I see the issue with ABX blind testing

@mahgister None of it is standardized. Even in Grad School there was some standardization. Same with working in a distillery - tasting panels are standardized and they basically look for certain things. There is NONE of that in audiophiledom, period.

That IS the point, isn’t it? If we all had one standard, then there can be differences based on personal taste, but good wines and whiskey have specific characters, then they add the unique characteristics above that.

Even your word salad, is just that. You seem to be the only one following your system.

You had not understood my point at all...

You dont even tried so enebriated by your techno-cult instead of science...

Acoustics as a science exist...your argument is pure ideology...

A small room acoustic cannot be standardized by the way guess why ?

Acoustic content of any room differ from another as well as size, geometry and topology...

my ears are biased in a way different than your own...Then i tuned my room for them... Better than ABX DBT pseudo circus , we may measure our inner ears canals and HTRF and determine our listening position better in the room etc ...

In small room acoustics all must be designed for the owner perception....

Your insults against audiophiles "golden ears" are not grounded in science but in the techno cultist ideology...

I dont need ABX DBT circus in my room ... 😊

 

You speak as an ASR ideologue..."audiophildom" as if all audiophiles were ignorant...

You are ignorant you have no idea of what is acoustics sorry...

Standardize your own  ears i will keep mine as they are, imperfect but trainable and truthfull for my needs ... 😊

 

By the way the concept of timbre is not a word salad nor the concept of listener envelopment and the source auditory width ratio LV/ASW... Inform yourself how to create it in small room acoustics... No, it is not in the ABX DBT manual ...

"audiophildom" "golden ears" , who use these words salad ?😊

You, poor little soul not me ...

You are a deluded soul unable to see your own biases...Then you come here and throw insult because people try cables not in your way on a theater with ABX DBT ...

Good luck....

But please give arguments not insults...

Especially in a site where there is many other people who think differently... They are not all idiots...

Cables matter way less than acoustics, even your electrical specs of design in some variable acceptable  boundary  matter less  guess why ? Acoustics parameters variations  had huge impact... No need to ABX DBT test to hear them ...

 

@mahgister None of it is standardized. Even in Grad School there was some standardization. Same with working in a distillery - tasting panels are standardized and they basically look for certain things. There is NONE of that in audiophiledom, period.

 

 

I wonder if botrytis realizes he has wandered into a blind alley.  He has mixed up the concept of ABX testing by a panel for commercial sales with a home user selecting components for his audio system.  

To put it in terms botrytis brought up- would he criticize a homebrew distiller for not using ABX testing on his product?  That would make no sense.  A homebrew distiller is making his product for his own personal consumption and so will of course brew it to his tastes.  Would botrytis accuse him of bias for making it taste the way he wants?  He added ingredients without blind testing to see which ingredients are the best?  How dare he.  Of course this is nonsense.  The brewer makes his elixir the way he likes it.  

An audiophile sets up his system to sound the way he wants it to sound.  He is not setting up a commercial adventure to sell copies of his system to others.  Therefore, to suggest that a person must do ABX testing of the components he selects or else he is just fooling himself is a ludicrous concept.  

Here‘s a thought.  Go into a high end restaurant and tell the head Chef that if he didn‘t ABX blind test all of his ingredients then he is biased and wasting money on expensive foods and spices for his meals.  See how that goes.

The common ground here is that we pretty much all recognize that we as humans have biases, and I’d venture to guess most of us aren’t opposed to ABX testing.  The difference here is that the @botrytis believes we are completely incapable of overcoming our biases or listening objectively, and thus the only valid way to judge audio equipment is ABX because we as humans are incompetent and are just fooling ourselves.  So if I hear a silver interconnect and a copper interconnect and find the former brighter and hyper detailed and the latter warmer and more natural sounding and prefer that latter I’m just hearing my biases and need ABX to confirm my impressions.  Especially audiophiles who’ve listened to lots of gear and have identified what sounds good to them know what they hear and ultimately vote with their hard-earned dollars accordingly.  The fungal disease doesn’t believe people who have long experience listening to a wide variety of gear constitutes valid training or expertise in being able to judge audio equipment but that somehow scientists and musicians have a more valid form of training for this purpose.  Ha!  When it comes to choosing audio equipment nothing is better or more valuable than broad listening experience, and you can’t get that by reading books, understanding scientific method, or playing an instrument.  I’d much sooner trust a seasoned audiophile’s recommendations with years of listening experience over a scientist, engineer, or musician with less listening experience and perspective any day.  Hell, I know lots of musicians and all but one have crap audio systems and are completely clueless and incapable of assessing audio equipment or systems because they have no experience or perspective to be able to do so.  So how does all that musical training translate to audio?  It doesn’t much like you wouldn’t want a foot doctor to do brain surgery — they’re completely different disciplines and while I’d certainly like a violinist to help me choose a violin or a scientist to help conduct an experiment I’ve no interest in their opinions on audio equipment if they have little experience in listening to home audio.  So yeah, it’s possible to gain valuable experience and perspective and to train your ears to hear salient differences between audio equipment and systems, and if you don’t have that experience I don’t care what your other training may be because it doesn’t make you a better or even a useful listener or evaluator of audio equipment.  Or you can just bury your head in the sand and believe we are complete slaves to our biases and that listening experience counts for nothing.  If that’s what you believe then it begs the question why even be here at all because it’s nothing but a collection of biases and so are obviously then meaningless to you.  Maybe you just get off on being a troll here, and that’s just a sad existence and absolutely pointless and useless here.

These same techno cultists will soon advocate for A.I. system knowledge connection with the brain as the only one having value then, scientists would be connected on the machine without which "purely human science " will have no  value anymore. You dont need To ABX DBT a machine and all knowledge is "standardized" and sanitized as the propagandist Popper anticipated it. Rationalism conflated with Reason .( read Michael Polanyi instead he is deeper but less known and was himself a working scientist, which Popper never was)

For these techno cultists the concept of meaning is reducible to bits.

Goethe is an idiot and their A.I. a God...

The next mankind division will be political no more , no more stupid left-right superficial debates arranged by Corporations masters as WWF wrestling matches, which only idiots only takes as serious but division between those who are connected to A.I. and those who are not for the sake of the hive.

All anticipated by the Calvinist Mandeville in 1714. Stupendous.