Mahgister...way to chew the fun outta my gum.
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- ...
- 317 posts total
@perkri : A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR CHOOSING LOUDSPEAKERS AND HEADPHONES FOR RECORDING AND BROADCAST - Dr, Sean Olive, Harman In the 1980’s, Dr. Floyd Toole [2,3,4] at the National Research Council of Canada conducted controlled, double blind listening tests on loudspeakers. Listeners gave the highest fidelity ratings to loudspeakers having the flattest, smoothest frequency response measured over a wide range of angles. This was perhaps the first documented evidence that listeners recognize accurate sound and prefer it. ... 2. Predicting Loudspeaker Sound Quality From Objective Measurements The accuracy of the predictions range from 86% (based on 70 different loudspeakers) to 99% with bookshelf loudspeakers with restricted low frequency output. |
There is no debate, measures and standards are technological fundamental knowledge.... But all this means different things for each specific consciousness... Is it not simple? And we cannot reduce one to the other.... Predicting Loudspeaker Sound Quality From Objective MeasurementsIt is comnmon sense that measures will say something right about speakers for example... But the use of this speaker and their choice cannot be predicted by measurements.... We can only eliminated less well designed speakers... Room/gear/ears synergy is another factors...it is possible to measure this factor in theory also but not practical...The technology behind the smyth realizer headphone is precisely that.... This is the reason why we choose gear by listening it for practical reason .... |
@mahgister: Room/gear/ears synergy is another factors But you can't listen to everything. Heck, there's very little you can listen to in a comparative environment nowadays. And that environment isn't like your own either. So you need a filter to narrow down the selection. And that's where Harman's research comes in. And if you have a goofy room, you need to understand how acoustics works to consider things like directivity, diffusion and absorption. Otherwise, most speakers will likely not sound very good. As for room, you could always duplicate Harman's room. I inadvertently designed my new media room to almost the exact same proportions. Here's Harman's. Length 9.14 m Width 6.58 m Height 2.59 m The AES and IEC also has standards for domestic listening rooms. Also, I found this paper to be informational when designing a listening room. |
But you can’t listen to everythingWhere i live i cannot listen to anything new... I choose my pieces of gear after studying many hundred reviews for some years... It was a complete success...I like all my gear.... And that environment isn’t like your own either. So you need a filter to narrow down the selection. And that’s where Harman’s research comes in. And if you have a goofy room,I cannot build a room after Harman and few people could.... It is NOT an affordable solution for most people and it is not even necessary... And if you have a goofy room, you need to understand how acoustics works to consider things like directivity, diffusion and absorption. Otherwise, most speakers will likely not sound very good.There is a more economical and very powerful better solution... I used material passive homemade treatment in my 13 feet square not ideal room at all, with speakers on a desk and one speaker almost between the walls corner... A balance between absorbtion, reflection and diffusive surfaces is needed... But it is never ENOUGH anyway in almost all cases, not only for my case... I created then a "mechanical equalizer" with a grid of 32 tubes and pipes with various volume/ neck lenght ratios orientable and adjustable at will, by cutting different type of straws in section of different diameters... I distributed all that around reflection points in my room beginning with one speaker and ending with the other speaker... Asymmetrical volumes for each tubes and pipes near the direct wavefront of each speaker is very important...I use for the "head" speaker tubes near the tweeter only and for the other near the bass driver only...All other tubes and pipes of different volumes located at my right and left on reflection point and behind me.... Contrary to an electronic equalizer that modify the frequency response of the speakers to the room, mechanical equalizer modify the room in relation to the speakers and act by their continuous action, buoying and marking out for each ear the reflections of each speaker differently, making the brain able to create a better localization of the sound...I dont use precise frequency response of the speaker with a mic. but my ears listening to different instrumental timbre for the tuning... Contrary to an electronic equalizer that work ONLY for a precise unique location in millimeter out of which all fine tuning run amok, the mechanical equalizer work with a relatively large bandwith (voice timbre) then for ALL the room....i listen at the end in near-listening and regular position without being able to choose which one is better...Contrary to an erroneous affirmation in audio thread near listening is greatly affected by room controls in a small room... Now with my experience here, give me any relatively good speakers and any small room, and i can make them a wedding in heaven...It will cost only time a month of listening experiments and no money... The secret is simple, controlling the timing of the early and late reflections and the back reflections to create a 3-d holography .... Also using the Helmholtz tubes and pipes to fine tune the instrumental timbre experience in a more natural one because we modufy the pressure zones of the room when we place the H.R. tubes all along the room...... For sure it is not possible to create such a grid in a living room... For me the most important luxury in audio are not the gear at all...Any relatively good gear can do what i wanted to... It is a dedicated room which is the only necessary luxury.... Acoustic physical law are not enough and material passive treatment tell only HALF of the story.... Psychoacoustical law are necessary for the most important half , with the Helmholtz mechanical equalization ....I can control, imaging, timbre, soundstage, listener envelopment and source width at will...No electronic preocessing is needed at all contrary to what most people think even specialist... By the way all that was made with discarded materials from my basement and cost me nothing at all.... Acoustic give audiophile experience more efficiently than costly gear only.... My audio system cost used under 500 bucks but it is a well choosen one ....I will never feel the urge to upgrade anymore.... Too busy immersed in music...I never read reviews of gear anymore....So powerful is acoustic control in ANY room even in a non Harman one... Understand me right here: i am not like those who boast to have the better gear in the world.... My system is NOT the best by far, but the ratio S.Q. /price is over the roof.... Then i smile when people boast about gear without knowing acoustic....The audio market condition our mind to BUY it is simple....The audio market dont educate people about acoustic and some other basic control like vibrations and electrical noise floor... Fine tuning a room is exactly like fine tuning a piano: it is the SAME THING.... No piano tuner need to be blind tested....And no piano tuner ask for it because they doubt what they listen to... Then blindtest disccusion are a comedy..... |
- 317 posts total