One factor affecting the results that was not accounted for in the test is the listening skills of the participants. I have read, but I don't have a link, that when people receive some training in critical listening, they do better at distinguishing between different components in these kinds of tests.
Article: "Do Blind Listening Tests Work? My Sessions with the Colorado Audio Society"
Love this writer. Possibly of interest.
"Many subjective audiophiles loathe blind listening tests. The standard putdown for blind testing is, “That’s not the way I listen.” Yet, in truth, blind comparisons—free from the influence of price, brand, technology, aesthetics, or other personal non-sonic biases—represent the purest form of subjective evaluation. So why aren’t blind tests more popular with audiophiles? The answer is simple—conducting a well-designed, truly unbiased blind test is a pain in the ass. I know, because I just completed one with the help of members of the Colorado Audio Society."
- ...
- 63 posts total
@tomcy6 +1 Listening skills... absolutely. I occasionally get together with some folks that have excellent listening skills. There is no bias and preferences in the observations and conclusions. We exchange critical analysis of the sound... then add on whether we like it or not. Many folks seem to think that everyone is picking their preferences and not analyzing sound qualities. All of the audiophiles I know can easily discern the differences between personal preferences and sonic characteristics. Granted, beginners probably have a hard time unraveling personal preferences from sonic characteristics. |
@baylinor uhm the blind here refers to not knowing what is playing what. Has nothing to do with wearing a blindfold |
Blind testing for me has always worked best when I don't have much skin in the game. Blind testing to hear differences can be easy. Blind testing to hear if one thing sounds better than another is another kettle of fish. I recently did a thread here on blind testing two different CD sampling rates - 44.1 vs 176.4 with the latter being an upsampled rate offered by the same transport playing the Redbook CD's at 44.1. I could easily hear the difference between the two. What did surprise me though was that my previous preference for the higher sample rate changed to liking either rate for different applications - applications meaning different sorts of music recorded or mastered in different ways. The revelation was that one sample rate sounded better for some types of music and the other rate for other recorded music situations. It also opened me up to the notion that both rates could sound good on the same music - just different. It seems to me now that listening to the back and forth between the two modes was educative and delightfully so.
|
- 63 posts total