Double Blind testing is like fishing without knowing what kind of fish you're after!

[germerikan]

Thanks for posting the link and I did enjoy watching the video. A couple of questions came up as I was watching. Does a Stradivarius sound the same today as it did when it was new 300 years ago? I wonder how the tone of a wooden instrument would not change over that much time, regardless of the superiority of the design. Also, I think when they are asking the judges their opinions it should not be in a group. Maybe they should not even be seated together or be able to see each other during the performances. Why blindfold the violinists? Do you think they did not know what violins they were playing anyway? That seemed a bit gimmicky

Your welcome...

If I understand correctly from the video all wood instruments should be played to "keep the wood" in tune through the vibrations. The one violinist even went as far to say playing improperly could ruin it, don´t play myself so I have no idea. I would believe though if the wood was thouroughly dried the tone should not change. Probably the type of strings used then and today would be a much greater difference, just my oppinion. That the violinists were blindfolded was because it was a blind test [] I would imagine to cut out the possibility of " Hey, I´m playing on the strat now" and unconciously play "better".

...The video is interesting but there are differences between that test and say a DBT between amps or CD players....

True, I was just pointing out these people were "Professionals" whos only job is to listen and report, or create in the case of the builder. Even they said that they were expecting to pick out the strat. just because it "should" have been the best. The one critic looked sad that he did not pick it out. In the case of our hobbie this would be simular to telling people we have (for the lack of better object) cable for $0.02/meter, one for $2.00/meter and one for $2000.00/meter, all with the exact same electronic specs as in thickness, resistance etc. many would probably also think that the one for 2k would be able to be picked out, I would not be to sure about it.

I do agree though that it is the synergy of the entire system which makes it or breaks it.

[Fastlayne]

Your welcome...

If I understand correctly from the video all wood instruments should be played to "keep the wood" in tune through the vibrations. The one violinist even went as far to say playing improperly could ruin it, don´t play myself so I have no idea. I would believe though if the wood was thouroughly dried the tone should not change. Probably the type of strings used then and today would be a much greater difference, just my oppinion. That the violinists were blindfolded was because it was a blind test I would imagine to cut out the possibility of " Hey, I´m playing on the strat now" and unconciously play "better".

I read some more about the wood used by Stradivari and other violin makers of the era. It came from what is now Croatia. For about 100 years in that region the climate was much colder and it caused the trees to grow slower and denser. Also, the logs were floated to Italy by sea and the Italian navy had first selection for shipbuilding. By the time the artisans were able to choose their wood, the logs would have been floating in the salty seawater for a long time. They think Stradivari applied a pre-varnish with an insecticide that crystalized on the wood's surface and the final varnish finish got microscopic cracks in it over time allowing the wood to vibrate more freely to resonate the sound. By comparison, the French violin makers used shellac which was beautiful but more rigid and those violins produced a duller sound. Catgut strings were the standard in the past.

[germerikan]

Your welcome...

If I understand correctly from the video all wood instruments should be played to "keep the wood" in tune through the vibrations. The one violinist even went as far to say playing improperly could ruin it, don´t play myself so I have no idea. I would believe though if the wood was thouroughly dried the tone should not change. Probably the type of strings used then and today would be a much greater difference, just my oppinion. That the violinists were blindfolded was because it was a blind test I would imagine to cut out the possibility of " Hey, I´m playing on the strat now" and unconciously play "better".

I read some more about the wood used by Stradivari and other violin makers of the era. It came from what is now Croatia. For about 100 years in that region the climate was much colder and it caused the trees to grow slower and denser. Also, the logs were floated to Italy by sea and the Italian navy had first selection for shipbuilding. By the time the artisans were able to choose their wood, the logs would have been floating in the salty seawater for a long time. They think Stradivari applied a pre-varnish with an insecticide that crystalized on the wood's surface and the final varnish finish got microscopic cracks in it over time allowing the wood to vibrate more freely to resonate the sound. By comparison, the French violin makers used shellac which was beautiful but more rigid and those violins produced a duller sound. Catgut strings were the standard in the past.

