Double blind tests
- Thread starter kmac
- Start date
Effem
Cable manufacturer
Precisely.
Say for example you expended a lot of your time and money in organising a watertight 100% conclusive double blind test next week, how many naysayers would be banging on your door begging to buy a cable from you the week after to recoup your huge outlay? Errrrm, none.
If they cannot hear the differences now, they certainly won't hear them then, no matter what form of 'proof' you lined up, be it DBT listening tests or some pretty wiggly graphs.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
Read this thread again and see who comes across as the glazed-eyed zealots squawking about the truth path to enlightenment.
Only trouble is, by their own indirect admissions, they need to be able to SEE a system before they can tell you whether or not they enjoy it.
Only trouble is, by their own indirect admissions, they need to be able to SEE a system before they can tell you whether or not they enjoy it.
Effem
Cable manufacturer
That's your interpretation, which isn't the same thing.
I don't NEED to see a system at all, in fact my blind testing is conducted outside the listening room. Yes I do actually carry out blind testing, but double blind testing to please someone else because they demand it, never.
It isn't zealotry at all, just simple grounded common sense. For years I have read reams of twaddle about double blind testing, not called for by the people that really matter, but by those that sit on the sidelines carping about it. If that offends then I shed not one tear of remorse. My view has always been to give credit and responsibility to the person that puts their hand in their pockets to buy whatever they wish without criticism.
I'll ask you now, what purpose would a double blind test serve in YOUR choice of hi-fi components and have you actually done it yourself as part of a purchasing decision?
You either want to sell magic potions based on belief or products that you can show do what you claim. In audio a listening test is necessary to distinguish. The only effective listening tests, especially for subtleties, are blind.
So, magic or real?
Paul
So, magic or real?
Paul
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
Why would you even ask such a question?
Let me guess.
You assume that I will answer in the negative and thus validate your audio gospel by illustrating how the heretics here don't even practise what they preach. Thus, a perfect opportunity is presented for you to resume your offensive against the 'naysayers'.
Well, sorry to disappoint, but whether I have ever used blind testing to select kit is irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because I'm not for a moment saying that people should only use this method to buy new equipment. What I am saying is that those who spend 5 pages drilling holes in the DBT link and then accusing everyone else of being misguided incompetent meddlers must have something to fear.
I don't know. Perhaps they are insecure with their personal choices and are terrified that a DBT would expose their inability to distinguish between cheap and expensive gear.
Who knows?
What I'd be happy to do is to DBT items in my system to decide o purchase - it's generally problematic to do.
I have rejected powercords on this basis (anyone like to buy a tube technology fusion cord or a clearer audio silverline with wattgate 350 for half price?) but currently am keeping some kimber speaker cable (had for 3 yrs) because I can hear a difference.
I have rejected powercords on this basis (anyone like to buy a tube technology fusion cord or a clearer audio silverline with wattgate 350 for half price?) but currently am keeping some kimber speaker cable (had for 3 yrs) because I can hear a difference.
Effem
Cable manufacturer
No need to get personal, it's only a discussion. I asked if you had used the method, but it doesn't bother me what method you choose when buying your components, because I assume that you are sensible enough to choose what suits you and your pocket then all I can do is respect that.
I would have thought the insecurity in their own choices would lead people to go down the DBT ABX route, not repel them from it.
I say again, if the double blind test that started this thread had a balance in EITHER direction it would hold some merit, as a sample of 68 is fairly large compared to most of these tests carried out. I have yet to read of any DBT with ABX protocol providing conclusive results, yet plain simple blind AB testing without all the ballyhoo seems to give better indicators.
lynn why are you full of bile ?
If you want to conduct db test ...go ahead just be prepared to have the result dissected in great detail. If your a cable sceptic what exactly are you doing making any comment unless its to try and convince other people of your views? As far as I'm concerned some people can hear and some can't changes in cable ...theres nothing wrong in that. So why the song and dance....
Have you not noticed ...Naysayers are not sceptics they are a penicious bunch who will argue black is white if they thought that would persuade others they are right. Its called Proselytisation....and is very silly at best because it prevents people making up there own minds. Forcing people to adopt one set of idea over another, by often ridiculing or rubishing it. the only place for a herd mentality is with sheep .....!
Thats why I dislike the behavior of naysayers......I would rather let people make there own minds up ...but a naysayer won't.
If you want to conduct db test ...go ahead just be prepared to have the result dissected in great detail. If your a cable sceptic what exactly are you doing making any comment unless its to try and convince other people of your views? As far as I'm concerned some people can hear and some can't changes in cable ...theres nothing wrong in that. So why the song and dance....
Have you not noticed ...Naysayers are not sceptics they are a penicious bunch who will argue black is white if they thought that would persuade others they are right. Its called Proselytisation....and is very silly at best because it prevents people making up there own minds. Forcing people to adopt one set of idea over another, by often ridiculing or rubishing it. the only place for a herd mentality is with sheep .....!
Thats why I dislike the behavior of naysayers......I would rather let people make there own minds up ...but a naysayer won't.
sideshowbob
Trisha
I haven't bothered to read this thread in detail since the usual suspects seem to be playing the usual silly games, but it's self-evident to me that anyone who really believes that hi-fi should be assessed purely by reference to one's ears, should be in favour of tests which remove all extraneous factors other than what's audible. If you believe your ears are all that matter in making a judgement about a piece of hi-fi, you should be in favour of blind tests.
The suggestion that, because blind tests consistently demonstrate most people actually can't hear what they think they can in sighted tests, there's something intrinsically wrong with blind test methodology, is completely laughable.
