In defense of ABX testing


We Audiophiles need to get ourselves out of the stoneage, reject mythology, and say goodbye to superstition. Especially the reviewers, who do us a disservice by endlessly writing articles claiming the latest tweak or gadget revolutionized the sound of their system. Likewise, any reviewer who claims that ABX testing is not applicable to high end audio needs to find a new career path. Like anything, there is a right way and many wrong ways. Hail Science!

Here's an interesting thread on the hydrogenaudio website:

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=108062

This caught my eye in particular:

"The problem with sighted evaluations is very visible in consumer high end audio, where all sorts of very poorly trained listeners claim that they have heard differences that, in technical terms are impossibly small or non existent.

The corresponding problem is that blind tests deal with this problem of false positives very effectively, but can easily produce false negatives."
psag
To assume that the system used for the test is operating perfectly, that it is sufficiently revealing for the specific test, to assume that listeners have sufficiently good hearing and know what they are listening to or for, these are all unknowns. Going on the basic assumption that most audiophile systems are pretty standard sounding, I.e., generic sounding, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that results of blind controlled tests would tend towards obtaining negative or up inconclusive results. Which is actually pretty much what Olive's speaker evaluation showed.
Post removed 
Since the flatter and more accurate frequency response was the most desirable I can see why speaker manufacturers should heed the results and simply strive to make speakers that behave as such. It just makes sense.

I also like your note that this is all subjective.
One can't have a universal truth (if I understand that correctly).

All the best,
Nonoise
Nonoise
One can't have a universal truth

If you are correct, Nonoise, apparently that would mean that you are also incorrect;-), which means that there can be a universal truth????? Perhaps one of our resident philosophers can chime in. Nandric, are you out there?