2. misc-audio
  3. 1030465862

Have You Ever Put Your Golden Ears to the Test??

First let me say that I'm not one of the naysayers that Twl refers to in his thread about "Sonic Relativism", so please no attacks. I have no agenda.

I'm just curious if any of you have (or would be willing to) put your ears to the test in the way of a blind comparison. If so, what were the results? It can be quite rewarding to know that you can discern differences between things such as cables, DACs, etc.

I was at a good friend's house this weekend and we decided to do some blind comparisons of CD vs. SACD. We had three discs of various types of music (Friday Night in San Francisco, Keb' Mo and Harry Connick Jr.). I sat in the sweet spot and my friend switched discs playing one cut from each disc CD/SACD at random.

I could discern the CD from the SACD every time, but I have to say that the differences were more subtle than I expected. Of course, I'm no scientist so my methods may be open for scrutiny. I'm just curious how many of you try similar tests?

I always find it interesting when people say that they "heard" a cd player (or other component) and it was really great or really crappy or not very exciting. This almost always refers to having heard it at a dealer. How do they know they didn't "hear" the other components? What's the point of reference? The only way to really listen to components or accessories is within the confines of a "reference" system. For most of us that simply means our own system. And even then, the only way to confirm that we're hearing what we "think" we're hearing is to do some sort of blind test.

So...How many of you have put your ears to the test? If you haven't...Would you? If not...Why not?
danheather
danheather OP
108 posts
 
I don't know what would be more embarassing...learning that (through blind tests) you prefer Bose 901s over your _____(your favorite boutique brand here)...or that you like Miller Genuine Draft over _____(your favorite micro-brew here).

As Newbee pointed out...I think that we all agree that (in most cases) there ARE differences...just perhaps not the same preferences that we might have supposed.
jond's avatar
jond
5,974 posts
 
Brad,
As someone in the wine trade I have to say that blind tasting is one of the hardest and most humbling things to do. I think beer would be a bit easier than wine but still hard. As far as prefering a beer you previously disliked, I'd say you had one beer too many.
On the subject of blind listening, who has the time! I barely get enought time just listening too my system, much less scientifically evaluating components or, God help me, cables. As long as I enjoy the way my system sounds, I'm happy. At least until I see another shiny toy I must have!
inpepinnovations1e75
395 posts
 
Newbie, the objective advocates would like you to understand that if all beers, water and wine tested the same (which they don't), they would taste the same. Of course one can tell the difference (to a point) when products are different i.e. more acid, less sodium and these differences can be detected.

ABX tests aren't to determine your good taste. People claim to hear differences and I believe them. What I don't believe is that there is a difference just because they hear one. Example, the same wire is compared to itself and one hears a difference. Of course that wasn't fair, I tricked him/her! Of course there are different sounding wires (and amplifiers), but these are designed in to please a certain segment (customers) and I am not sure that I want products that are not flat in frequency response or that possess other distortion products.

There is are limits to how much a human ear/brain can resolve differences in perceived sound and ABX tests tell one what those limits are. This is essentially the fear of those criticising these objective tests - that it will be revealed that their hearing isn't any better than anybody elses when it comes to detecting differences, although it (the hearing) might be better educated enabling the person to describe the difference, if any exists.

Salut
notamemberd6aa
1 posts
 
I think that the comparison to wine is appropriate. Just like wine, one's ability to discern differences in audio increases with ones experience. I can't tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and the best wine because I don't drink much. When I was in high school, my stereo sounded great compared to my clock radio. Over time, however, as I developed more experience with audio, I found that I needed more. I can now easily tell the difference between equipment and will pay for what I think is better. I won't, however, pay $200 for a bottle of wine because I can't tell the difference.
newbee
4,794 posts
 
salut, i'm an easy sale for the proposition that people hear the same sound differenty. people can be predisposed to hear, or ignore, certain sounds. physically, the hearing apparatus of each individual is different and the brains interpertations of the electrical impulses from the ear will certainly differ from person to person. however, where i begin to be sales resistant is when i am told that there is no scientific basis for a difference which people claim to hear, ergo there can be no difference in fact. science is nothing more than a body of extant knowledge and that body grows larger each day. what science can not explain to day they may be able to explain tomorrow. objectivists only see what it to be reaidy seen and do not consider what may be discovered tomorrow which will challenge their opinions. look no further than the various theories and facts regarding evolution - its obvious that the more we know the more we realize how little we knew before, and how little we know about what we will discover in the future. i'm still on the fence regarding evolution as well as audio. all good food for though.
More to discover