I think people should buy hi-fi based on whatever criteria they like, but they shouldn't kid themselves about the extent of the audible differences between much of the stuff on the market. Mind you, people who sell bits of wire and other tweaky nonsense have a reason for wanting to muddy the waters, of course.
I do wish Pete would stop accusing anybody who hears differently to him and expresses a contrary opinion to him of not allowing people to make up their own minds, it's just absurd.
-- Ian
The suggestion that, because blind tests consistently demonstrate most people actually can't hear what they think they can in sighted tests, there's something intrinsically wrong with blind test methodology, is completely laughable.
I think people should buy hi-fi based on whatever criteria they like, but they shouldn't kid themselves about the extent of the audible differences between much of the stuff on the market. Mind you, people who sell bits of wire and other tweaky nonsense have a reason for wanting to muddy the waters, of course.
I do wish Pete would stop accusing anybody who hears differently to him and expresses a contrary opinion to him of not allowing people to make up their own minds, it's just absurd.
-- Ian
sideshowbob
Trisha
No, fair comment.
-- Ian
-- Ian
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
NO, a personel dig. Jim
It seems that some posts in this debate are becoming emotionally overwrought and departing from common sense. I'd like to address the original subject calmly. I don't regard myself as a naysayer; nor do I rush out to buy things on the basis of favourable reviews. I like to form my own judgements where possible. Failing that, I look for reviewers who demonstrate a high level of objectivity, for example, http://www.tnt-audio.com/int.html
So here's my two pennyworth:
1. Blind trials are intended to prevent conscious and unconscious bias in research. Double-blind trials are a more stringent way of conducting an experiment with the aim of eliminating subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters, and of achieving a higher standard of scientific rigour.
2. I don't see how anyone can argue with that as a definition, or dismiss double blind trials as an impartial method of comparing things, whether it be butter substitutes, washing powders, medicines/placebos, or audio equipment.
3. If, in audio tests, the subject can't tell the difference or prefers the cheaper equipment, and decides to buy the cheaper equipment, that's fine. The manufacturers of cheaper audio equipment may be smart enough to tailor the sound of their wares to meet the preferences of their target market. That's probably how they succeed in business.
4. If, in audio tests, the subject can't tell the difference, or prefers the sound of the cheaper equipment, and still elects to buy more expensive equipment, that's his or her choice. However, there's no sense in justifying that decision by trying to rubbish a proven empirical test method.
5. In the audio test, some people could hear a difference. Some could identify (and preferred) the more expensive equipment. Some could not. Some people have more acute hearing. End of story.
So here's my two pennyworth:
1. Blind trials are intended to prevent conscious and unconscious bias in research. Double-blind trials are a more stringent way of conducting an experiment with the aim of eliminating subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters, and of achieving a higher standard of scientific rigour.
2. I don't see how anyone can argue with that as a definition, or dismiss double blind trials as an impartial method of comparing things, whether it be butter substitutes, washing powders, medicines/placebos, or audio equipment.
3. If, in audio tests, the subject can't tell the difference or prefers the cheaper equipment, and decides to buy the cheaper equipment, that's fine. The manufacturers of cheaper audio equipment may be smart enough to tailor the sound of their wares to meet the preferences of their target market. That's probably how they succeed in business.
4. If, in audio tests, the subject can't tell the difference, or prefers the sound of the cheaper equipment, and still elects to buy more expensive equipment, that's his or her choice. However, there's no sense in justifying that decision by trying to rubbish a proven empirical test method.
5. In the audio test, some people could hear a difference. Some could identify (and preferred) the more expensive equipment. Some could not. Some people have more acute hearing. End of story.
can't disagree with any of that .....
point 5 say it all .....!
there are some sad people ....who just want to impose there own views on everybody else ....could be there insecure being in a minority of one who knows.....or they just want to be part of the herd ...thats fine ..just don't stuff your half baked ideas down other people throats .....let them make up there own minds.
I really could not care ...if you want to go play double blind test thats fine .....if you don't well guess what, thats fine too...just don't expect me to be party to it.
Remember as soon as you start the personnel insults ...you've lost the argument [and the plot]....
point 5 say it all .....!
there are some sad people ....who just want to impose there own views on everybody else ....could be there insecure being in a minority of one who knows.....or they just want to be part of the herd ...thats fine ..just don't stuff your half baked ideas down other people throats .....let them make up there own minds.
I really could not care ...if you want to go play double blind test thats fine .....if you don't well guess what, thats fine too...just don't expect me to be party to it.
Remember as soon as you start the personnel insults ...you've lost the argument [and the plot]....
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
We are talking about dbt here and Ian just came in with the old cable debate and a dig at a certain member as he does when this sort of thing crops up. Not a valid point on this thread. Jim.
sideshowbob
Trisha
Drivel.
I made some observations about DBT and about how those who sell products which do badly in DBTs have an unsurprising tendency to dispute the validity of the entire mechanism. I neither had a dig at anyone in particular nor mentioned any names, I was making a general point about how the tweak industry doesn't like unsighted testing.
I did have a dig at Pete's tendency to traduce those who disagree with him by implying they don't believe people should be allowed to make up their own minds, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't sell cables or anything else, so he clearly isn't the subject of my comment about cable salesmen.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
-- Ian
I made some observations about DBT and about how those who sell products which do badly in DBTs have an unsurprising tendency to dispute the validity of the entire mechanism. I neither had a dig at anyone in particular nor mentioned any names, I was making a general point about how the tweak industry doesn't like unsighted testing.
I did have a dig at Pete's tendency to traduce those who disagree with him by implying they don't believe people should be allowed to make up their own minds, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't sell cables or anything else, so he clearly isn't the subject of my comment about cable salesmen.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
-- Ian
