Re: Question about sighted testing
- From: "nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <NYOB123@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:59:40 GMT
"Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jennconducts-A0A669.14141931082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <hQkRe.4576$_84.3797@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <NYOB123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-4C17D1.13110330082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>> > brands, etc?
>> >
>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>
>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
>> the
>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell
>> you
>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>> sighted
>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>> that
>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
But good scientific practice would require that the comparisons be done
blind.
For the vast majority of audio gear such comparisons have shown that the
likelihood of there being audible differences is very small. DBT'S are
really about detecting subtle differences, since gross differences are
easily detected.
It is interesting to note that the subtle differences that have been
detected usually can be eliminated by judicious use of EQ, since they are
usually only small fluctuations in frequency response. Amps not being
clipped and speakers that do not present difficult loads are about the only
other requirements.
With few exceptions, all of which are known, audio equipment sounds the
same. Some manufacturers try to design their equipment to sound different,
but they do it by DEVIATING from flat response, not by making it flatter.
Speakers are the main area where sonic difference is pronounced and where
money can be well spent in upgrade, unless of course one needs features that
are not currently available on one's existing equipment.
IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering something
really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD, or
whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's trivially
simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
differences but those would have to with things like sensitivity and
selectivity.
The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because there are
a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that DBT's are
effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by their eyes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Reading and writing with IQ=103
- From: Robert Morein
- Reading and writing with IQ=103
- References:
- Re: Question about sighted testing
- From: nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Question about sighted testing
- From: Jenn
- Re: Question about sighted testing
- Prev by Date: Re: Stereophile & Cable Theory
- Next by Date: Re: Stereophile & Cable Theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Question about sighted testing
- Next by thread: Reading and writing with IQ=103
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
