Excellent post ahofer! I like your hypothesis!
I have trouble with this (and
@MattHooper ’s “conundrum”, which is similar).
I agree that we listen with our eyes open and full knowledge of our equipment. But:
- I think it is important to understand the actual difference between audible signal and the other elements
Absolutely! If you want to gain more reliable evidence on what is causing some perception, of course you want to weed out variables, especially when you know perception can be influenced in all sorts of ways. If some cohort rates the sound of speaker A more highly than B, but under blinded conditions they rate them the opposite, you've not only learned which actual "sound" they prefer, you've learned that it's (in all likelihood) not the sound on it's own that resulted in the initial ratings. Something else is also influencing the perception. That's knowledge, and knowledge is power.
The problem is, as you indicate....
- I don’t think anyone has shown that the perceptions driven by non-audible stimuli are stable and repeatable (there’s at least *some* evidence that the audible part is)
- If so much of our perception is driven by inaudible stimuli with stable effects, where is the research on how to enhance *those*? (I’ve suggested THC, but that’s sort of not comme Il faut for many around here).
My hypothesis is that the inaudible parts of perception are unstable and are part of what drives upgrade-itis and the endless supply of veils to be lifted.
Yes, the standard speaker blind tests tell us what to predict under blind settings, but they don't necessarily answer the questions of what predicts results in sighted listening. Someone would have to do tests aimed strictly at investigating those factors, but I'm also unaware that there is a body of work on this. I've seen some inferences made from the regular blind tests, but nothing that I know of rigorously investigates what outside influences will result in which perceptions in regards to speakers.
There isn’t a conundrum here, as far as I can tell. For instance, if you accepted that sighted listening = (blind listening + other inputs), there is no contradiction that I can see.
My first impression there is to totally agree; it sounds like you are making the case against being extremist about sighted listening - against the idea sighted listening to speakers is wholly worthless and uninformative. But I'm not as sure given your follow up comments...(?)...
Furthermore, if you think, as I do, that once we separate the effect of the signal from the room, etc., our perceptions may change and/or we can manipulate the sighted and other effects to our liking.
Not sure what you mean by "separate the effect of the signal from the room, etc." Do you mean taking steps to reduce room influence, to obtain more neutral sound?
If so, again, that continues to substantiate what I've argued: taking such steps is to make the assumption that, under sighted conditions, you will recognize the sound has in fact changed and you'd be able to identify the character of that change. (Otherwise, why would one bother going to the trouble?).
Attributing your biased perceptions exclusively to the equipment is indeed pretty useless.
Here's where I become unsure about your argument - what precisely you are claiming.
We can understand there is noise in the system in terms of our perception (biases, misleading heuristics etc), yet we can still be reasonable in coming to concussions about objective things, right? We have visual biases, and yet it's still reasonable to conclude the street really is full of quickly passing cars, so that we don't just walk on to the street. Likewise with our hearing. The question then is where are you drawing the line for calling some impression "useless?"
For instance, I just finished EQing some bass rumble out of a track that was obscuring dialogue and other sounds. No measurements needed, I could hear the bass sticking out, could hear the muffling effect on the track, could easily hear the difference after EQ. Can I presume you would not call these perceptions "useless?"
My work, and the work of countless people in sound, would be impossible if that were the case.
So then what about if I perceive some bass issues in my stereo set up - for instance I notice bass sounding bloated and emphasized in a certain frequency, notes reliably sticking out (- and maybe in moving positions the bass smoothens out, suggesting for instance the influence of a node in the room). I'm attributing that problem to something really happening in the sound in the room. Is that "useless?" If so, why would using the very same process of identifying these issues in my work be reasonable, but suddenly unreasonable and worthless in the case of listening to a stereo system? What magic line is being adduced there? The same goes for if I'm auditioning speakers and notice a bass emphasis or something like that.
So..can you clarify: when it comes to evaluating audio gear like speakers outside of scientific controls, what are you referring to as "pretty useless?"
But saying it sounds great/awful despite measurements that suggest otherwise should send you to investigate *why*.
Absolutely, if in fact someone wants to get to the bottom of such questions.
But back to the main theme: the conundrum I explicated only arises to the degree one overreaches with claims that sighted listening (in the case of speakers) is "useless." I'm still a bit unsure how far you are going with your own view.
If someone wants to say
"I prefer to have scientifically rigorous evidence for any conclusion about a piece of audio gear" that's perfectly reasonable and then sighted impressions by that same person, or any other person will understandably deemed "useless"
for meeting that criteria.
But the fact scientific controls can give us MORE reliable evidence is entirely different from proposing that the impressions we form, outside of scientific controls, is therefore Wholly Useless. That obviously can't be true, or we couldn't make it through the day using the perceptions gained by our senses. Which naturally leads to where it is reasonable to draw the line. (In a practical sense, as I've often argued, my line is drawn at Extraordinary Claims - e.g. claims about gear that are technically dubious. If someone comes back from auditioning two speakers and describes what he liked or disliked about each, I'll tentatively accept the account. Yes bias is ALWAYS hovering in the background, but the idea that the speakers have identifiable sonic differences is not extraordinary. If he's talking about comparing different USB cables, given the implausibility I'll want more rigorous evidence).
Cheers.
)
