obvious’ differences right away, but on the other hand, sometimes it took me much longer time to hear and actually understand how some piece of gear affects the overall sound of my system.

Even more, if the ’differences’ were not so big in the beginning,longer listening helps me to determine if something sounds 'right' or not.

So, the blind test could help, but (imho) I would not consider it as essential for choosing some piece of equipment

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
This has been discussed ad nauseam. There are many perfectly good reasons why any test is unreliable, including double blind tests. In addition, there are many perfectly good reasons why testing over periods of time is also unreliable. For one thing test results oft depend on whose ox is being gored, but also the system used for the test, external factors, and a whole bunch of other things. And the sound changes all by itself day to day, hour to hour, month to month. So, the question naturally arises, when you check on the sound a week later or whatever, what are you actually hearing?

Yeah, made the scene
Week to week
Day to day
Hour to hour
The gate is straight
Deep and wide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
rocknss
130 posts
 
And the sound changes all by itself day to day, hour to hour, month to month.
But if conducting the test over a month changes should average out. I would say if you cannot identify a difference in that scenario it is not worth the upgrade.

I think ideally it you could create a computer controlled AB that would only change (or not, double blind) after making a choice. Review the results and have an additional data point to make your decision.  You can always revert to feels if you like.
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
1,019 posts
 

OP wouldn’t you rather get to know the performance of a recording that you have experienced for many years and be able to recognize things changing from viewing your stage? It’s so much more fun to know a soundstage intimately and tune it in different ways to explore different aspects of the same recording. First you have to know how to get a soundstage consistently, but once that is an easy task, then it’s all about hearing the recording from many different points of reference. Sometimes you may want to spread the stage way out and other times not so wide and deep, but more condensed. There’s so many ways to listen to the same recording with all of them being right. Once you get to that type of control, double blind tests and other tests like that become boring and meaningless.


mg

divertiti
225 posts
 
No testing is 100% reliable when it comes to sensory perception, but blind tests are a hell of a lot more reliable than sighted tests. The human mind, perception and memory are all extremely fallible and vulnerable to influence. This is the reason why eye witness testimonies have proven over and over again to be the least reliable type of evidence.

With that said, there is an intangible side to audio that isn't easily discerned or understood in a shorter time. I have experienced times where I heard a difference, thought it was an improvement, but then the change annoyed me over the long term, or I missed how the music flowed previously. I suggest you combine blind testing of differences with longer term living with the components to get a full picture.
More to discover