Blind test - objectivists with tin hearing?

[rebbiputzmaker]

1st, thanks for this Dimitrov, you have promoted an interesting conversation.



Then this is not at all a blind test is it.

As soon as you introduce a highly prejudicial premise as the basis of the test, the test becomes sighted and therefore invalid.

As a wine aficionado, if someone asked me to comment on the differences between two different vintages of the same wine, I would concentrate and come up with a distinction.

As an atheist, if someone asked me to comment on the differences between 2 glasses of the same wine, one consecrated, one not, I am sure I would find them identical.

It proves that objectivists are just as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone else. Objectivists would agree with that.

For me, the surprising thing about this test is that since out of phase speakers are so easy to detect; if the test is true, it proves how incredibly strong a factor confirmation bias really is.

It is still a blind test.

 

[GGroch]

It is still a blind test.

Absolutely not. By definition a blind test is where the people being tested or the person testing them or both do not know what is being tested.

The objectivists expected to hear no difference because they do not believe power cords impact audio. If they had not been told that, the results would have been different.

What makes it no longer blind is that they were given prejudicial information that impacted the outcome.

It is indeed confusing because the premise (the supposedly blind choice), was whether Power cord A or Power Cord B sounded better.
What this test was really about was whether "objectivists" (I agree with flipflop that this is the wrong term) listening will be impacted by their prejudices. That test was not blind.

 

[flipflop]

I honestly think it's a bit baffling how many people in this thread are subscribing to the objectivist-subjectivist dichotomy popularized by salespeople and the pseudo-science loving consumer segment.
If you actually spent two minutes looking up the definitions of the terms 'subjectivism' and 'objectivism', you would find that the words make very little sense in the context they're being used in in the article.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

I think it is a shame there are so many people who don’t have a scientific mind but are gullible/suggestible by apparently plausible BS.
I know there is no mechanism by which a properly specified cable could possibly influence the sound produced by a well engineered piece of Hi-Fi kit.
The idea that the difference between cables can be “heard”, except by the usual demo tricks, is risible.
Sadly lots of people have no education in such things and can be influenced by skilled sales people. Maybe there are some badly engineered bits of kit which do need unusual cable designs to reject noise or remain stable. My choice would be to steer clear of these sorts of thing.
I actually have little sympathy. If they are not bright enough or don’t have the aptitude to understand simple science but are sufficiently gullible to believe charlatans rather than engineers it is their problem and their money.
Wasn’t it W C Fields who made an (awful) film called “Never give a sucker an even break”?

Under normal conditions different wire should not make a difference when listening. When people take it further to the point that there is no difference in wire as to quality, construction, and dielectric material, then there is a problem with their thought process imo. Again not related to listening. When some of the so called experts here say they use any junk wire they can find, it is laughable. Good wire and connectors (belden, canare, mogami etc)are not expensive and any knowledgeable "expert" should be using them.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Good wire and connectors (belden, canare, mogami etc)are not expensive and any knowledgeable "expert" should be using them.

That is why I wrote “properly specified”. The requirements are straightforward and known and do not need to be expensive.
I have never seem an expert propose “any junk wire they can find” on this forum.

 

[sergeauckland]

Under normal conditions different wire should not make a difference when listening. When people take it further to the point that there is no difference in wire as to quality, construction, and dielectric material, then there is a problem with their thought process imo. Again not related to listening. When some of the so called experts here say they use any junk wire they can find, it is laughable. Good wire and connectors (belden, canare, mogami etc)are not expensive and any knowledgeable "expert" should be using them.

Why? I can understand using good quality connectors and decently screened cable from the point of view of reliability, especially in terms of repeated plugging and unplugging, but strictly for sound quality, the red/white cables that come free with the equipment are just as good as any 'better' cable. I have several of these cables in my system and they're over 30 years old, still fine, but then my equipment is screwed in a 19" rack and rarely moved.

S.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Absolutely not. By definition a blind test is where the people being tested or the person testing them or both do not know what is being tested.

The objectivists expected to hear no difference because they do not believe power cords impact audio. If they had not been told that, the results would have been different. What makes it no longer blind is that they were given prejudicial information that impacted the outcome.

You are not really applying the term blind correctly in this case as the subjects can be told what they are testing, or the test is useless. Like testing with a control or placebo. Why were they there listening? They need to at least know that. Are they waiting for duck sounds, woodpecker? As constituted it can still be considered blind.

