....in a related manner, yet it's not about audio equipment. Maybe people who believe a $6000 amp or a fancy crossover MUST be better should Listen to this NPR story.

I don't know I would even consider that as a single blind test as the researcher said this to his subjects

"These are all fine violins and at least one is a Stradivarius. Play, then judge the instruments."

They should not have been privy to such detailed from the researcher that "all are fine violins" or " at least one is a Stradivarius" especially if the goal is to see if a Stradivarius is preferred. The subjects should not know ANYTHING about the violins even in a single blind test.

No; there's no requirement that the participants be unaware of the items being tested, except during the actual blind testing, of course. Here, since the violinists were to pick the Strad, they obviously had to be informed of this.

An example of this relating to audio equipment is the Stereo Review amplifier blind listening tests which have been cited here several times. Not only were the listeners told of the amplifiers($220- $12,000), but listened to them openly before the blind sessions, of course reporting many areas of superiority in the more expensive units, which disappeared when the labels and price tags did. This significantly increased the value of the test.

I disagree. You don't tell them anything and you don't need to tell them anything about the violins. All the need to know is pick the violin under whatever methodology they have set forth.

Double-blind testing does not add ANY bias from the researcher to its subjects and the subjects need not know anything what the researcher is trying "to prove" and that is precisely what the researcher did in this case.

Again, that wasn't the purpose of the test.

I know what you mean JohnK.

My point is for them to influence the subjects like that and call it a double blind test is academically dishonest.

I think the take-away quote from this article -- and one that applies equally to speakers -- is this:

"If no one can tell the difference, what's the point?"

You all know the thread I'm talking about... I like the way Axiom slowly iterates their speakers toward that unreachable goal of perfection. With data and testing. Sure, they could add more bracing, but does it make an audible (positive) difference? They could also make their crossovers prettier to look at and/or use more expensive components, but would that make an audible (positive) difference?

Besides audible benefit, another thing parts quality can impact is longevity. While I personally upgrade so often that it probably wouldn't matter, I still think it's cool if the stuff I buy is going to last indefinitely. If "higher-quality" parts increase the longevity, I'm all for that, even with negligible sonic improvements.

I agree with you CV, I hope all the parts inside anything I buy will last as long as I need them to.

I hope all the parts inside me last as long as I need them to.

::like::

I hope all the parts inside me, and hanging outside me, last as long as I need them to.

Would each of you define "need," please? Based on some of the personal things I've read here, many of you already have parts that you haven't "needed" in quite some time.

Please advise.

Well, I AM all done with kids, so I guess the boys could wither up and fall off, but I really do think I need the rest of my innards.

A meaningful test to me would be to have violin players be able to pick their own violin out of a line up.

That is a cool idea! Wonder if anyone's ever tried to make that claim.

Your new graphics are very pretty, Tubeboy.

Well, I think they're both pretty meaningful tests.

Hi Mark,
There is also another interesting story (a bit old) regarding blind testing of audio equipment. Some might have seen it but just in case . . .
MATRIX-HIFI

Click on BLIND TESTS and then on the link
04/06/2006: Blind testing high end full equipments

Here's another article on the violin test, which may answer a few questions:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012...tm_campaign=rss

All of the parts of my AX2s from 1991 are cosmetically pristine & are still functioning perfectly today, including the foam surrounds.

My AX2s have certainly aged better than me, ha!!

Tom
Comox, BC

My foam surround seems to be expanding every year.

Mine too... I wish I could find trimmers for that.

Yes, Jean-Claude, I'd read that test report before, but it's still highly relevant in helping to point out the nonsense inherent in much of the "high end" mythology. Thanks for bringing it to our attention again, and it'll be especially useful since many of our members probably didn't see it before.

I recall that in one discussion of "upgrades" I sarcastically related the(fictitious)report of an audiophile who emphasized the huge improvement by telling how his wife had come rushing in from the bathroom(where she'd been using her hairdryer), excitedly asking what he'd changed.

Thanks JC, I hadn't seen that test before.