Passion for Sound performs a blind listening test

[rsoffer]

Kudos to him for being transparent with the results. A bit of hand waiving the results away though.

 

[MattHooper]

I figured somebody would post that here.

Amazingly, he pulled just the wrong inference from some of the results. For instance, he was astonished that when they did a test in which nothing was actually changed, a large proportion of listeners reported “hearing differences”

From this, he drew the inference not “wow people really can think they hear a difference is when there are none” but rather that there must have been something wrong with the test. Because of course, he assumes that if no changes were made, nobody should report a difference.

In other words the test and didn't confirm his assumptions, so the test must be wrong.

 

[fpitas]

 

[fpitas]

In other words the test and can firm his assumptions, so the test must be wrong.

And of course the conclusion that blind tests are just pointless.

 

[DSJR]

I figured somebody would post that here.

Amazingly, he pulled just the wrong inference from some of the results. For instance, he was astonished that when they did a test in which nothing was actually changed, a large proportion of listeners reported “hearing differences”

From this, he drew the inference not “wow people really can think they hear a difference is when there are none” but rather that there must have been something wrong with the test. Because of course, he assumes that if no changes were made, nobody should report a difference.

In other words the test and can firm his assumptions, so the test must be wrong.

Silly man... He's obviously never done that to himself before It's a huge epiphany when you do 'hear' differences that don't exist (because nothing has changed) in comparisons like this. Changed my viewpoint forever...

 

[Keith_W]

Hey Now Hifi is in my city! I didn't know that this was happening, otherwise I would try to participate.

Paul and Geoff, I see you in the video! I don't think either of them are ASR members though

 

[Soria Moria]

I wish Amir would host a large scale blind-listening test at one of those audio shows. I’d donate good money towards making that happen, especially if a lot of big names like subjective reviewers etc. would be a part of it.

 

[DVDdoug]

I guess it's a "disaster" when you don't get the results you want... And I guess it's "bad useless data" when you don't get the results you want.

The pie graphs certainly don't look like statistically significant results.

What REALLY ANNOYS ME is when they claim that blind tests are "flawed", as if the same test sighted would be less flawed.

I guess you can't blame the participants for their non-scientific "audiophile" descriptions of the sound but that kind of thing puts-up a red flag for me. Now if they can reliably-consistently hear a difference, then the results still can be valid even if they can't accurately describe what they are hearing. (In badly-controlled tests, sometimes there is a volume difference and one source/device may be described as "more dynamic" or something like that.)

 

[Danaxus]

I stopped paying attention part-way through. He's not wrong that the test was flawed - seemed very poorly controlled. Shoving 9 people into a room (or 1 listener and 8 squishy porous absorber that probably kept shuffling about in their seats), uncertain if they kept their seats after moving into the other room, one moment someone's head is blocking line of sight to the tweeter, the next it's not...the whole set up, and I assume interpretation of the results, are mostly/entirely useless

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I figured somebody would post that here.

Amazingly, he pulled just the wrong inference from some of the results. For instance, he was astonished that when they did a test in which nothing was actually changed, a large proportion of listeners reported “hearing differences”

From this, he drew the inference not “wow people really can think they hear a difference is when there are none” but rather that there must have been something wrong with the test. Because of course, he assumes that if no changes were made, nobody should report a difference.

lol...facepalm.

 

[Keith_W]

Amazingly, he pulled just the wrong inference from some of the results. For instance, he was astonished that when they did a test in which nothing was actually changed, a large proportion of listeners reported “hearing differences”

It's like what I always say. The data is objective, but the interpretation is subjective.

 

[CapMan]

people are strange aren’t they !!

I posted elsewhere on ASR that I just hooked my AVR up to my speakers instead of my (expensive) Devialet streamer/ amp with the World’s cheapest speaker cables .

Speakers still sounding great, but man do I feel like an audiophool!!

 

[CapMan]

under Occam’s razor surely the explanation for ‘no difference was heard’ is ‘no difference existed’

Just sayin’ !

 

[voodooless]

under Occam’s razor surely the explanation for ‘no difference was heard’ is ‘no difference existed’

Just sayin’ !

Be careful.. the reverse statement is then also true In reality though, neither one is.

 

[CapMan]

under Occam’s razor surely the explanation for ‘no difference was heard’ is ‘no difference existed’

No material difference existed as could be identified within the limits of human hearing and auditory memory … ?

 

[CapMan]

Be careful.. the reverse statement is then also true In reality though, neither one is.

Just to add - Ockham is about a mile from our house - as in home of the razor!

William of Ockham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[amirm]

Nice to see majority of comments under his video aligning with proper view. That the control proved why you can't trust subjective tests when differences are small to non-existent.

 

[MattHooper]

Some days it seems one of the greatest things we could do in humanity is for everyone to *really* learn some of the basic scientific principles, and for everyone
to undergo some type of blind tests that can reveal biases.

You tell people until you are blue in the face about how easy it is to imagine things, but nothing lands like having a personal experience. Once you've experienced being SURE you perceive something which disappears once bias controls are in place, it can be a life-long lesson.

Nothing delivers lessons in personal humility like science can, or even just being inescapably confronted with the distorting effects of your own bias.

 

[amirm]

You tell people until you are blue in the face about how easy it is to imagine things, but nothing lands like having a personal experience. Once you've experienced being SURE you perceive something which disappears once bias controls are in place, it can be a life-long lesson.

He and the listeners had that right in their hand but let it go. It would have been such a teaching moment right then and then.