 

[sergeauckland]

I think that a blind test can only be truly objective if the listener has no expectations. No big surprise in that. Expectation is a subjective thing.

I disagree. I think that a blind test can only work if the expectations of the test subject are for a positive outcome, i.e. A is different to B, or A is better than B. If the test subject's expectations are that A and B are identical, then there's no incentive on the subject's part to do anything other than guess.

In part, that's why 'subjectivists' are so against blind tests, as they 'know' there's a difference, yet the blind test doesn't find it, so the blind test is at fault.

S.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

That is why I wrote “properly specified”. The requirements are straightforward and known and do not need to be expensive.
I have never seem an expert propose “any junk wire they can find” on this forum.

Well not exactly any junk wire, but close enough.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-do-you-use-in-your-systems.5398/post-119615

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-cables-do-you-use-in-your-systems.5398/post-119618

When Amir tested speaker wire he found some that was not even pure copper if I recall.

 

[JJB70]

It's not objectivism. People interested in listening tests are not objectivists.

This is objectivism:

https://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/forum/everything-else/peter-walker-quad-on-design

I think he is indeed having a go at objectivism as the basis of his argument is that listeners with confidence in objective testing and analysis are basically tone deaf and don't know what they're listening to and that blind testing (or his version of blind testing) is just as susceptible to the same sort of bias as sighted testing. The message is basically "don't take people who bang on about objective analysis seriously as they're tone deaf and blind testing is no more reliable than sighted testing so don't worry about believing sighted listening tests full of florid language published by our tame reviewers". It is another example of somebody being (at best) deliberately disingenuous and understanding his target audience (most of whom I suspect wouldn't notice the inherent contradiction in his message given that it actually demonstrates how fallible our sense of hearing is).

 

[Sal1950]

I still find it amusing that we are wasting so much space on a science based board when the OP is missing most of the Five W's

The Five Ws (sometimes referred to as Five Ws and How, 5W1H, or Six Ws)[1] are questions whose answers are considered basic in information gathering or problem solving. They are often mentioned in journalism (cf. news style), research and police investigations.[2] They constitute a formula for getting the complete story on a subject.[3] According to the principle of the Five Ws, a report can only be considered complete if it answers these questions starting with an interrogative word:[1]

• Who was involved?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

 

[solderdude]

I honestly think it's a bit baffling how many people in this thread are subscribing to the objectivist-subjectivist dichotomy popularized by salespeople and the pseudo-science loving consumer segment.
If you actually spent two minutes looking up the definitions of the terms 'subjectivism' and 'objectivism', you would find that the words make very little sense in the context they're being used in in the article.

I think there are more inbetweenivists than hardcore objectivists and subjectivists.

 

[amirm]

Seriously though, whether or not the story is true, surely it is quite possible that so-called objectivists may be biased by this sort of test?

Probably so. A public test was put forward once in a forum and one serious objectivist post ABX test results showing he could not tell at all. I looked at the timing for each vote and it was something like 1 second for most of the runs, indicating he was not even trying to hear the difference. I then took the test and passed it showing there was objective difference.

The point of a blind test is to measure the impact of sound alone. As with the argument above where the objectivist wanted to show there was no audible difference, telling objectivists "here comes a cable test" may shut them down and want to vote with their opinion, not what they could have heard.

 

[amirm]

When you are talking with someone do you always carry around documentation of study statistics?

When talking, no. But when someone writes an article about it as we are discussing here, that person should ask a few more questions before publishing it.

Knowing Thorsten, he is not one to just make up stories, sorry.

I said it was a fish story. You know what means, right?

Maybe the people who already had made up their mind did not actually bother to listen.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a number of subjectivists failed the test too. Maybe he hardly used any objectivist or subjectivists versus another camp. Maybe some were audiophiles, some were not. Maybe he acted or did things differently in each instance trying to get the results he wanted.

Remember what was written in the article:

I guarantee you there was no ABX test of any kind. That setup is outside of means of someone trying to do a cable test. It likely was an AB test. If so, you see why I said it was a fish story. An AB test was elevated to ABX test. ABX tests require record keeping and statistics which are obviously absent here. If you know Thorsten, then reach out to him and ask if this was an ABX test or not.

Second, Steve Stone (the writer) is claiming some "fact" was established here. Anecdotal stories are not facts. I am happy to put Steve through a cable test and see how good his ears are. I am confident he will fail many blind tests that I can pass.

Read the article and then comment please.

 

[amirm]

High praise indeed for his honesty, integrity and his ability as a designer!

