- Thread Starter
- #261
Maybe the ABX protocol does not suit your personal abilities; as there is no need to use the ABX you could switch over to another protocal, maybe A/B paired comparisons.
Training under the specific test conditions is usually a very good idea, because participating in a controlled listening test is very different from "normal" listening.
Researcher already found out roughly 60 years ago that test results differ due to the protocol (comparing ABX to A/B) and related the divergence to the different internal mental processes involved.
That´s why training and usage of positive controls is so important.
Thanks. Yap, I find A/B tests much easier to do.
But I for my personal use I actually don't see much point in doing blind testing. I'm a measurements guy: I buy the gear which objectively confirms most closely to the objective ideal of high fidelity. For me, at the moment, that implies phase and time coherent loudspeakers with a relatively flat frequency response and low distortion (which necessitates active crossovers), and a good polar/power response so that the reverberant field in the room becomes tonally correct. With electronics I go for affordable and well-designed no-nonsense products with low distortion, all using balanced connections. So far, it's just about achieving high fidelity in an objective sense. The only place where subjectivity comes into play for me is concerning speaker directivity, and equalizing the system at the end according to what subjectively sounds good to me.
The only place where I can see myself using blind testing in the future, is if I should come across something that sounds "strange" or unnatural, even though it measures well. Then I might listen blind to see what it's really about.
Last edited: