2. cables
  3. 166355-2693

Why Do So Many Audiophiles Reject Blind Testing Of Audio Components?

Because it was scientifically proven to be useless more than 60 years ago.

A speech scientist by the name of Irwin Pollack have conducted an experiment in the early 1950s. In a blind ABX listening test, he asked people to distinguish minimal pairs of consonants (like “r” and “l”, or “t” and “p”).

He found out that listeners had no problem telling these consonants apart when they were played back immediately one after the other. But as he increased the pause between the playbacks, the listener’s ability to distinguish between them diminished. Once the time separating the sounds exceeded 10-15 milliseconds (approximately 1/100th of a second), people had a really hard time telling obviously different sounds apart. Their answers became statistically no better than a random guess.

If you are interested in the science of these things, here’s a nice summary:

Categorical and noncategorical modes of speech perception along the voicing continuum

Since then, the experiment was repeated many times (last major update in 2000, Reliability of a dichotic consonant-vowel pairs task using an ABX procedure.)

So reliably recognizing the difference between similar sounds in an ABX environment is impossible. 15ms playback gap, and the listener’s guess becomes no better than random. This happens because humans don't have any meaningful waveform memory. We cannot exactly recall the sound itself, and rely on various mental models for comparison. It takes time and effort to develop these models, thus making us really bad at playing "spot the sonic difference right now and here" game.

Also, please note that the experimenters were using the sounds of speech. Human ears have significantly better resolution and discrimination in the speech spectrum. If a comparison method is not working well with speech, it would not work at all with music.

So the “double blind testing” crowd is worshiping an ABX protocol that was scientifically proven more than 60 years ago to be completely unsuitable for telling similar sounds apart. And they insist all the other methods are “unscientific.”

The irony seems to be lost on them.

Why do so many audiophiles reject blind testing of audio components? - Quora
128x128artemus_5
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 
might be good to remember that science is the art of logic based investigation of incomplete unknowns.

The statement does not say that science itself or logic or the art of investigation is in any way complete, nor does it suppose that dogmatism is a thing.

Arguing with human emotion as a deep colorant and filter in one’s own formation of logic... is also an act of partial and limited depth analysis with the logic  bits being all askew.

Since we don’t know everything, this part is inevitable. to be on guard for it with every single thought form of any kind.

at no point in any of the given motions of working through the considerations, should anyone assume that any of the bits in place are perfected or immutable. that’s the creep of the deep mindset of humans in ’dogmatism’, coming into the fray again. coloring. owning. projecting. deciding and living in the emotional coloring and skewing of logic.

really bad news for science.

which the idea of science is specifically designed to sidestep and take into account, and never issue any facts of any kind. to never be dogmatic, to never have facts, to revert all to mutable, changeable theory. otherwise dogmatism rises in the mind and colors facts into existence - when there are none.

Most times these sort of threads are rife with limited depth projections built out of dogma and factualization. A fundamental and core human issue.

if you want to have a discussion that is to be based in the idea and form/scope of science.... then shed the dogma and facts, in everything. Then..maybe we'll start to get somewhere useful.
artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5 OP
1,992 posts
 
@ dletch2, jdane, djones, jjassmith and all the other Scientismists on board. You boys are good at casting aspersions on those of us who do not agree with your religion of Scientism. But do you have any REAL science to back up your assertions? You aren't calling on science. I've debated too many small minded people like you who when backed in a  corner, always cry out that my question was not answerable by science. So on one hand, you infer that science has all the answers and then when backed into a corner you contradict yourself and say it doesn't.  
So I know who you are, what you think you know and your next move. As I use to tell my son, "I know what you are going to do before you do it". Why? Because I have been you. But I grew up. maybe you will too. But its not guaranteed. 
thyname's avatar
thyname
3,107 posts
 
unreceivedogma368 posts04-30-2021 11:36am

Those of us who advocate blind testing do so not to prove that you can hear a difference but to prove the opposite.
And why exactly you feel the urge for OTHER PEOPLE to prove it to you that they hear a difference?

Kudos to you for using the blind testing for making your own choices (assuming you indeed do so), but to impose to other people who do not is a bit of stretch. By that logic, nobody should share any experiences with equipment, gear, cables, etc. unless they can "prove" it with blind tests certified by a panel of third party "specialists"?
jssmith
324 posts
 
@ speedbump6 : Part of what you describe is one of humans' most powerful instincts, the pursuit of status. And when your livelihood or acceptance into a desired group is dependent on a belief, it's apt to be even more deeply rooted and challenges to it avoided.  Can you imagine how devastating it would feel to spend $130,000 on a pair of D'Agostino monoblocks and find out you just blew at least $127,000? Why take the risk? And that can be scaled down by income. Imagine the normal Joe spending $5,000 on a DAC then blind testing $140 one and you couldn't tell the difference. That would be like going to the casino, putting down $4,860 on one hand of Blackjack - and losing! Not a good feeling. Well, maybe you could sell the D'Agostinos for $80,000 and the DAC for $3,000 and only lose ~$50,000 and $2,000 respectively on that one hand of Blackjack, but still not a good feeling. One to be avoided at all cost. If you never take the risk, you never have to confront your mistakes.
Post removed 
More to discover