Hearing is Believing

My Sugden-related thought experiment holds whether the test subject is blindfolded or sitting staring at components and unable to tell which is which. If our senses are more interconnected than we credit, conclusions drawn from blind tests will be outgunned by the full multi-sensory perception the moment the test concludes.

 

Program was good.

Basically proves we are only just starting to understand the interaction between the brain and how it processes inputs from the five senses (well the five we know of). The five sense are highly interconnected and the old idea that separate parts of the brain deal with each sense is clearly rubbish.

Evolution has honed our brain to only concentrate on analyzing the inputs that effect our well being/security. I liked the idea put forward in the program that the brain may in fact ignore some of the inputs sent from our senses as it is more efficient to "guess" what is likely to come next. The brain gives priority to what it thinks is the most important information. We tend to concentrate on specific elements that may affect our wellbeing/survivial. Otherwise, our brains would have to be much bigger and we have already maxed out that one.

 

If.

Re the Sugden example, the sum of your five senses on subsequent sighted listening are causing you to revert to a 'wrong' assessment because that is how you are conditioned to think and behave, mainly through reliance on subjective assessment over the years. The average listener, not conversant with the effects of Class A operation or reading in the (subjective) press that physically warm amps and Class A amps sound warm, will not be so inclined to make the wrong assessment.

You need to sop relying so heavily on subjective assessment and unlearn your bad ways!
You will find the problem recedes with time. It did with me but it took a few years.

 

You seem to think that people are idiots, all you have to do is read forums to see how people react to reviews, so all your assessed need for blind testing to counter the flowery words and typical reviewer bullshit (remember that is what they are paid for) is wasted apart from to help you feel superior. Now in the past what you say may have happened but because of the forums people are much more savvy, they don't need to be molly coddled or even dictated to by you, you are just creating an alternative bullshit just like the reviewers. Customers / people can take care of themselves, all they need to do is use their ears, and eyes (as cosmetic and ergonomic considerations are very important) sense of smell and touch are pretty useless apart from touch can apply to very low frequencies, and have confidence in their own judgement.

Don't treat them as idiots they are quite capable of making their own choices without your useless specs and blind tests..

 

The subjectivist's argument is your (logical) methodology of verification isn't getting the job done and expectation bias doesn't always hold true.

In my earlier example, the thicker, more expensive, new and improved AC cord supplied from my gear manufacturer should have sounded "better" in every respect or at least have "more bass" according to audiophile expectation bias. Instead, it sounded as if it had less bass, more treble and overall, less realism compared to its older, thinner counterpart. The cherry on top was it being louder than the thinner wire and yet I still rejected it as the preferred choice.

None of this can happen according to the objectivist.

 

I am perfectly happy with the views of the objectivist, as I am with those of Subjectivists; I am still clearly closer to the Subjectivist view myself, though I can't prove that...

Perhaps there are some crossed wires here, unfortunate misunderstandings which mean different camps are focusing on how things are said rather than what is said.

The simple truth is I do not need extra 'verification' to appreciate fully the differences between gear as Rob does, or as he said: "higher standards of verification" - perhaps this is a good example of how an objectivist can appear condescending to a subjectivist. I am sure Robs system sounds great - I would expect it to given his experience & expertise. So I would need to hear it blind as I have expectation bias now... But my system sounds great as well, even if others may perceive I arrived there by blind chance. We are all pursuing the same things here, so the demarcation between Objectivists & Subjectivists is unfortunate - I hate all 'ists' as they are blind to the validity of alternative approaches.

A problem that I have is the nature of discussion objectivists seem to have, that often they speak in absolutes. If something is not clearly understood or demonstrated to the satisfaction of the tester, then there is no effect, or perhaps a negligible difference that is not really worth pursuing, again implicitly belittling the judgement of someone who claims to hear the difference more starkly.

