The famous or infamous A B X test (Matrix HiFi)

[Westsounds]

I think most are familiar with the A B X test which has had a good few years banding around the internet now.

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

Wonder if there's consideration of another taking place at some point in the future, like a slightly newer take two variant? Although the first test was pretty much conclusive that to a blind audience there is very little way to differentiate one high-end system from something very modest in comparison. Or that basically hi-fi is a sheer matter of personal taste anyway when there is no confirmation bias.

Anyway, if there ever was a reconstruction of the experiment (somewhere not too far from me in the UK) I would love to be a part of it

Could be good to use the newer A800 Behringer this time.

 

[daftcombo]

This is classic material. Hard to find a chair like that in good condition now: after that ABX the prices skyrocketed.

 

[Westsounds]

This is classic material. Hard to find a chair like that in good condition now: after that ABX the prices skyrocketed.

I thought the chair was a nice touch for an isolation platform as well

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'd go a step further. I believe you could use several different sets of speakers of wildly varying cost (but of course all meeting a basic level of solid engineering - no boom box speakers or anything goofy like that) and once carefully volume-matched and reasonably optimally set up, the preference ratings would still be basically random. I don't believe there's quite as much (in terms of fundamental sound quality) separating speakers as many believe and the distinction has little to do with price point.

 

[Westsounds]

I'd go a step further. I believe you could use several different sets of speakers of wildly varying cost (but of course all meeting a basic level of solid engineering - no boom box speakers or anything goofy like that) and once carefully volume-matched and reasonably optimally set up, the preference ratings would still be basically random. I don't believe there's quite as much (in terms of fundamental sound quality) separating speakers as many believe and the distinction has little to do with price point.

Yes, I think you could be right. As you say don't use anything that is distinctly unfair for a comparison such as low-cost boom box speakers and yes use something that is well-engineered and constructed. If this was done I'm sure it would be extremely difficult to tell what's 'the best' blind.

Things would have to be kept as linear as possible for certain factors like noise floor for instance, as I know the new A800 amplifier does have some noise issue even when both volume controls are set to zero. Apparently though in the thread for that amp on this forum it says this can be overcome easily with removing the ground wire. Not sure if that's safe or wise as I'm not an electrician, but just something to consider.

I do think a lot of it is down to frequency levels myself and what is appealing to peoples ears/brains. If some equipment has certain frequency peaks or dips that make them stand out from each other in contrast then this can be perceived as better, which is why a graphic equaliser can be such a valuable tool just to get a sound nearer to what the individual listener prefers. Human senses/ the brain does work constantly on an in contrast basis anyway or so I'm led to believe. It's even the case for smell I discovered the other day, as after a time you lose your sense of smell of your surroundings it's only when changes occur in the air that you actually smell something different. Obviously hearing is slightly different, as changes are coming all the time with music but the same changes of certain music, for instance, A B'd with different systems then the A B contrast bit is the change, and as a result what the whole hi-fi industry is built on

 

[Vincent Kars]

Or that basically hi-fi is a sheer matter of personal taste anyway when there is no confirmation bias.

No, (trained) listeners can hear the coloration.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

No, (trained) listeners can hear the coloration.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

what do you mean?

 

[Westsounds]

No, (trained) listeners can hear the coloration.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

But isn't that exactly what some people want because to their ears/brains it's what they prefer. Roll in your rose covered sonics, or warm sounding but still complete and good sounding equipment. And let's not forget valves/tubes that add harmonics which some of our ears have an affinity for.

 

[pozz]

what do you mean?

Grammatical error (comma should have been a period).

Trained listeners can hear many EQ bands, and make accurate comments with varying amounts of skill about the specifics of frequency response (levels, slope, Q and so on).

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Grammatical error (comma should have been a period).

Trained listeners can hear many EQ bands, and make accurate comments with varying amounts of skill about the specifics of frequency response (levels, slope, Q and so on).

yeah I understand that. I'm just not sure how it relates to the discussion. The referenced tests by Sean Olive show that trained listeners were just as subject to sighted bias as anyone else...

 

[Westsounds]

I did reply to Vincent's post, but for some reason its locked awaiting moderator, strange. Just trying a post again to see if there's an issue with my account here.

All I said was

But isn't that exactly what some people want because to their ears/brains it's what they prefer. Roll in your rose covered sonics, or warm sounding but still complete and good sounding equipment. And let's not forget valves/tubes that add harmonics which some of our ears have an affinity for.

