Catalogue of blind tests

[MAB]

I hear what you are saying, logically it makes sense. On the other hand, it's hard to believe there are so many companies, and even within one company there are so many amp products, and they will all sound the same? They dont advertise as just 'more features', but that the sound is superior

They really do sound the same. I linked a classic tests where amps from Pioneer mid-fi to Levinson, Futterman, etc. were indistinguishable among believers and skeptics of amp-differences.

Actual Double Blind Studies

I just read yet another person trying to defend a position related to audio by referencing "double blind studies" generally. The idea always sounds great as a listening test. Truly see if people are able to notice differences between things. If we use a fairly controlled method, this information...

www.audiosciencereview.com

This study came out when I was in sales at a store that sold one of the amps in the test. The results didn't surprise me since I could never tell what amp was hooked up to a speaker unless I peeked at the setup.

The inverse is true: tell people that there is a difference in two setups when there is not. After listening ask them which setup is better and they will hallucinate differences.

Audio Listening Test That Fooled the Hollywood Sapphire Group

Some of the most highly trained audiophiles in the industry were asked to do a blind “A-B” listening comparison test of two audio circuits. Were they able to hear a difference, or were they fooled?

www.audioholics.com

This is how audio tweaks like boxes of dirt and crystals and pyramids are sold.

Recently linked in this thread is an AES paper that summarizes many studies. It should also comprehensively answer your question. The paper is AES and is $30, but money well spent for many people compared to the money some people throw at amps thinking there is a night and day difference.

Catalogue of blind tests

Do partially-sighted speaker faceoffs tally well with blind test results? If they can be shown to tally well then we we can trust many comparisons - anyone can do a face off (and many do...), while blind tests are too tricky for most to attempt. Example: Audio Musings by Sean Olive A blog...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Examples where amps are distinguishable exist... Amps with high output impedance driving low-impedance speakers. Amps with high noise floor driving efficient speakers. Broken amps. But these are corner cases.

In summary, we are not just saying this. It is actually demonstrated in studies over and over, since several decades ago. If this was medical, the claims that bad sound occurs from cheap amps would (hopefully) have been struck down ages ago. But then bad sound never harmed anybody.

 

[SIY]

They dont advertise as just 'more features', but that the sound is superior

My pharmacy has at least ten brands of homeopathic medicine.

 

[dlaloum]

My pharmacy has at least ten brands of homeopathic medicine.

Great margins in that business!

 

[SIY]

Great margins in that business!

I ODed on a homeopathic medicine; I didn't take it.

 

[ahofer]

Here's a DAC test where a majority preferred the Kilobuck DACs to a $9 USB-dongle. Archimago pulls in a pretty good sample and does a good job. It would be interesting to repeat with something slightly better on the low end.

"High-End" DAC Blind Listening Results - PART II: Results & Analyses

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[MoreWatts]

Here is a current blind test on DIYAudio. You can listen and send in your results.

Copper wire vs bananas vs mud - An interconnect test​

"The idea of this blind test is that the same audio signals were run through copper wire, then through mud and then through bananas and recorded them. You get to listen to the files and figure out what differences you hear.

How the test works:

Each 30 second musical excerpt has four versions.

• Original File taken from CD
• Loop recording via 180cm of pro audio copper wire
• Loop recording via 20cm of wet mud (and 120cm of copper wire)
• Loop recording via 13cm of banana (and 120cm of copper wire)

1. Pick a song or a few songs that you like and feel that you can easily judge.
2. Listen to all four versions of that recording and determine which is which.
3. Report to me via private message what you hear. DO NOT post your results here.
4. I will reveal the key to which is which at a later date."

Comments:

• "What kind of mud? There are many types of soil. Amount of moisture?
• One excerpt will sound muddy, one will sound mushy, one will sound very metallic...
• Then someone will come and ask us how ripe the banana has to be..."

I haven't had time to listen yet, but I'll give it a try sometime over the Thanksgiving break (USA).

 

[JP]

IIRC, @SIY got to participate in the first version of that, many moons ago.

 

[ahofer]

Some tests referenced within this excellent article on the futility of hi-res recordings, with a related detour into IM distortion audibility.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

 

[ahofer]

Not strictly OT, but I like this article on the different kinds of “no evidence” (likely/plausible and highly implausible).

The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication

...

www.astralcodexten.com

 

[ahofer]

This seems worthy of inclusion - DAC/ADC loop test. While I agree that this test has very convincing results, I don't think any *one* test is definitive. But it is certainly an addition to a large pile of tests that, taken together, point in only one direction.

Published as a study - https://apmastering.com/studies

 

[MarkS]

Abstract of that study:

The ongoing debate over whether high-end digital-to-analog converters (DACs) provide audible improvements over professional-grade, moderately priced DACs remains a contentious topic within both audiophile and professional audio communities. This study examines claims of perceived sonic differences between DACs by conducting a blind listening test utilizing a loopback methodology. A music recording was played through a moderately priced DAC (TC Electronic BMC-2) and rerecorded (using a MOTU 24Ai) to create a loopback signal. Participants (N = 1,367) attempted to detect differences between the original and loopback signals via the YouTube platform. Statistical analysis of responses found no evidence that listeners could reliably distinguish between the original recording and its loopback version (p < 10⁻⁹). In contrast, an analysis of over 1000 YouTube comments using a large language model (LLM) revealed that 54.4% of commenters on the same video believed DACs exhibit unique sonic characteristics, often attributing differences to factors such as the analog output stage, power supply design, and implementation details. Many comments exhibited patterns of informational social influence, suggesting a reinforcement of beliefs independent of empirical verification. The results highlight a disconnect between objective listening test data and subjective listener perceptions, likely driven by marketing influences, cognitive biases, and group dynamics. This study reinforces the conclusion that well-engineered DACs achieve transparency in single-generation listening scenarios, with no demonstrable auditory benefit from higher-priced alternatives.