Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?

Summary of the Ferstler B.Sc. thesis:
The problem with audio is that people believe their ears more than they
trust science.
Definition of science: my belief in a "test" for compating
components,called ABX/DBT
that has never been proved to work by an experiment.
It is science when I say it is science.
(signed on behalf) The DBT scientist
Ludovic Mirabel
--------------------------------------------
Howard Ferstler wrote:
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