my take on blind tests


ABX tests shows that there are no difference between cables. However, many of us would disagree. I took similar test and must admit that I had problems with hearing the difference.

And then it came to me. There is a difference between listenig and hearing.

Even if there are no differences in sound we can hear them because we are listenig. Listening is paying attention to the whole experience and not only to allow our ears to enter the sound.

Bottom line is, if you hear the difference when you see which cable is on and hear no difference when you cannot see, let it be.

We pay for the whole experience, not sound waves alone.

What do you guys think?
sebastian_bik
The appearance of a product, its reputation and other factors can certainly influence how we perceive its performance. It has been well proven in science that it is very useful to evaluate all manner of things on a blind basis in order to eliminate or minimize subjective factors.

However, people in the audio world often have a very limited black or white view of blind testing as if there were only one kind. ABX is only one particular form of blind test. Double blind isn't the same thing as single blind. There is a continuum. How exacting one needs to be depends on what one is trying to prove or accomplish. (Think of it as a number. Sometimes "about 3" is good enough, other times you need 3.14159265 - or better - for a calculation.)

If I am buying something for my own use, I only need to compare until I am happy. That may not include an effort at blind comparison - or may not even include a comparison at all!

The catch is that many audiophiles like making declarations of universal scientific certainty from casual or poorly conducted blind tests.

The often heard "I had my friend swap wires and I could hear the difference so that PROVES there is a difference in cabling" is a good example. It is a perfectly valid test for justifying your purchase of a particular brand of something, but it is hardly something you base your next peer reviewed article on for a science magazine.

To be honest, well done, tightly controlled double blind tests in the audio world are very hard to set up, and as such rarely done. Almost every one I've ever seen has enough "wiggle room" in it to allow an out for any party that wishes to disagree with the results.
"When I think about it, and I seldom do, I don't even know why folks care about DBT in the first place."

It's because when we hear about those "relevations", which probably couldn't pick it out unless there was a huge blinking neon light above it, it brings some legitimacy to statements.

"I just spent $3000 on this mega power cord, and it's a soundstaging champ, with outstanding PRAT but uhhh, I can't identify it against this Home Depot cord unless I'm told which one it is".

Wouldn't you like every ephiphany validated by dbt? Then I could believe some of the things I read here. Power cords statements should all have to be dbt'd before posting.
Hey Gunbei! You've been too lazy to post lately as well. How the heck are you? Long time no see.
DBT's are irrelevant, IMO. Everyone who intimately knows their system will most likely be able to detect a change (or lack of one) with a new component inserted. But to sit there and try to differentiate between cables, amps, rubber feet, whatever, is, in my view, an exercise in futility. Why? To catalogue their sonic signatures? Leave that to the bat-eared solons at the audio mags with their bottomless box of adjectives.

The fun of the hobby is to experiment and build something that your satisfied with, within your means. Getting caught up with the impossible preposition that differences must (must!) exist in and among every component - add into that electrical power quality, room treatments and tweaks of all sorts - just puts you on a fast track to an audio obsessive disorder that interferes with the ability to enjoy music. If that's the bottom line, and if DBT's are your way of getting there, who's to say otherwise.