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
artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5 OP
1,970 posts
 
I expect the people you have backed into a corner were as uneducated in the topic as you were.


Oh I'm sure they were nowhere near as smart as you are dletch2. They were just mere mortals but they too were much smarter than me, just like you. LOL 
limomangus's avatar
limomangus
1,428 posts
 
Because they don't want to look like a clown...
asctim
493 posts
 
Blind testing is quite useful for determining if something is plainly audible to most people. It can also be used to determine if some difference that’s been shown to be audible is preferable or not to most people.

Proving that something is inaudible under all conditions to all listeners is trying to prove a negative and that’s always a tough thing. A naysayer can naysay forever. I watched a flat earther group reject the visible sinking of a marker on a boat below the horizon line even though it was being demonstrated directly for them. It’s just a heat effect, they said.

So which side does the burden of proof land on?

If 999 out of 1000 people reliably detect a difference in a blind test someone who felt strongly from their personal experience that it wasn’t true could argue that they were all just lucky or there must have been something wrong with the test and that people really generally can’t hear the difference. If 999 out of 1000 people can’t reliably detect a difference during the test, someone who felt strongly from their personal experience that it was audible could say that the test was somehow fundamentally different than real listening situations so most people who care to pay attention can really hear that difference.

I have listening experiences that seem to line up really well with the technical and scientific consensus that I read about everywhere except some audiophile literature. If double blind tests indicate that something is inaudible, it is inaudible to me. If I try to achieve the measurements that are specified, I find I really, really like the results. The closer I get, the better I like it. High end systems that don’t meet those specs don’t sound as good to me, and ones that exceed the specs in certain areas - like extended frequency response or ultra low distortion don’t sound any better to me than those that just meet the specs. So I have to admit here that my personal experience is what motivates me to go with the science and currently known measurement criteria. It doesn’t contradict my subjective experience and it gets me where I want to go.

Those who find measurements and testing don’t line up with their perceptions have a different journey. I have noticed that many of those who feel there is an audible difference beyond what the scientific literature has established seem to have little interest in coming to a better, more scientific understanding of it so that can be reliably and perhaps affordably reproduced. Maybe they feel it’s just too complicated. Why argue and get all technical when they know they perceive better sound and all they have to do is buy it and set it up.
larry5729's avatar
larry5729
1,008 posts
 
I totally believe in blind testing.  Seeing a label on a piece of equipment known to be prestigious does not mean it sounds better.  Let your ears be the judge.  For example I purchased a BlueSound Node 2i and the dealer talked me into adding a DAC.  I played it with and without the DAC and felt it sounded better without the DAC. The DAC made the bass sound thin.  So I got it home and still found it sounded better without the DAC.  I ended up selling the DAC on Audiogon and learned a lesson.  Just because you add something doesn’t mean it automatically sounds better.
sokogear
1,097 posts
 
Paul at PS Aduio's video posted above is right on the money. Keep everything the same, blind folded A vs. B for a minute or as long as you need to get a feel for it and then play the same thing on the B option. If you can't hear a difference, then who cares? Just make sure someone else sets it up for you so you are not biased in any way.

It's the only way to justify an expenditure.

I can't believe this is even debated. What else are you going to go by, some review whose magazine has paid advertisers or is friends with the designer or manufacturer or is incentivized by them? 
More to discover