Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Critical Listening

But when's the Negative Orange tour?

Detecting minimal differences is a common goal of all sorts of perceptual experiments...and that was what I was referring to. That's a very different issue from "perception of sound quality" - or could be. The first is well defined, the second could mean quite a few things.

I'm literally talking about tens of thousands of studies. I wasn't making a specific point about a specific finding, I'm just talking about the general state of the procedures of an entire field of research. I mean I could have given:

http://www.perceptionweb.com/

or a dozen other journals and said "start at volume 1", but that's not very helpful.

More to the point of the thread, if Harley thinks one or more of the standardized procedures is faulty, that's fine. Design a blind test that addresses that. But keep it blind. It's simply silly to suggest you need to know what equipment you're listening to.

By no means am I suggesting that ALL equipment reviews MUST included stringent DBT procedures. I'm more than happy reading the opinions of experienced listeners with a good track record, especially for things that are likely to have large, noticeable differences (e.g., different loudspeakers).

But if someone tells me that cables are "danceable", but blind testing repeatedly shows no differences in cables meeting certain minimum specs, I'll trust the blind test, thank you very much.

Charles, I'll cite a couple of the things that I have cited in the past here and might be informative and amusing to you. The Stereo Review amplifier tests which enraged some audiophiles, but opened the eyes(and ears)of others, still are unchallenged(i.e. unchallenged by contrary results from later tests, not simply by a stubborn refusal to accept facts)and illustrate the contrast between some rather flowery language used to describe sound differences in open listening before the tests and the actual blind test results. Among other notable results was that the $220 Pioneer receiver was indistinguishable from the $12,000 pair of tube amplifiers.

Our Alan has been involved in many blind test sessions and you might find interesting this report of the testing that defeated Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn where Alan was present(still wonder if he ever got his watch back).

On whether the listeners know if a change actually has been made, this isn't necessary, but the ABX test method requires an actual change from A to B before trying to determine which of them X is. A different blind procedure, same/different, does sometimes have the same unit played for both samples, and a fair amount of the time the listeners incorrectly mark the same as being different.

One amusing incident that speaker designer John Dunlavy has occasionally recounted on the internet occurred when in a supposedly non-blind comparison between regular lamp cord and a very expensive boutique speaker wire, the "technician" behind the speakers apparently busily making switches actually left the lampcord connected at all times. One of the several "experts" present at Dunlavy's test, after the expensive cable was supposedly switched in, commented to him: "Omigod John, tell me that even you can hear that difference".

In one of Dr. Toole's excellent papers which touches on the necessity of blind listening tests(at one AES meeting where he spoke on the subject, he stated, using a bit of hyperbole, that "If you can see what you're listening to, you can't hear it!")he shows at p.10 that even when items where differences actually exist, i.e. speakers, are involved, "huge" differences in open listening are greatly narrowed when the labels and price tags disappear and the listening becomes blind.

Definitely. I'm really only throwing stuff out there for the sake of discussion. Magic costs a lot more. I certainly prefer being able to afford the good stuff.

Tours of the Negative Orange Musicadium are offered year-round.

As always John, you come through with the goods. I'm part way through Dr. Toole's article. Its quite thought provoking.

Oh, I missed JohnK's response. Thanks for making me come back to read it.

You are welcome. Do take the time to read the Toole article. There is lots of interesting stuff in there.

One of the most interesting to me is his discussion of the ability of different individuals to select good over bad speakers. He says outright that people have to be trained on what to listen for. To me, that just screams introduced bias. I'm still pondering that and will read over the section again.

The other one that surprised me was on resonance. It seems that low frequency resonance is detectable at much lower levels than high frequency resonance. This is the exact oposite of distortion.