I have to acknowledge subjectivism is open & vulnerable to hyperbole, dodgy marketing, lies, claims & counter claims; Objectivism can be and often is just as unreliable a guide to understanding audio. The perpetrators of such skewed misinformation tend to be a little cleverer if they are objectivist as a certain level of technical ability is needed to make sense. Even if claims & conclusions are made with good motive, that in itself doesn't guarantee enough understanding to get the interpretation right. The arrogance of the vocal objectivist to talk down to someone else with a different approach to music is intensely irritating, almost as if that one sees himself as a self-appointed messiah to correct the wrongs of instinctive musical appreciation and correctly educate/enlighten the poor soul.

All I'm saying is both approaches are flawed, and I wish we could al take each other a little more seriously.



* Rob, I've quoted you a little in this post please don't think I have any criticism of you to make, even if you do have broad shoulders. Although you speak with sensitivity & respect, it is the objectivist view itself I find occasionally patronising, not you, and I can accept the subjectivist view can be patronising also. I quote you as a representative of the objectivist, who frankly couldn't be represented better.

 

The mistake some make on threads like this is to assume a blind test is only of use / interest to objectivists. I consider myself to be very firmly in the subjectivist camp and like partaking in such dems a lot. For me they just represent a far more purist approach to auditioning as measurements, visual preconceptions, folk-law, manufacturer and dealer spin are all neatly removed from the equation - it involves leaving all one's biases, both conscious and unconscious, at the door, and that is a very good thing IMO. I do actually trust my ears!

Tony.

 

Beautifully put, Tony. It really is as simple as that.

Chris

 

Perhaps my flippancy has distracted from the wider point I was making about the gulf between two approaches, and the apparent lack of respect by each for each other.

I am in complete agreement with you Tony.

 

Thirded.

I would add that removing the obstacles noted will allow you to make better judgments and that is all that matters. No test is perfect though and for me its a case of a very compromised assessment method (sighted) compared to one that, with a few basic controls in far less flawed.

 

No problem Alan.

I usually find that when people sit and discuss these things face to face they find each other's position is far from black and white. Forum discussions encourage the arguments to gravitate towards exteme positions.

 

If there is a more constructive post on this topic I've yet to see it. Well put.

 

Tony,

Have you ever had different results with a blind vs sighted dem?

regards,

dave

 

sorry,but what ever happend to the ear's test? not blind folded in no form of use,surley one can hear the difference to their own natural devises ,EAR'S or preferences!,

 

The whole thing is a waste of time, and if it gives different results that is as a result of the test not the product.

 

I would not buy anything new purely via a shop demo, and most dealers / manufacturers are ameanable to home dems. The problem I then find is that I swap the component in and out of the system sighted (I've no hifi-minded friends who want to play the "blindfold" test with me). I then have to trust that I can make a decision based on what I hear, and I'm pretty sure I can choose the "best" component in the context of my system, whether it's an existing item or the new one. I understand expectation bias, but I've taken back as many bits as I've eventually bought.

With 2nd hand equipment it's fairly unlikely that you'll be able to do a blind dem. I've just taken a gamble that it might be a good fit. If not, I've sold it on. Each time though, I've backed myself to make the "right" decision based on what I hear - AND see.

 

I've had one recently.

Whenever I use my Quad 405 in place of other amplifiers it seems to sound a bit grey and rough - tiny difference but it bothers me just the same since I can see no reason why it should.
Unsighted it sounds identical to the usual 306.

The reasons are obvious. The 405 has been slagged for decades for sounding grey and rough among a list of other so called problems and for many, many years I bought and accepted that line.
Some of those doubts clearly remain, requiring me to check and double check against the 306. Doing so repeatedly dispels the doubts.
The weight of reality wins out over bias in the end.

 

That's what you get for reading hifi magazines;-)

I'm going to try a few single blind dems over the next few weeks- if nothing else, to check the quality of my hearing as I get older;-)

 

quote

i agree on your coment richard, rob i never found the 405 "grey" loved it thrugh out all those 70's all the way till the 90's.

 

Better be ready for a nasty surprise, I've just passed 50 and can hear nothing above 13kHz!