Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler <ferstle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Actually, it really does not qualify me to form proclamations on the electrical design of components, and I certainly never said it did. However, one does not need to be an "authority on electronics" to see the silliness we have with certain attributes of high-end, "serious" audio. Even a total novice, with no electronics training at all, should be able to do a decent level-matched, and hopefully blind listening comparison to see the preposterousness of what some of the local tweakos are saying. Only someone with a serious personality defect would blame the DBT protocol itself for their inability to hear differences with that kind of procedure. Well, that kind of person is perhaps the norm with ultra-serious high-end audio.

<sigh>
What I am about to say, I have said many times in just as many
different wordings, but it just doesn't seem to sink in with you (and
the people usually referred to as "audio borgs').

Last try:
It *doesn't* matter to an average consumer whether in a DBT or ABX or
ABC/hr test there are no differences detected.

I disagree. It may mean plenty to a rational and truly concerned individual (1) who wants to get a good, fair deal for his money and (2) who wants to embrace a rational approach to the purchase of audio gear.

Once he hears/sees/feels a certain piece of gear and has a good
feeling about it, that piece of gear is just the right item for
him/her.

Which basically supports a know-nothing attitude towards the hobby. OK, some people like knowing nothing, and some probably revel in it. However, it just might be possible to show certain individuals that actually "knowing something" about components might be advantageous, be the goal a way to save money (purchasing hardware store wire instead of big-bucks exotic stuff, for example) or the goal be obtaining the best, most transparent simulation of live music as possible.

I don't blame the DBT protocol per se, I use(d) it in my profession,
but for home audio purposes it is totally useless.

Perhaps to some people. Note that I do not support the DBT protocol unless it also includes level matching. The latter, combined with even a simple blind protocol, is neither useless nor out of reach for the typical, truly interested enthusiast. That someone will spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on something like a few feet of wire, based upon some damned magazine review, is simply outrageous. That they could save themselves some money and have the luxury of knowing they did so by behaving intelligently is a more valid way to be happy then simply spending wildly just to feel superior. Of course, some people like living in a fool's paradise, and I guess we should cut them some slack.

Yes, people should be happy with their purchases and with their hobby choices, but the industry has created a monster that basically capitalizes on the gullibility of many individuals. This is on of my main objections. Certain members of the industry have prostituted the enterprise.

Not only is it impractical for most non-technical persons, it also
isn't an important factor since almost all gear is good enough to
satisfy even the most critical listeners.

Yes, I agree with the last part of your statement. Most amps work just fine, up to their respective max-output levels. However, many of those amps are much more expensive than necessary to do the job, and I think it is the duty of journalists (or fellow hobby enthusiasts) to point out that fact to potentially gullible readers. To basically sucker such individuals to get them to renew subscriptions and become fanatical about the hobby is in very poor taste at best.

As for the impractical comment, I disagree. Certainly obtaining a DBT machine for a few comparisons would be silly. However, certainly a concerned audio buff (particularly one contemplating spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on wire or thousands of dollars on an amplifier or CD player) would be wise to take some time to learn a bit about the sound of components. After all, it is a hobby, and someone who is seriously interested in the hobby should apply a bit of intellectual muscle to its enjoyment.

I guess one question here is what kind of happiness is best: happiness based upon ignorance or happiness based upon wisdom? Do we want to be in the company of happy fools?

If replacing the coupling caps for Jensens or Mundorfs, or the power
supply caps for BC split foil types makes one a happier person, he
will percieve differences just because he is a happier person.

He will not perceive differences. He will think he is hearing differences. There is an important contrast. Yeah, it is nice to have people be happy, and it is nice to "make" people happy (which is what some tweako audio journalists probably say when rationalizing their behavior), but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think that duping people into spending big for overkill or sometimes even useless components just to make them "happy" is just plain wrong. Note that in many cases doing this works to make the manufacturer or journalist wealthy.

Get that?

Obviously, I do not "get that."

Some people enjoy thick faceplates or high end brand names, it makes
them feel good, so they will perceive the sound as being better.

No, they think the sound is better. Now, I have nothing against brand names and thick face plates. However, I do have something against suckering people into overspending just to make that individual (and obviously the manufacturer or the journalist who gets his subscription renewal hooks into an anxiety ridden subscriber) happy. Happiness is a fine goal, but making people happy while screwing them is not my idea of ethical behavior. Drug pushers could be said to make some people happy, too.

Since most are not well versed in electronics, they add bottles of
sand, alarm clocks, gold plated cables with boxes or L-shapes to
their systems.
It makes them feel better, so their system "sounds better".

No. They think it sounds better. Basically, you are saying that if being insane makes a person feel better lets just let him remain insane. No, you go beyond that. You basically say that if doing stupid things makes a person happy we should find more stupid things for him to do so that he becomes even happier.

So what? More power to them.

Yeah, if a guy gets happy on drugs lets give him still more drugs so he gets even more happy. OK, hard drugs is a poor analogy. Lets just say liquor or cigarettes.

About DBTs: in my work (PA systems), we don't even use them anymore,
because almost all amplifier technology is matured in such a way that
one has to deliberately design a different amplifier to make it sound
different.

Good point. I feel that way, myself. However, many people do not, and so it is a good idea to point out to them just what is necessary to get a grip on themselves.

As for loudspeaker evaluation: we have a MLSSA and a Monkey Forest
analyzer for adjustment of filters and determination of dispersion
angles, and that is that.
The rest is done by listening sighted.

