In the strict sense, no, they are not the de-facto standard. Vast amount of psychoacoustics research gets conducted as single blind or for that matter, not blind at all.
Let's say we want to test the detection threshold for ticks. A bunch of university students are brought in as volunteers in a room, and ticks of various intensity played by the researcher and the point where the testers can't tell the difference is the difference anymore becomes the threshold. In that regard, the students know what is being tested, and the people conducting the test clearly are doing the work so not at all double blind.
The data however is considered very much valid because it is more or less bias-controlled. The people being tested have little bias interfering with their ability to answer truthfully. And researchers/proctors likewise have little to gain by gaming the outcome.
Read the Fastl and Zwicker text on psychoacoustics and you see that the above is pretty much the protocol for much of their work. BTW no statistical analysis is done either with group sizes pretty small (as small as four testers).
So the key thing here is be aware of what you are testing and what the sources and power of bias can be. If the latter factors are insignificant, then much simpler protocols suffice. If not, then you better be as formal as you can with double blind, etc.
