Double blind test- over a month- could this be a reliable test for any equipment?
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. |
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 |
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. |
divertiti22 posts03-19-2019 10:26amNo 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. >>>>>There are many fallibilities, including operator error, improper test procedure, misterpretation of test results, operator hearing issues, system mistakes. Besides one test means nothing. It’s the preponderance of the evidence that one should evaluate, not just one test. People oft have ulterior motives for saying something like, “I bet you can’t prove it/hear it in a double blind test!” Most of the double blind challenges are empty threats. |
@alexatpos Our perfect auditory recall period is about 10sec. If there is a minute difference you didn’t pick up immediately, it’s impossible for you to notice a change the next day. If I changed the volume of your setup by 2dB, I doubt a single person on this forum could notice it if they didn’t listen to the change for a full day, whereas if immediatly listening, the change is easily audible. You noticing differences is simply noticing things that already existed, but were simply not overtly audible. I could play you a song 5 times, and you would likely hear some change if I told you there was one. |