Cool thanks for the tidbits that I did not know!1

[Hifi jim]

Really interesting interview with David Manley of VTL from 1994. It discusses measurements vs. listening and double blind testing. His remarks parallel what Mark has been saying on those topics. Also some very interesting reading about recording, tubes, and analog vs. digital. http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/david_manley_tubes_logic_amp_audiophile_sound/

[Hifi jim]

 My favorite part:

Yeah, I also liked this part; Manley: ... I don't believe in syndromes like "anything you can hear I can measure," because that just isn't true. I always ask those people when they last measured a Stradivarius or Guarnerius violin. Or how do you measure the difference between a Steinway and a Bosendorfer or a Bechstein? All three excellent pianos. I love that other issue about measurement vs listening--when people promote the blind panel test, which of course I have no faith in, or even interest in, other than to laugh at. If you were choosing a piano for a concert hall, would you get two or three name pianists that you knew and respected, or would you put it up to a blind committee to help you pick a concert-hall instrument?

[DrWho]

I think Manley makes a lot of illogical statements....which I
hesitate saying because I agreed with most of what he was saying in
that article.

Hs distaste with AES seems more about single
individuals than the society as a whole, which he kinda illudes to in
one comment. I think his comments about "new" and ignoring the "old"
are totally unfounded, or the interest in pop radio car crap or
whatever are totally unfounded....I know of certain individuals in the
society that are that way, but the vast majority that I've met are
nowhere close to that. Btw, I'm not a member of AES (for a long list of
reasons).

Anyways, he makes comments like this:

"They're going to want to know why their stuff sounded sub-loud,
sub-clear, sub-punchy to the Colgate toothpaste commercial. The quality
criteria have shifted to where "good enough" is the order of the day.
That's sad."

He
is simply making different assumptions than the person paying the
engineer to mix the commercial. Manley thinks the louder commerical is
"good enough quality", but really, in my mind, the louder commercial is
of higher quality. It is higher quality because that's what the person
is paying for.....the commercial owner is not paying for some realistic
reproduction of someone's voice or whatever.....they are paying the mix
engineer to create something that grabs the attention, and that means
compressed as all get out. To apply audiophile standards to a
commercial is totally backwards.....might as well judge a sports car
using criteria for what makes a good tractor for plowing fields...you
might get all the facts correct, but it's a pointless exercise. Also, a
commercial is not a form of art....it is a utility.

I understand the point he is trying to make, but I disagree with the method of delivery and that loses credibility in my book.

Back to blind listening....

"If you were choosing a piano for a concert hall, would you get two or
three name pianists that you knew and respected, or would you put it up
to a blind committee to help you pick a concert-hall instrument?"

If
the purpose of blind listening is to test the listener, then why would
a test of the listener tell you anything about picking a concert-hall
instrument? Except maybe to differentiate those that can make an
audible decision versus a decision solely on cultural influence?

One last comment.....

"But I don't believe in syndromes like "anything you can hear I can
measure," because that just isn't true. I always ask those people when
they last measured a Stradivarius or Guarnerius violin. Or how do you
measure the difference between a Steinway and a Bösendorfer or a
Bechstein? All three excellent pianos."

So
when is "because that just isn't true" a logical statement? Is his
example about piano differences really his justification? Because I
personally would have no problem measuring the differences between the
various pianos and demonstrating enough correlation to describe some
differences. I certainly wouldn't be able to describe every single
nuance by the measurements alone, but that's because I don't have
enough experience measuring or listening to different pianos. The movie
about the violin is a perfect example of someone spending way more time
with it and in my mind accomplishing just what Manley claims "just
isn't true".

I also really really doubt Manley would be able to
identify the brand of piano without reading the label. I know I've
personally heard some quite horrid sounding Steinways and
Boesendorfers.....am I supposed to just accept the crap sound because
of the name? I know 99% of the "elite audiophile" community would be
spewing praise about the polished turd. In fact, I witnessed it just
recently......it was a huge emperor has no clothes moment.

I
guess I don't understand why this article was brought up in context of
this thread because it has absolutely nothing to do with blind
listening other than you shouldn't test people that can't hear. Perhaps
it's because Manley implies justification of belief in magic? I think
the real resistance to blind listening is one of the emotional response
when one finds out that he/she can't prove an audible difference. That
doesn't mean a difference can't be heard...it just can't be proven
audible....I gotta wonder how important something unprovable is
relative to the huge slew of other problems that are very audible, very
measurable, and very easy to identify with blind listening.

