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
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.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

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.
mzkmxcv
777 posts
 
@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.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Speak for yourself. My auditory memory is hours, days, weeks, years.

Eat more fish. 🐟 🐟 🐠
More to discover