• 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!

I don't think ABX is the best way to test blind

I'm *guessing* just harmonics and if they add anything to the perceived sound ie pitch or timbre to the fundamental?
There are various theories for how sound above 20Khz can make a difference.

So that's the main thing i want to investigate with blind testing (after getting better speakers).

Testing 24-96 vs 24-192 with very high end speakers would be interesting, i should do that one day.
 
There are various theories for how sound above 20Khz can make a difference.

So that's the main thing i want to investigate with blind testing (after getting better speakers).

Testing 24-96 vs 24-192 with very high end speakers would be interesting, i should do that one day.
Any good evidence for those theories? Depending upon your age it is unlikely you even hear 20 khz.
 
There are various theories for how sound above 20Khz can make a difference.

So that's the main thing i want to investigate with blind testing (after getting better speakers).

Testing 24-96 vs 24-192 with very high end speakers would be interesting, i should do that one day.
I look forward to your ground breaking peer reviewed paper. But I'll omit the holding my breath part.

To paraphrase something I've just read in another similar thread:
There are various theories about how the earth is flat. But it's still a big old (EDIT: :rolleyes::D approximate) sphere, spinning on its axis, and (EDIT) circling ellipsoiding** the sun.



** not a word, I KNOW FFS. :D
 
Last edited:
I look forward to your ground breaking peer reviewed paper. But I'll omit the holding my breath part.

To paraphrase something I've just read in another similar thread:
There are various theories about how the earth is flat. But it's still a big old sphere, spinning on its axis, and circling the sun.
Ant, as much as I respect your opinions generally, there some that would disagree with you. ;)
 

There are various theories for how sound above 20Khz can make a difference.

So that's the main thing i want to investigate with blind testing (after getting better speakers).

Testing 24-96 vs 24-192 with very high end speakers would be interesting, i should do that one day.
I understand and thought I understood how harmonics play a roll.in upper frequencies, I guess I need to delve into them again.

I've gone back and forth with two tweeters in my stereo systems and can't find any negligible differences in preference between the Satori Beryllium and the RAAL 70/20 XR. I can't, personally, decide which is is better or why, I just enjoy both.
 
I look forward to your ground breaking peer reviewed paper. But I'll omit the holding my breath part.
I would be willing to collaborate on a paper but that would require others to be willing to put in work for it. There are some interesting studies that has already been performed but i would like to do some more tests to get a better idea about it.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full


Peer review is basically useless but it's whatever.
 
Ant, as much as I respect your opinions generally, there some that would disagree with you. ;)
So Sorry allow me to correct myself in edit :rolleyes::p
 
I've gone back and forth with two tweeters in my stereo systems and can't find any negligible differences in preference between the Satori Beryllium and the RAAL 70/20 XR. I can't, personally, decide which is is better or why, I just enjoy both.
Satory beryllium (at least one of the models) looks better going by measurements and practicality of using it.

The raal ribbins might be better past 50Khz (i cannot find any date about that though) but i am not sure if that even matters. Even finding music with tones extending that far is a big challenge and is it even audible to begin with (most people here probably think that you cannot hear a difference).

But you can test it fairly easily yourself now (which whatever blind-testing method you prefer), i have a few albums at hand suitable for it.
 
Last edited:
Sure it is one way to see if you can tell the difference but you can actually do it a different way. [...etc...]


Genius!!

Time to tell all the silly researchers and the silly journals that publish their research and the silly grant givers that fund their research --

you don't need to run blind tests anymore!

you just need to run blind preference tests!



"yay!"
"wait....what?"
 
I don't now if the caveat of forbidden access to volume control in an ABX test was or still is relevant, or if solutions exist to mitigate that concern.

There is no such 'caveat'.

Maybe don't pay too much attention to those who lead with "I'm no expert in the area of double blind tests..."
 
Satory beryllium (at least one of the models) looks better going by measurements and practicality of using it.

The raal ribbins might be better past 50Khz (i cannot find any date about that though) but i am not sure if that even matters. Even finding music with tones extending that far is a big challenge and is it even audible to begin with (most people here probably think that you cannot hear a difference).
My Satori is the non waveguide 4 ohm version. My issue, which it isn't really an issue, is the crossovers were designed by the same person, and neither of which is complex at all. It's probably why I can't discern any major difference.
 