It
seems the argument I'm hearing is that we should ignore the fact that
it's a turd and encourage comparing relative shine of the polish
because that's the refined thing to do. If you think the sound you're
hearing is limited by the things that can't be proven audible with
blind listening, then it's time for a reality check.

[Fastlayne]

I think Manley makes a lot of illogical statements....which I hesitate saying because I agreed with most of what he was saying in that article.

....

That interview was 15 years ago and his comments were his opinions about the state of audio recording and playback then. Not sure I understand your take on the Colgate commercial part of his interview.

"I wrote in this little book of mine [The Vacuum Tube Logic Book] that when I was heavily in the recording industry, English recording company executives and A&R men would have Leak amplifiers driving Tannoy speakers in their offices or their reference playback system, and in America they had McIntosh driving JBL or Altec Lansing speakers. That's all changed. Now they have boom boxes and little Auratones—a car radio is now the standard. If you make a pop record and it sounds softer on a car radio than the Colgate commercial preceding it, you're finished as a mastering engineer. That's your last job. They're going to want to know why their stuff sounded sub-loud, sub-clear, sub-punchy to the Colgate toothpaste commercial. The quality criteria have shifted to where "good enough" is the order of the day. That's sad."

I think he was referring to the pop record as "good enough", not the commercials. "Good enough" in the sense it just has to sound good on a car radio, not the HiFi that used to be the standard with the promise of bringing the live experience into the home.

15 years ago we didn't have a lot of what there are now for audio format choices. Very few CDs in my collection that are over ten years old sound very good compared to newer ones, whether they are new recordings or remasters. Seems like if a lot of the recording companies could just get us to accept "good enough" and sell it to us for top dollar, they would. Fortunately people can hear the difference between mp3 and other formats, even in the car.

I'd like to know what he has to say about the industry today.

[Hifi jim]

"They're going to want to know why their stuff sounded sub-loud,

sub-clear, sub-punchy to the Colgate toothpaste commercial. The quality

criteria have shifted to where "good enough" is the order of the day.

That's sad."

He

is simply making different assumptions than the person paying the

engineer to mix the commercial. Manley thinks the louder commerical is

"good enough quality", but really, in my mind, the louder commercial is

of higher quality. It is higher quality because that's what the person

is paying for.....the commercial owner is not paying for some realistic

reproduction of someone's voice or whatever.....they are paying the mix

engineer to create something that grabs the attention, and that means

compressed as all get out. To apply audiophile standards to a

commercial is totally backwards.....might as well judge a sports car

using criteria for what makes a good tractor for plowing fields...you

might get all the facts correct, but it's a pointless exercise. Also, a

commercial is not a form of art....it is a utility.

Well, I think you read that one wrong Mike. As Fastlayne pointed out, he was criticizing the pop recording for being compressed to sound as loud as the commercial that preceded it. That is the phenomena that has taken over the recording industry. Most of my best recordings, those with the least compression, don't really sound good in my car because they lack the compression necessary to drown out the wind and road noise. So engineers have compressed everything to a higher db to sound good in your car and not on your home hi-fi.

"But I don't believe in syndromes like "anything you can hear I can

measure," because that just isn't true. I always ask those people when

they last measured a Stradivarius or Guarnerius violin. Or how do you

measure the difference between a Steinway and a Bösendorfer or a

Bechstein? All three excellent pianos."

So

when is "because that just isn't true" a logical statement? Is his

example about piano differences really his justification? Because I

personally would have no problem measuring the differences between the

various pianos and demonstrating enough correlation to describe some

differences. I certainly wouldn't be able to describe every single

nuance by the measurements alone, but that's because I don't have

enough experience measuring or listening to different pianos. The movie

about the violin is a perfect example of someone spending way more time

with it and in my mind accomplishing just what Manley claims "just

isn't true".

I'd ask how you are able to measure the difference between two different pianos that are playing the same piece and therefore the same frequencies. Curious, because I have no idea.

I also really really doubt Manley would be able to

identify the brand of piano without reading the label. I know I've

personally heard some quite horrid sounding Steinways and

Boesendorfers.....am I supposed to just accept the crap sound because

of the name? I know 99% of the "elite audiophile" community would be

spewing praise about the polished turd. In fact, I witnessed it just

recently......it was a huge emperor has no clothes moment.

