Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Wise and right on the target...

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

Some might argue that, if a specific listener claims to expect a difference between, say, a hi-res and lo-res signal, that an ABX test with him is "testing the listener." But that’s mistaken. Such a test could only reveal whether that listener could distinguish a difference under the conditions of the test. Again, this why is why multiple tests yield more useful information.

It’s rather odd that Amir is so preoccupied with conducting measurements that he sometimes doesn’t bother to listen to the devices he tests, and yet on the other hand issues such proclamations about the tests he’s claimed to have "passed."

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected. When they are improperly conducted, such a test has no advantage over a sighted test and can yield misleading results.

Just don't make contrived analogies as if that will amount to anything.

Practice what you preach. Are you incapable of feeling shame for what amounts to a contrived (and poorly constructed) analogy in your rebuttal? Practically everything you came up with reeks with desperation in an attempt to draw parallels of what passes for the rigors of testing in audio reproduction (if there really is such a thing) to what can be accomplished in ensuring accuracy in watches and the way they are measured, not to mention what even the highest standards of watch accuracy are and how they're determined. 

Have fun with your scopes.

All the best,
Nonoise

I would *love* for you to set up such a blind test for everyone who comes to your room there. Are you going to do that and publish the results at the end?

Only if you promise to be one of the everyone.

It wouldn’t be my first large scale/show blind test, only the first where participants would be aware.

amir_asr

@soundfield 

And flat FR is sometimes boring.

Virtually useless and perhaps harmful for deciding which sounds better.

As a speaker maker, what do you have to say about this?  Is CEA-2034 frequency response measurements "virtually useless" and "perhaps harmful" in determining the fidelity of the speaker?  

He must be talking about an amplifier or DAC. Loudspeakers have an infinite number of FRs radiating 3 dimensionally, not "A" flat FR.

Speaking of which, your Salon2s have good on/off axis FR and full bandwidth, no subs needed. You game for a blind test vs some garage speakers at PAF '24?

I don't have a pair of large remote turntables and AVA ABX remote box, etc, etc, nor do any blind listening tests, so have no fear, they'll do just fine. 

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected.

Well, a good test would have both positive and negative controls. Training also.