2. misc-audio
  3. 147670-20253

Blind Testing is Dead - Long live My Wallet testing.

Hi Everyone,

I was seeing some discussions around cables, and reading other discussions about A'gon members asking for opinions on different alternatives for hooking up a DAC, or TV sound, or whatever, and it made me think of this.


I want to tie a few things together:

  • Most technical measurements consumers read were defined by the 1970s. It is fair to describe them as stagnant.
  • The cost to benefit ratio of a lot of products can vary a great deal.
  • I hear things I can't yet measure in cables and crossover components.
  • I like measurements. 
  • Someday measurements commonly discussed among consumers will improve and better tie our values to technology.

A lot has been made about double blind testing, and a lot of readers rely on taste masters (web sites, magazines and social media) and whether in fact these taste masters can hear anything at all. Reminds me a lot of blind testing of wines, or an article I read recently about how much super rare whiskey is fake.


When deciding on a bit of kit, I could not care less about double blind testing. I care about :

  • What audible value can I perceive?
  • Is the price proportional to that value?
  • Is my money better spent on a vacation or liquor?

We should also note that I'm a bit of an iconoclast. Most consumers also care about:

  • Brand recognition
  • Style
  • Perception of modernity (is it cutting edge no one else has)
  • Perception of construction (how much does it weigh, how is it packaged)
  • Ability to create envy.
  • Price ( if it's too inexpensive, it can't be good! )


What is my message then? My message is that this is all cute, like reading about movies or books or music shows, but in the end, it's my wallet, no one else's. John Atkinson is not buying my speakers for me. I am. My hard work creates value which I use some of (sometimes too much) to buy audio related products. The more you detach yourself from brands, costs and worries about measurements the more frugal, and happier  you will be.


Best,

Erik


erik_squires
asvjerry's avatar
asvjerry
4,807 posts
 
Eric, well stated, and Yes, you may have created the embers for yet another brush fire. ;)
It seems almost unavoidable of late.
For every stance, you'll have those of a like mind...however apparently unstable for some, but support of a sort.
Then there's those who would rather bury their Game of Thrones Registered Trademarked Battle Axe into your forehead because agreeing to disagree over differences in opinion and/or preference doesn't seem acceptable...or 'something'.
I can appreciate one and all search for their personal idea or ideals of 'perfection'.  I personally can't relate to perfection as existing, or even the opportunity for the event to potentially exist.  If observing an event alters the event (as has been posited), it seems IMHO to be an ongoing activity.
Which it has been, and seems to be riding towards a sunset that doesn't 'fade to black' (except on a personal level and time frame, R.I.P.).
Eric, enjoy.  All of 'Us', enjoy yours. I like mine.  
asvjerry's avatar
asvjerry
4,807 posts
 
Re 'Boeing'....I come from a family that, over time, worked for Douglas, McDonnell Douglas, and finally, Boeing.  Over that time, the aircraft have grown in complexity, price, and passenger count per craft.
They added an 'app' that was meant to protect the major investment, help the crew manage the craft, and get the butts in the seats to their gate wherever.
They neglected to make a Big Issue out of it, or where the 'Kill' switch was and When one might want to use it.
One sure bet that someones, somewheres, are scrambling to get this programmed into flight simulators that run the 737 scenarios.
But like the Miracle on the Hudson, you can't Beta test Everything.

NASA, on the other hand, is basically an 'X' program.  High risk.  People Will Die.  They know that upfront.  SpaceX will eventually, too.  If you do something inherently dangerous, it happens regularly.

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

As much as I like flying, and appreciate a (IMHO) great or beautiful craft (the de Havilland Mosquito, the Cobalt Co50 Valkyrie for examples), when I board an aircraft I'm putting my life in the hands and tech of every being that has made, cared for, and controls that machine.  And a faith in physics that will make it fly.

But one also delivers oneself into 'situations beyond control', as stated above. Excrement Happens. 
asvjerry's avatar
asvjerry
4,807 posts
 
Oh...me?  I wanted to be a bigger cog in a smaller machine.

And I am. *VBS*  Enjoy your niche. ;)

Post removed 
cd318
2,636 posts
 
@asvjerry, thanks for your post.
Reminded me, a nervous flyer whose fear grew worse with each flight, of reading about the meticulous no nonsense approach adopted by the aviation industry today. 

Despite years of training, numerous health and psychological surveillance checks the main risk to passengers  comes from the pilots themselves. Not terrorists, weather conditions or mechanical failure.

According to Boeing up to 80% of accidents are caused by human error! And yet, year after year audiophiles remain convinced that their judgement remains infallible.




More to discover