I don't doubt that Manley can distinguish between a Steinway and a Bosendorfer. I know I can, and I'm far from a concert pianist. Most lovers of classical music are able to tell a Yamaha from a Steinway from a Bosendorfer. Very different sounding instruments. That doesn't mean that there aren't terrible examples of all of those pianos, check your local school auditorium for those. But any credible orchestra performs and records with very good examples of those instruments. When Tori Amos plays her Bosendorfer does it sound remotely similar to Billy Joels Baldwin piano? Not to me.

I

guess I don't understand why this article was brought up in context of

this thread because it has absolutely nothing to do with blind

listening other than you shouldn't test people that can't hear.

I thought it relative, and after all I'm the one that posted it. Who is it though, that you're suggesting can't hear?

It

seems the argument I'm hearing is that we should ignore the fact that

it's a turd and encourage comparing relative shine of the polish

because that's the refined thing to do. If you think the sound you're

hearing is limited by the things that can't be proven audible with

blind listening, then it's time for a reality check.

I think you've missed the point entirely. Where does anyone suggest that we ignore "the fact that it's a turd"? The article, which also parallels some of my own viewpoints, suggests that high fidelity is a pursuit which encompasses all things large and small, measured and some at this time... unmeasurable.

[Fastlayne]

I think Manley makes a lot of illogical statements....which I hesitate saying because I agreed with most of what he was saying in that article.

...Back to blind listening....
"If you were choosing a piano for a concert hall, would you get two or three name pianists that you knew and respected, or would you put it up to a blind committee to help you pick a concert-hall instrument?"

If the purpose of blind listening is to test the listener, then why would a test of the listener tell you anything about picking a concert-hall instrument? Except maybe to differentiate those that can make an audible decision versus a decision solely on cultural influence?

He's not making a case for blind testing, he wants to pick a piano for a concert hall.

"I love that other issue about measurement vs listening—when people promote the blind panel test, which of course I have no faith in, or even interest in, other than to laugh at. If you were choosing a piano for a concert hall, would you get two or three name pianists that you knew and respected, or would you put it up to a blind committee to help you pick a concert-hall instrument?"

He is saying he would not use blind testing for such a purpose because he has no faith in it. I don't think those who believe in blind testing think they are intended to "test the listener", but it is unavoidable. After all, they don't call them double blind auditions, do they?

I think an ABX test that has a good chance of success would be to blindfold people and let them smell two different violins, one old and one new. That's one reason why I think having those violin players blindfolded was silly.

[DrWho]

I think he was referring to the pop record as "good enough", not the commercials. "Good enough" in the sense it just has to sound good on a car radio, not the HiFi that used to be the standard with the promise of bringing the live experience into the home.

I guess I read that too fast, but still....there is different criteria for what constitutes quality for the radio versus quality in the home. Not that I fully agree with it, but the reason the crap speakers are being used in the studio is so that the engineers can know what it will sound like on the typical crap systems. Mixing for ideal playback systems is extremely easy, but referencing a mix for every system in the world is probably one of the hardest parts of recording.

I really feel that recordings should be judged on the merits of their intentions....which really sucks because there's a lot of good music out there that is produced like crap because the record labels have gotta stay in business. However, it all comes full circle to the customers that treat music like a utility rather than an art...in which case, good enough is totally appropriate.

[russ69]

Well guys, this thread I started has had some very interesting ideas expressed. I don't think either side was convinced of anything they didn't already believe. I myself don't believe that DBTing has any value in hi-fi evaluation. I feel the same way about demos in strange places or with strange equipment. For my systems I need time to evaluate changes, sometimes a long time. I fairly sure, all the big name reviewers use the same method and the reason they do it that way is because it works the best. Measurements are fine, I'm an engineer, so I can't discount measured results but the specifications I've seen never have told me anything about the way things sound.

Good discussion.

Thanx, Russ

[DrWho]

So engineers have compressed everything to a higher db to sound good in your car and not on your home hi-fi.

Is that really a bad thing? I don't think so...

I'd ask how you are able to measure the difference between two different pianos that are playing the same piece and therefore the same frequencies. Curious, because I have no idea.