 

[Vincent Kars]

Maybe.

One will probably buy the gear that sounds best.
Best is probably as subjective as subjective can be.

On the other hand one can look for gear with a reputation of being neutral.
Try to find the gear that let you hear the recording instead of the boxes with their one trick house sound.
Maybe not the most pleasing sound as there are a lot of horrible recordings but if that is the truth, so it be.

 

[Westsounds]

Oh yes, I absolutely agree. When you forget about the hifi and your main interest has become the recording then you have achieved the position of owning great equipment. Unfortunately over the years what I have found is it does sometimes cost a bit to get there, and the more expensive gear can be the stuff that does this the best, to my ears anyway.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Maybe.

One will probably buy the gear that sounds best.
Best is probably as subjective as subjective can be.

On the other hand one can look for gear with a reputation of being neutral.
Try to find the gear that let you hear the recording instead of the boxes with their one trick house sound.
Maybe not the most pleasing sound as there are a lot of horrible recordings but if that is the truth, so it be.

Well yes, but the point I'm making is that the gear that will allow you to do all that likely exists at pretty much every price point. The audiophile industry is sort of founded upon the notion that the more you spend, the better the quality of sound you get but I believe that to be really not (necessarily) the case at all. For example, If we take a couple sets of bookshelf speakers - one set selling for $500, and the other $2500 - and we set them up in a room in reasonably good position, and we volume match them as well as EQing them to have a relatively similar output...then we have people listen to them blindfolded with no idea what models they are hearing I'd be willing to bet their preference would be essentially random.

Now one might say "well sure, if you EQ them to sound the same they'll sound the same." But the point is if I can EQ a $500 set of speakers to sound the same as a $2500 set, why do I need to spend $2500? Of course, speakers do sound different and you can't actually EQ them to sound exactly the same as one another. But "different" doesn't equal "better." The fact that the $2500 speakers might have a slightly different tonal quality even after both sets being adjusted to a similar curve doesn't mean the more expensive ones would be selected as sounding better in a blind test. It's interesting to me that in the test by Olive referenced above, the "S" speaker (the crummiest ones) were selected as sounding the best in one of the 2 test positions...

 

[Westsounds]

Great idea, I bet the result would be as you say very mixed and far from unreliable even with the most discernible audiophiles

I always like this clip on YT. The video itself is irrelevant however the anecdote he says at exactly 6:30-7:38 is just as you describe.

 

[anmpr1]

One problem in HABX (Human ABX) is the well-known 'cable swapper effect'. That is, subconscious (and possibly ESP related) influences from stares or other facial expressions of the cable swappers. This has been widely documented, and most recently discussed in a special breakout session at the last AES convention. After considerable peer review, the scientific community's recommendation is that HABX cable swappers wear full length black executioner masks, in order to hide any subconscious (but test influencing) facial gestures. Because the presence of executioners could result in added subject anxiety, an alternative method is for the cable swappers to be certified professionals--such as CES Booth Babes. These pros know how to act in neutral ways without influencing anyone. Thus, test subjects will be able to fully concentrate on the test protocol, and not focus on the swappers.

 

[Martin]

One problem in HABX (Human ABX) is the well-known 'cable swapper effect'. That is, subconscious (and possibly ESP related) influences from stares or other facial expressions of the cable swappers. This has been widely documented, and most recently discussed in a special breakout session at the last AES convention. After considerable peer review, the scientific community's recommendation is that HABX cable swappers wear full length black executioner masks, in order to hide any subconscious (but test influencing) facial gestures. Because the presence of executioners could result in added subject anxiety, an alternative method is for the cable swappers to be certified professionals--such as CES Booth Babes. These pros know how to act in neutral ways without influencing anyone. Thus, test subjects will be able to fully concentrate on the test protocol, and not focus on the swappers.

I believe the HABXers in the Matrix test did not know which system was attached to the end of the speaker cables they were swapping out on the speaker end thus eliminating this subconscious influence.

Martin

 

[anmpr1]

I believe the HABXers in the Matrix test did not know which system was attached to the end of the speaker cables they were swapping out on the speaker end thus eliminating this subconscious influence.

Martin

Yes. Mine was only a joke post. But I still think Booth Babes are the way to go. Just to be on the safe side!

 

[Westsounds]

I thought you guys were supposed to be scientists on here

 

[Blumlein 88]

I thought you guys were supposed to be scientists on here

For someone who posted an interview with a Zu audio alleged "speaker designer" I don't think you have room to complain.