my take on blind tests

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.

hi snofun3:

what is your point ?

on a personal level, one can prefer the sound of component a as opposed to component b. perhaps, using certain sources someone can hear a difference, with others a difference is not detectable.

this is not a test. there is nothing to prove. it's not that testing for differences is not useful, it may not be relevant to equipment purchases.

if i can borrow an amplifier and live with it for 30 days, i either like the sound of the stereo sysytem with the amp or i don't.

"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."

Absolutely right. Some amps sound better to me, I suspect, b/c they look better. And the whole idea of tubes really gets to me. But my question is in connection with cables: why are some folks willing to shell out 2k for what is essentially a placebo effect? I'm not doubting the placebo effect in the least, but I do wonder how manufacturers got people to pay so much for it. Imagine an aspirin manufacturer that charged $1000 per bottle b/c some people actually felt better when they took, and thought of themselves taking, very expensive aspirin.

As I noted earlier, blind testing serves a useful function in audio as well as other sciences, but is hardly a mandatory requirement for an individual buying a piece of stereo equipment. People should buy what makes them happy, whether the underlying reasons are based on emotion, cold clinical analysis or some combination thereof.

That said, I think the people who completely pooh pooh blind testing on a wholesale basis are being short sighted. They are discarding an important tool that has been helpful in challenging old ways of thinking and developing new ones.

With any science it is always important to put existing beliefs under the magnifying glass. That's the way we can begin to separate the "old wives tales" from the traditions that have serious fundamentals underpinning them. Of course, any time a cherished belief is questioned, there will always be those who discount any results that conflict with their existing views.

The audio world is a tough case as it is at the intersection of electronics, art, psychology, the biology of hearing and chemistry of the brain. In general there are simply a zillion variables to track.

So, sure, you don't need a DBT setup the next time you component shop, but to belittle the usefulness of the practice at the levels of design and research is like throwing away your hammer and thinking all you need is a screwdriver and saw to build a house. You just end up cheating yourself.