• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Why haven't subjectivists and objectivists met to do a live ABX test?

Ken Tajalli

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
1,996
Likes
1,773
Location
London UK
Is there a standard in these tests as to how long you listen to one set of equipment before switching, say 2 minutes or 3 minutes? I ask because sometimes when I've done non-blind comparisons, I've heard something over longer time spans (say 5-10 minutes) that I missed in shorter intervals. Difficult to tell whether this is more imagination than anything else though, in that if you're trying to notice difference, you/your brain will likely find it, whether it exists or not?
Me too.
It could be, because it is sighted, we stress ourselves to hear the differences, and what do you know! we will.
May well be powers of persuasion.
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,556
Me too.
It could be, because it is sighted, we stress ourselves to hear the differences, and what do you know! we will.
May well be powers of persuasion.
I suppose a test like this, whether sighted or blind is a type of priming. When we listen to music, we do it for enjoyment. We may notice things about the sound quality, good or bad, but that isn't the main intention. With a comparison type test, you set out looking to hear differences, and probably over time hear more and more, whether they are truly a matter of perception in the ear or just in the mind (imagination).

A bit like the gorilla passing through while a basketball is passed around video?

It would be interesting to see if/where fatigue sets it, and if people start giving answers all over the map. A control at certain intervals could be used, so the audience is told there is a switch, but the same equipment remains. I imagine that more people will say there is a difference, rather than no difference, when presented with the same equipment after 45 minutes or 1hr of listening, compared to after 15 minutes.

Perhaps a test should be done for listener fatigue and when/if results start to break down because of this. Results may only have relevance for a limited amount of time?
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
Besides... it isn't really needed because in the end audio is just a (very personal) hobby and people are free to believe and do what they want and spend their money every way they want as long as they not do harm to others.
Even write what they want/believe as long as you do not insult others and respect other opinions. No matter how wrong they are/seem to be.
One can argue that spreading 'misinformation' is harming others but in the end if someone chooses to believe gurus or others and spend their money on crap or placebo this is still their decision and their money. And ... placebo WORKS so there's that. More enjoyment could be worth money to an individual.

That’s the thing. They do insult and disrespect others. See the link posted in the OP.

This argument constantly goes on, and could be almost put to bed with ONE brave listener who could reproduce their own blind listening tests they claim they’ve already done.

Believe it or not, this result of audible differences we can’t measure is something most of us actually would like to see. The hobby is more fun when there’s more to explore and experience. As rational thinkers, we don’t want to pretend that’s the case and waste our time though.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
That’s the thing. They do insult and disrespect others. See the link posted in the OP.

They will never stop even when they are proven wrong.
All one can do is tell them where their reasoning or findings are questionable/incorrect are and why this is so. Maybe even give pointers (in a civilized dialog even when the other one is obnoxious) or ignore them or ban them when they are clearly only out to disrupt. That usually becomes obvious after a while.
Passionate people usually are not subtle in their wording or are fed up having to repeat the same thing or spend time looking for threads that already addressed the issue.
One should realize it is often impossible to change the minds of those that already made up their mind.

This argument constantly goes on, and could be almost put to bed with ONE brave listener who could reproduce their own blind listening tests they claim they’ve already done.

Believe it or not, this result of audible differences we can’t measure is something most of us actually would like to see.
I think most of us already know it does not exist or know not enough measurements were taken or misinterpreted.
I have been hearing this same stuff for over 30 years and nothing has ever changed nor will it ever change.
Someone that is passionate about their hobbies and have been at it for a while will never be easily persuaded to do something different or out of their comfort zone. People are like that. Me included.

The hobby is more fun when there’s more to explore and experience.
Yep, fortunately the whole audio manufacturing/distribution chain will be perpetual with more nice gear and snake oil in a different package.
So we can continue to test, enjoy, listen etc for as long as we live.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
I suppose a test like this, whether sighted or blind is a type of priming. When we listen to music, we do it for enjoyment. We may notice things about the sound quality, good or bad, but that isn't the main intention. With a comparison type test, you set out looking to hear differences, and probably over time hear more and more, whether they are truly a matter of perception in the ear or just in the mind (imagination).

A bit like the gorilla passing through while a basketball is passed around video?


It would be interesting to see if/where fatigue sets it, and if people start giving answers all over the map. A control at certain intervals could be used, so the audience is told there is a switch, but the same equipment remains. I imagine that more people will say there is a difference, rather than no difference, when presented with the same equipment after 45 minutes or 1hr of listening, compared to after 15 minutes.

Perhaps a test should be done for listener fatigue and when/if results start to break down because of this. Results may only have relevance for a limited amount of time?
The answer is around 10 seconds. Not due to fatigue but echoic memory.

Various ways involving longer listening have been tried. Despite the very common expectation that results will be better they are uniformly worse. As SIY has said there is no time specified for blind listening. One can use any amount they desire. One test was done where participants used a black box that either did or did not add distortion for one month. Results were random. Same participants using the same box were able to tell almost 100 percent with short listening and quick switching.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
This argument constantly goes on, and could be almost put to bed with ONE brave listener who could reproduce their own blind listening tests they claim they’ve already done.

