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
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.




geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
@asvjerry My point was that the Government ordinarily requires third party testing. The Boeing case is unusual because apparently FAA allowed Boeing to perform the testing for the software in question. If that’s true then it’s like letting the fox protect the chicken coop. My last job was senior engineer in FAA Office of Safety.
jetter
3,035 posts
 
^^^ Geoff, was it biplane or single wing aircraft at the time?
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I don’t recall. The Office of Safety at that time was located at Kitty Hawk, NC. 
More to discover