There are various theories for how sound above 20Khz can make a difference.


No one says 20K is the limit for everyone. Young or exceptional ears hearing a few kHz beyond that is not controversial.

Anyway the audibilty of 'ultrasonic' frequencies beyond that has been discussed to death, all more or less inconsequential. As your references, which have been discussed ad nauseam for decades, show.


But I guess that horse can't ever be beaten too much. There's always someone new coming along with a stick. Today, it's you. And around we go again.
 
I would be willing to collaborate on a paper but that would require others to be willing to put in work for it. There are some interesting studies that has already been performed but i would like to do some more tests to get a better idea about it.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full


Peer review is basically useless but it's whatever.
You got most of the usual suspects. Oohashi is a particular favorite. Others have tried replication and failed. That last one by Amadine Pras is interesting. You might try reading it carefully. They found a difference in downsampled vs original 88 khz material. But found no difference in material natively recorded at 44 khz and 88 khz. So I'd say the downsampling software was audible.
 
My Satori is the non waveguide 4 ohm version. My issue, which it isn't really an issue, is the crossovers were designed by the same person, and neither of which is complex at all. It's probably why I can't discern any major difference.
Probably diminishing returns at play.

Since both tweeters are fairly high end (as in accurate) you might not even be able to tell them apart (depending on implementation).

There are ways to test speakers blind but might not be practical for you to do it on your own.
 
Probably diminishing returns at play.

Since both tweeters are fairly high end (as in accurate) you might not even be able to tell them apart (depending on implementation).

There are ways to test speakers blind but might not be practical for you to do it on your own.
They definitely have different distortion profiles but with my age and hearing they aren't coming into play much, especially considering how pour our auditory memory is.
 
How do you know your ab results are more reliable than your abx results?

I have never compared the results of an AB test vs an ABX test doing the same test subjects, so I have never judged the reliability of the test protocols.

What I said was that I feel more relaxed doing a simple and straightforward AB listening test than doing an ABX test as I find the latter a bit distractive, and I believe that fewer distractions will lead to more reliable test results. But again, I have never done any comparison between AB and ABX test results of the same subjects, and I have always accepted the result no matter the test protocol.



And this is why I feel more distracted by an ABX test VS (for me) the more relaxed and more straightforward way of an AB test…

When doing an ABX test, I constantly have to remined myself that X is supposed to be either the same as A or the same as B, and that is enough for me to be distracted and more subject to “brain farts” on my part, it's like I have to think in the opposite direction of how my way of thinking normally works in normal everyday situations where I’m more used to the straightforward question; “do I like this(A) more than that(B)?”

In an AB test, the only thing I don't know at the start of every test round is if it's starts with A or B, I simply just have to focus on which one is which and that works way better to me in a similar matter of; “do I like this(A) more than that(B)?”


The aboveproblem” may just be me and the way I’m thinking, but for me, the ABX test protocol makes me more distracted while the AB test protocol makes me more relaxed comparing the two test subjects in a more straightforward manner. It may be a “handicap” on my part, but so what, the AB protocol just happens to work better for me.
 
I have never compared the results of an AB test vs an ABX test doing the same test subjects, so I have never judged the reliability of the test protocols.

What I said was that I feel more relaxed doing a simple and straightforward AB listening test than doing an ABX test as I find the latter a bit distractive, and I believe that fewer


The aboveproblem” may just be me and the way I’m thinking, but for me, the ABX test protocol makes me more distracted while the AB test protocol makes me more relaxed comparing the two test subjects in a more straightforward manner. It may be a “handicap” on my part, but so what, the AB protocol just happens to work better for me.
Work better than what? I am not a scientist, but it seems AB is exactly what ABX was designed to rectify.
 
Work better than what? I am not a scientist, but it seems AB is exactly what ABX was designed to rectify.

I have already explained in detail why I feel more relaxed with doing AB, and more distracted by doing ABX. Read it again if you didn't get what I was saying.
 
Back
Top Bottom