Out of Control

Pbb is correct. Blind testing does not have to include becoming stodgy and humorless. Some of us like listening to music, every now and then, (in between test tones.)

I guess this means I am banished as well.

Take care,

Charles F. Daniell, D.V.M
Brunswick, GA

Gallaine, I did what? I don't even own a gauntlet. I have not waived math since high school, and have never waived it as a sceptre. Nothing so aristocratic for me. I like the expression "arts & sciences" though and I think it applies to audio equipment quite well. I won't trouble you with a dissertation on trees falling in the forest with nobody there to listen. I have no intention of talking about paradigms or the lack thereof. I will not even mention that a bad theory is better than none at all. There are many ways of getting at the truth. When it comes to understanding the physical phenomena that surround us, I doubt anything has rivalled science thus far. Magic thought certainly hasn't. I would merely suggest that audiophiles should show some method to their own madness and have some sort of basic procedure when evaluating equipment so that the fewest variables are introduced. Maybe this standard should only apply to professional reviewers, I don't know. It seems to me unfortunate that comments, good or bad, can be made about equipment heard on the fly or in less than good conditions (unknown room, unfamiliar music, changing the music used every time and the list could go on). By the way, I do not own, nor I have I ever owned, an oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer, calibrated microphone, SPL meter, fast Fourier analysis computer or other such piece of equipment or an ABX box for that matter. I would certainly appreciate it though if the manufacturer of the equipment I buy does and uses them, and interprets the results properly. If the manufacturer stops there we may not have the sound we want, we do appreciate that the component be evaluated by actual humans, listening to music and that suitable tweaking be done to have it perform at its best. I simply doubt the manufacturer could get to the tweaking stage without benefit of the hard data to start with.

If I might insinuate myself into this conversation between Pbb and Gregm, I would say that I don't object to double-blind testing. It certainly is a means to guard against the power of suggestion. However, I don't see that it much applies to listening evaluations of amps or any other audiophile equipment. Many of us are pretty sure of what we hear, so any double-blind test would be for the non-believers like Pbb rather than for us. However, I will gladly participate in any double-blind amp evaluation test that Pbb would like to set up. If he would just send the airline ticket to me so that I can be at the location of this test ... As far as the sound quality of power amps are concerned, two amps, both highly respected and of similar quality quite often sound very different, in other words easily recognizable from one another, using double-blind testing or not. I would agree that speakers show more sonic variation than amplifiers, but amplifiers are still easily discernable and identifiable from one another. I think that because amps "measure" much better than speakers, they are considered to be much more accurate reproducers of sound. And, if they are more accurate, they must sound the same, very similar, or at least so similar that few can tell the difference between two high quality amps. I think that the mistake here is that what is measured for either power amplifiers or speaker systems is not necessarily the final determinant of what the human ear can hear or all the aural information the human brain can process. Eighty to ninety percent of the measurements taken today for amplifiers (or speakers) they were measuring 50 years ago and while amplifiers have improved by orders of magnitude, they still don't sound live or anywhere near perfect, or even that much alike. So Pbb, let us know where the double-blind test is to be held.

Pbb: It was Bryston 7s & Accuphase 1000 (not 2000). My mistake for sounding general. I was just detailing the system & surroundings, as you had asked for in your 11/9 post.
Thanks for yr latest informative response. I agree with your experiences re, shows and dealers and, indeed, your commendable rigorous approach to judging equipment, etc.

Cheers!

Pbb, I would be interested in knowing what kind of evaluation you perform when choosing between components. My post wasn't meant as a defense for either side of the issue. But too often the spectre of double-blind testing, and science in general, is used like a trump card to "win" an argument. The problem is that most who use such don't bother to practice what they preach or to provide any "real" evidence. You have broached a sensitive subject and in retrospect my comments were probably too harsh. What I want to know is what you propose as an evaluation method that is rigourous enough to remove at least some of our tendency toward suggestion. I would even be willing to try it out.