Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Critical Listening

I beleive that same line of thinking is why 'yall ended up in Iraq.

I say, well done, gentlemen.

Carry on.

A noob question I can't get out of my mind.. as I peruse the various forums/retailer's/opinion's all over the net.

Are there not testing equipment that could measure the sound produced in various tests that would show a measurable difference, even if that difference isn't noticeable to a listener? e.g. speaker wire.. If all you change is the wire, and you play the same set of tones and you can't measure the difference.. it would seem to me you wouldn't hear a difference either

Maybe I'm too used to the PC world were comparison's are less subjective.. or maybe such exacting measurements are only possible with very expensive testing equipment.. I don't know.. but how much better can a 40 000 CD player be compared to a 1000 CD player??

If you can't measure a difference, there's no difference. At least, not in what you're measuring.

We have a pretty good idea what's important in sound, but perception is a complicated thing. Of course, if you measure the sound wave, and it's absolutley identical in two instances, it's pretty insane to think there will be an audible difference.

Things can get complicated, though - what kind of trade-off should one make between off-axis response in speakers vs. overall "flatness" of response? But with wires, etc., it's generally pretty simple.

But let's assume there's some bizarre thing we're overlooking about the signal we're measuring. Or magic. Or whatever. The beauty of double-blind listening tests is you can still test for differences due to unknown factors. It's all in the listening!

And a $40,000 CD player is simple insanity, unless it also functions as Great Art or something.

I have to admit I stopped reading his essay a few pages into it. If the following is already covered by him, I apologize.

Double-blind listening tests may be our best shot at higher audio performance, but I'm not sure we've done enough kinds of research to work out the weaknesses. For one, they don't recreate a normal listening experience. No one listening to their own system is unaware of what hardware they're running. They're also not instantaneously switching between two components for comparison. As for me, I know I end up noticing new details quite often when I'm engaged in the content, not necessarily listening for sound quality differences. What if our best listening isn't when we think we're listening critically? Then again, how much research can be done on that? It's just that so much of our ordinary listening has us preoccupied with the lyrics, or with the story. Maybe the general impressions we construct over time with this casual kind of listening have more value than critical back-and-forth double-blind.

How many audio companies DON'T utilize double-blind listening tests when designing their products versus those that do? I'm sure the ones that were created out of magic have higher price tags, but I wonder if it's guaranteed that they'll perform under the level of those that have benefited from "proper" research.

Most of you are much more studied than I am on the topic, so I'd love to hear of the research that's been done.

This topic reminded of this article I read a few months ago.. not sure this is the exact article, but it's discusses the same research study..
Wine Test: $5 bottle gets Tastier when it's $45

This study showed an actually difference in brain pattern's when drinking what was believed to be $5 and $45 a bottle wine.. even though it was really the same wine.

This could be taken to support the idea that people hear a difference, because they want to hear a difference, not because one exists.

Amen to that.

For me, my best listening is when I could care less whether I may be listening to compressed source material and enjoy the music for how it affects me and lightens my mood.

You guys are right. Now that I think about it, I do my best listening in the car. I'm much more concerned about simply enjoying the music while I wait in traffic. Plus, I can sing along as loud as I want and use whatever surface as a drum.

There's absolutely no reason for them not to. The only necessary difference - you don't know what hardware you're listening to. But why should that matter?


What do you mean by "best"? If you mean "detecting small differences", then you want typical DBT conditions. Highly focused attention, immediate switches between stimuli, etc. These are all designed to MAXIMIZE our ability to detect small differences. A century of auditory research has converged on these procedures. The only reason people say these rules don't apply in AV World is because the results go against their preconceptions.

If by "best" you mean most enjoyable, the kind of listening we should be doing for ourselves, listening to music instead of listening for differences in sound - then no, DBT isn't the way to go. But that's a completely different issue.

As for noticing subtle details...If you're talking about discovering them in music, you'll want normal listening conditions. If you want to detect differences in how that already-known detail is reproduced with Speaker wire A vs B, you want DBT.

A century of research and not one specific study cited? That's fine, but I was kind of hoping the idea that direct comparison could play with your perception of sound quality would be taken out with an elephant gun, not a stealth bomber sans payload.

Oh, and listen for the new Negative Orange single, "Stealth Bomber Sans Payload" in August with the full album following in the full.