That's correct. Doesn't it make you wonder why that hasn't happened? Not from Rob, or Hans, or Steve or Paul or Johnny...or anyone.

Not hearing the differences they expected to hear wouldn't necessarily change anyone's mind anyway, they just move the argument to it being a problem with blind testing because...it must be.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
The answer is around 10 seconds. Not due to fatigue but echoic memory. Various ways involving longer listening have been tried. Despite the very common expectation that results will be better they are uniformly worse.

And then there's also the argument of listening in a relaxed state, so alpha brain waves take over. First of all, alpha waves require kind of a meditative state of mind. An adrenaline level till halfway the eye balls when someone hooked up his new 1.000$ power cable is not a meditative state of mind. Besides that, research suggests that when alpha waves take the overhand our brain is more prone to error ..., while subjectivists are convinced it improves sensory sensitivity. I never found any supporting research for the latter claim.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
And then there's also the argument of listening in a relaxed state, so alpha brain waves take over. First of all, alpha waves require kind of a meditative state of mind. An adrenaline level till halfway the eye balls when someone hooked up his new 1.000$ power cable is not a meditative state of mind. Besides that, research suggests that when alpha waves take the overhand our brain is more prone to error ..., while subjectivists are convinced it improves sensory sensitivity. I never found any supporting research for the latter claim.
If they cheaped out and only paid $1000 for their power cable, of course they'll be nervous.
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,636
Likes
2,753
I take my information about Marx reading Marx, not Dinesh D'Souza. For audio, as I do not have the technical expertise, I defeer to this forum instead of listening to Guttenberg or Johnson because I know enough to recognize someone with actual knowledge.
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,556
The answer is around 10 seconds. Not due to fatigue but echoic memory.

Various ways involving longer listening have been tried. Despite the very common expectation that results will be better they are uniformly worse.
Surely, alternating 10 seconds between one then the next component is too short a time to allow people to process what they're hearing properly? I suppose there is little hope, but rely on memory of what the previous set of components sounded like and hope that your memory is reliable. For large differences, probably this is OK, subtle ones will be more difficult I imagine.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Surely, alternating 10 seconds between one then the next component is too short a time to allow people to process what they're hearing properly? I suppose there is little hope, but rely on memory of what the previous set of components sounded like and hope that your memory is reliable. For large differences, probably this is OK, subtle ones will be more difficult I imagine.
All evidence indicates you have it backwards.

Nonetheless you can use longer periods and get the better results you think would result from perceiving more subtle changes. So far that hasn't worked for anyone.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,971
Likes
5,615
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Our ability to recall fine details in audio is extremely limited. Our visual memory is much better which is one reason why people associate and retain such strong opinions of sighted tests and why blind tests must be held under the strictest of conditions.
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,556
All evidence indicates you have it backwards.
Having just listened to 10 seconds of music it seems like it may be long enough to decide which is preferable, but probably won't allow for a detailed exposition on the differences. Are these tests usually just 'which do you prefer' or do they expect finer detail?

So far that hasn't worked for anyone.
There's a first time for everything!
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
Having just listened to 10 seconds of music it seems like it may be long enough to decide which is preferable, but probably won't allow for a detailed exposition on the differences. Are these tests usually just 'which do you prefer' or do they expect finer detail?


There's a first time for everything!

I believe the tests are usually to identify X.

That being said, I feel the simplest most fair test would be to know in advance which amp you are identifying, and keep that constant the entire test. For example, amp A is the THX amp. Amp B is the Asgard. Identify which is the THX amp every time on random switching of the cables.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
I believe the tests are usually to identify X.
Harman's listening tests require testers to describe the differences (or give scores on different criteria).
 

Count Arthur

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,197
Likes
4,888

Why haven't subjectivists and objectivists met to do a live ABX test?

1671209613527.png

 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
Harman's listening tests require testers to describe the differences (or give scores on different criteria).
I might be wrong but Harman’s aim is to identify user preferences.

All we’re trying to do here is establish whether it’s possible to identify differences in well measuring amps.
 

JohnPM

Senior Member
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
340
Likes
901
Location
UK
Back when I worked at an audio company one of our golden ears spent a day evaluating op-amps for our processors. He had a unit with our first choice, and a second unit modified with a couple of other options to try. He took his time, switched back and forth repeatedly, made detailed notes on the differences he heard, and decided on what we should use. When he went to dismantle the test setup he realised he had made a mistake when setting up. When he thought he had been switching between two units he was just switching between output connections on the same unit, so he had spent the whole day listening to the same unit and 'hearing' differences. His faith was certainly shaken, but to his credit he never did another sighted test, he had one of the techs randomly make the changes and he only drew a conclusion if he could consistently pick out a difference.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
Believe it or not, this result of audible differences we can’t measure is something most of us actually would like to see.
Absolutely 100%! I can't help feeling that most of the subjectivist moaners simply don't understand how science works. Scientists want to find ways to break current theories, because that means we get to create new ones. If you're a physicist, then discovering a phenomenon that truly broke General Relativity would be the highlight of your career, and physicists have dedicated their entire lives to finding such a thing.
But science demands a very high standard of truth, one which is seemingly far beyond the reach of the average audio pundit.
 
Top Bottom