Yes. I did sighted comparisons with speakers for review articles, and had no problems. Actually, I cut speaker builders a lot of slack when I was reviewing the things. I tend to think that the various goals that the companies had (narrow dispersion vs wide dispersion being two salient philosophies) were often equally valid.

Indeed, I have systems at my place that are radically different from each other when it comes to certain design goals and I enjoy all of them. Years ago I wrote articles for Stereo Review that pointed out that because speakers were acoustic devices that performed in three-dimensional spaces, all sorts of approaches were valid. I do believe, however, that whatever dispersion pattern is involved, the sound reaching the listener's ear should be reproduced with reasonable smoothness and not be too tilted towards either end of the frequency spectrum.

DBTs for consumer audio are irrelevant, since the only area where it
could be useful, speakers, it is useless ;-)

Well, the DBT can be useful with speaker evaluation. However, it can also be helpful when trying to convince certain individuals about the need for rational control when getting ready to purchase amps, wires, or digital players. The test does not even have to be done by the individual themselves, although doing it that way certainly will have more impact. A good magazine test series will at least give the reader information about how said components are nowhere near as different sounding as some members of the subjectivist press might indicate. Articles based upon such tests might also trigger a desire on the part of someone ready to spend big for amps, a player, or wires to slow down a bit and maybe do some serious level-matched comparing. The net result might be a consumer who is not only happy about purchasing clean-sounding gear but is ALSO happy about doing so without having spent a fortune.

While this proves you are not deluded when it comes to hearing things that are not there (which tweakos are prone to do when comparing amps that exhibit proper straight line with gain behavior), it also shows that you still miss the point when it comes to the goal of high-fidelity sound reproduction or the simulation of live music environments in home-listening situations.

And I never denied that.

Your candor is appreciated.

In my hobby, I'm not after Hifi, but after Myfi.
What use would I have for a system that is extremely accurate, but
doesn't satisfy me?

Good point. However, it looks to me as if you would want the recording itself to at least come through with the least amount of per-channel coloration as possible. If you like your woofers to sound bloated or your midrange to sound recessed or you believe that added-in harmonic colorations to deliver newfound richness to the overall sound then you are basically missing out on the ultimate purpose of the whole enterprise.

Yeah, I know that I am a buff who sees nothing wrong with applying DSP surround synthesis procedures to two-channel recordings, in order to simulate surround sound and a more sharply focussed sound stage. Heck, all three of my AV systems are able to do this. However, what I do works to overcome the inherent, one-dimensional flaw with two-channel audio.

You should correct that to:
"...what I see as an inherent, one-dimensional flaw with 2-channel
reproduction".

OK. I will go with that.

I see no flaw with 2-channel audio, because I adjust the entire system
to my liking.
Just like others use tone controls or DSPs.

I rarely use tone controls, although I have dbx and AudioControl low-bass synthesizers for use with really bass shy pop recordings and older movies. (Not classical or jazz music, however.) As for DSP, as I noted, I use it to simulate hall acoustics (out in the room and not just from the front, as with two-channel sound) and also use a derived center feed to operate a center channel.

However, some people like just two channel purity, and I can certainly understand why. However, if you edit the sound of those two channels and leave them at two channels you no longer have purity.

And both approaches are equally valid, IMHO.
The difference being that *my* method may not be valid for you, and
vice-versa.

I can live with that ;-)

I can, too. What I like about you is that you are not writing magazine reviews that laud the sound of components that are not particularly special. I also do not believe that you approve what those people are doing. They may make people happy, but they do so by basically getting them to spend more than necessary. Yes, I realize that some people need to spend big in order to be happy, but I do not believe that suckering people into spending that way is admirable behavior.

Simply editing the sound of two channels the same way with all recordings, both technically poor and technically excellent, and then leaving them as two channels does not correct the inherent limitations of two-channel audio. It is a step backward from at least the often wonderfully clean and uncolored tonal characteristics that we have with really well engineered recordings, even though they lack the proper directional clues to simulate hall ambiance and a properly focussed and stabilized (rather than phantom) center.

Irrelevant.
As long as *I*, the person for whom I designed the system, enjoy the
sound, that's all that matters.

Yep. However, is it ethical for some influential individuals to push this behavior? I mean, if someone wants to spend big on a luxury audio component should a journalist basically feed that need, or should they at least point out to the potential big spender that spending that way will not get them any concrete improvement? The reader may reject that approach and spend big, anyway (and perhaps cancel his magazine subscription), but at least the journalist made an attempt to bring the person back to reality.

I don't have to sell my ideas or systems to you, now do I?

Nope.

Note that my meagre EE qualification and mere 30 years of audio
experience sure can't beat your thorough training.

This is interesting. Actually, a friend of mine (an audio writer, actually, and a very perceptive one) has a PhD in electrical engineering and while he is as rational as one can be, he has told me that certain (but definitely not the majority of) fellow EEs that he knows are often suspicious of the DBT protocol and believe that they can detect differences in amp sound sighted that they miss when listening blind. He even knows amplifier designers who feel this way.

Arny calls this "constructor's ear", and he may well be right about
that.

Interesting term. I think that many designers have a true-believer attitude towards their own hardware. If they did not feel that way they probably would not bother to do the design work. Others probably realize that "amps are amps" but they want to make sales, so the hype is advertised and the bucks roll in.

Howard Ferstler

.

Loading