Amir and Blind Testing


Let me start by saying I like watching Amir from ASR, so please let’s not get harsh or the thread will be deleted. Many times, Amir has noted that when we’re inserting a new component in our system, our brains go into (to paraphrase) “analytical mode” and we start hearing imaginary improvements. He has reiterated this many times, saying that when he switched to an expensive cable he heard improvements, but when he switched back to the cheap one, he also heard improvements because the brain switches from “music enjoyment mode” to “analytical mode.” Following this logic, which I agree with, wouldn’t blind testing, or any A/B testing be compromised because our brains are always in analytical mode and therefore feeding us inaccurate data? Seems to me you need to relax for a few hours at least and listen to a variety of music before your brain can accurately assess whether something is an actual improvement.  Perhaps A/B testing is a strawman argument, because the human brain is not a spectrum analyzer.  We are too affected by our biases to come up with any valid data.  Maybe. 

chayro

Ears Training is not an audiophile or only an acoustician matter it is a musician affair too..

Correlating subjective impressions with objective disposition of acoustic devices or content or ratios is the ONLY WAY...

Measuring with some tool a piece of gear and claiming without listening to it in controlled environment that the tool say the gear is good or bad is beyond ridiculous, exactly like vouching for the market publicity of gear....

Stupidity has no borderline... My borderline in audio is CORRELATION between the gear potential  the room acoustic ratios   and the ears...

I don't think the problem with Amir is calibration.  Even if the instrument is off a little bit it shouldn't matter.  The problem with Amir is he doesn't have a clue what he's measuring.

To someone with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

That is so funny 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Learning how to listen to our stereo systems is very important.  So back in the day I could walk into a real live brick and mortar store and hear a state of the art stereo.  Then I would go home and listen to my system and I would think, "wow, my system sucks."  Now I would go back to the store and listen again to see why the stereo in the store sounds better.  Is it the amp, the speakers, the preamp, the source or the room?  What about the sound is better at his store vs my no good stereo at home? This could also apply to a friend or group of hobbyists where you have the opportunity to listen to their systems.

An equipment manufacturer might want to bring in some mics and measurement equipment to understand why the sound is better but most of us learned to depend on our ears and our notes.  In fact, without the opportunity to hear other stereo systems - be it at a friends house or a store, our systems can become quite off and we not even realize it.  At least until we get in our car one day and think, "Man! This car stereo sounds better than my home stereo."  Been there too.

For example, about two years ago now I got to hear the Alexia 2's in Atlanta for the first time.  I went home and thought, wow the bass in my stereo system sucks.  I went back and listened some more and started hearing the differences between the  Alexia's and my speakers.  I was just about ready to drop some serious $$$ for new speakers but decided to first work on my room, speaker placement and I also added subwoofers which took another several months to position and tune.  I'm at the point where my system has bass almost as good as the Alexia's but good enough at least that I'm no longer motivated to upgrade.  It took me several months of work, including putting in a wood floor but I can say from experience that speakers are not the number one influence on the sound.  It is the room and then the electronics.  Of course, the speakers have to be reasonably qualified.

My point is some actual measurements are needed at times but critical listening skills can guide us to build exceptional systems.  

Oh, and the other thing- it took months to find the best position for the speakers and subs because what sounded good one day sounded terrible another day.  It can take time and patience to get dialed in.  I also spent some time listening to the Wilsons over a year plus and I did buy some other gear at that store since I spent so much time there.  I still think they are great speakers.

Look, you didn't even know the bureau of standards has been defunct for 35 years. Don't try to invent a backstory at this point in some questionable call to authority with made up qualifications. You didn't even know what NIST was till I put it in a post. If you were truly an engineering manager involved with metrology, you would know this. You did not.

You don't know what would be calibrated on a spectrum analyzer, let alone an audio one, or even how it would be relevant to the information being presented, most of which is differential in which case, calibration is effectively of no meaning. Whether one item is 1 and the other is 1.1, or one is 1.1, and the other is 1.21 is not relevant in a differential comparison. Again, if you were an metrology expert, you would know this. Similarly, whether something is 1.000KHz or 1.001KHz in audio would not be important. If it was, we could never use turntables.

On top of that, many instruments today incorporate self calibration features. In a device with an independent generator and recorder, if the recorded result matches the expected generator output, then you can be rather confident of the calibration.

 

Wow, another self proclaimed expert.  Spectrum and frequency analyzers do need to be calibrated.  Since I was an Engineering Manager for several years with one of my responsibilities being test equipment design, calibration and repair in a major Aerospace Company I know that first hand.  All test equipment should be traceable back to the Bureau of Standards or NIST for serious test work or analysis.