There is nothing in this discussion about his designs. On the other two attributes, how did you establish them? Did you catch him telling subjectivists they are deaf too? Or do you say that because you like this and other stories like this?

 

[flipflop]

I think there are more inbetweenivists than hardcore objectivists and subjectivists.

Spoiler: Correct answers

All electronic components have their own ‘sonic signature’. - pseudo-science
only few electronic components may possibly have a ‘sonic signature’. - not enough statistical data to make this sort of claim: pseudo-science

tubes (valves) are relics and belong in a museum. - opinion
tubes (valves) are more musical sounding. - opinion

I trust my ears over measurements. - misinformed point of view
hearing is easily fooled. - science

Auditive memory is (very) short and unreliable. - science
I can remember exactly how my rig sounds. - pseudo-science

‘Burn in’ of components like cables and most electronic components is real. - pseudo-science
‘Burn in’ of components like cables and a lot of electronic components is nonsense. - science

WAV sounds the same as FLAC. - borderline science since evidence to the contrary remains to be seen after several decades of ABX testing giving negative results
WAV sounds better than FLAC. - pseudo-science, no evidence for this claim exists

extremely low distortion figures are pointless as they are below the audible limit. - science
distortion figures say nothing when it comes to sound quality. - pseudo-science

Even when an amplifier measures the same after component(s) are changed it can still sound very different. - pseudo-science
when an amplifier measures the same after component(s) are changed it still sounds the same. - science

 

[SIY]

I hated it! In fact, I didn’t watch until the end - maybe I missed the good bit.

Or maybe it's just not your kind of humor. I watched It's A Gift with my teenage son and he was bored to death. "Too slow, not enough action!" Clearly, my dad raised me better than I raised my son.

"LaFong. Carl LaFong. Capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g. LaFong. Carl LaFong."

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

When talking, no. But when someone writes an article about it as we are discussing here, that person should ask a few more questions before publishing it.


I said it was a fish story. You know what means, right?


Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a number of subjectivists failed the test too. Maybe he hardly used any objectivist or subjectivists versus another camp. Maybe some were audiophiles, some were not. Maybe he acted or did things differently in each instance trying to get the results he wanted.

Remember what was written in the article:

View attachment 20278

I guarantee you there was no ABX test of any kind. That setup is outside of means of someone trying to do a cable test. It likely was an AB test. If so, you see why I said it was a fish story. An AB test was elevated to ABX test. ABX tests require record keeping and statistics which are obviously absent here. If you know Thorsten, then reach out to him and ask if this was an ABX test or not.

Second, Steve Stone (the writer) is claiming some "fact" was established here. Anecdotal stories are not facts. I am happy to put Steve through a cable test and see how good his ears are. I am confident he will fail many blind tests that I can pass.

Read the article and then comment please.

I think people are making much out of something that should not be that difficult to understand. When people make crazy claims about cable differences, they should dismissed out of hand.

If cables have wild variations in spec that could effect sound, otherwise within reason you should not expect differences.

 

[Killingbeans]

If the test subject's expectations are that A and B are identical, then there's no incentive on the subject's part to do anything other than guess.

But if the person have no idea whether A and B are identical and have no expectation of them being or not, then he/she is forced to actually listen and be (relatively) objective.

In part, that's why 'subjectivists' are so against blind tests, as they 'know' there's a difference, yet the blind test doesn't find it, so the blind test is at fault.

The moment you are given any information prior to a test, it stops being blind and becomes a psychological experiment. It can give lots of useful data, but it's not blind and it's certainly not objective. In fact I'd argue that being aware of a test taking place can be enough to trainwreck the objectivity. When under test the mind will most likely ease the stress of uncertainty by jumping to some sort of bias, just to get an anchor point. That's why tests of this kind needs to be done on large enough groups to make the results comparable to the normal distribution.

The so called 'subjectivists' are not wrong when they claim that blind listening tests are faulty. It's impossible to make a 100% objective test.

But they fail to understand that the 'objectivist' is aware of this and is not expecting the absolute truth, but just data pointing to the possibility of something being a waste of time and effort or not.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Or maybe it's just not your kind of humor. I watched It's A Gift with my teenage son and he was bored to death. "Too slow, not enough action!" Clearly, my dad raised me better than I raised my son.

"LaFong. Carl LaFong. Capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g. LaFong. Carl LaFong."

My kids act like they are being tortured if they have to watch a b/w movie.