For starters, there isn't any one metric that will describe the difference....but I would start with an FFT. Maybe take some polar response measurements to quantify it's influence with the acoustic hall. You could move accelerometers around on the sound board to describe its modal characteristics. You could do fake impulse measurements by striking each key individually and characterizing the attack and decay. 3D waterfalls of recorded pieces, heck, you could even take physical dimension measurements and calculate natural resonances, both mechanical and acoustic...weight of the keys, acceleration ratios, hammer shapes, etc...

I'm sure there are others, but that's where I'd start....and then if you start measuring enough good sounding pianos and enough bad sounding pianos I think you would start to find trends...maybe even find some ways to improve on existing pianos too.

That doesn't mean that there aren't terrible examples of all of those pianos, check your local school auditorium for those. But any credible orchestra performs and records with very good examples of those instruments. When Tori Amos plays her Bosendorfer does it sound remotely similar to Billy Joels Baldwin piano? Not to me.

I was more trying to argue that the sounds of different brands of piano (or different brands of anything) can easily overlap, especially in light of how bad some of them can sound...I would also argue that the sound of the acoustic hall will many times dominate the sound of the piano itself too.

How many times have you heard people say something along the lines of "I loved the piano tonight....I think it was a Brand A"...."nah, I think it was a brand B".....then the two people take a sneak peak at the piano and are like "ahhh, it was a Brand C..." and then go on to spill all sorts of common adjectives about Brand C.

Sure, not everyone does this, but the point is that so many people will talk about how different two things sound when they know they're different....but they can never speak with such confidence when they don't know what it is.....there is a reason behind that and it's the same reason that I have no problem suggesting that I can easily find two different brand pianos that can't be differentiated except by the logo. Heck, I could take the same piano and change the logo on it and get the culturally defined adjectives associated with the brands and not the sound being heard at the time.

The crazy thing is I have no doubt the people describing the sound are really describing exactly what they hear....when you listen for something, you are naturally going to hear it....it's kinda like tunnel vision. It doesn't even have to be the power of suggestion, but the power of suggestion works for the very same reason. I dunno what this is normally called, but I like to refer to it as focusing your hearing or maybe tunnel ears is a better term.....it's something you gotta teach new soundguys when showing them how to EQ because you're going to end up with some pretty crappy sound if you focus on the changes you want to make.

Who is it though, that you're suggesting can't hear?

I took that as one of Manley's conclusions....don't do blind listening tests on the general public who aren't refined/trained listeners.

Where does anyone suggest that we ignore "the fact that it's a turd"? The article, which also parallels some of my own viewpoints, suggests that high fidelity is a pursuit which encompasses all things large and small, measured and some at this time... unmeasurable.

I am [] (btw, it's said tongue in cheek)....but seriously, I guess I personally don't find high-fidelity in small things when there are still large things to be taken care of.....perhaps that's the engineer in me. Why improve something by 1 when it's off by 100? Audio seems like one of those things that until you've heard it improved by 100 that the 1 digit improvement doesn't really impress you anymore...

[DrWho]

I don't think those who believe in blind
testing think they are intended to "test the listener", but it is
unavoidable.

Well I personally only intend to use blind
listening for testing the listener....it seems to be a common theme
with all the audio engineers at work too. I don't think I've met any
audio engineer that doesn't feel the same way, but then I haven't
talked to all of them about blind listening. It's just one of the many
tools engineers will use.

I think an ABX
test that has a good chance of success would be to blindfold people and
let them smell two different violins, one old and one new. That's one
reason why I think having those violin players blindfolded was
silly.

Do different aged violins smell different? I gotta
confess that I've never noticed the smell of any of the violas I've
played over the years. The only smell I can remember is that of the
rosin when you put too much on (and use the cheap stuff) and it gets
rosin dust all over the place and in your nose.

Nevertheless, if smell was an indicator then it really wasn't double blind....

[Hifi jim]

So engineers have compressed everything to a higher db to sound good in your car and not on your home hi-fi.

 

Is that really a bad thing? I don't think so..

I think it's the single biggest problem in modern recording. What's good about the misuse and abuse of compression?

For starters, there isn't any one metric that will describe the difference....but I would start with an FFT. Maybe take some polar response measurements to quantify it's influence with the acoustic hall. You could move accelerometers around on the sound board to describe its modal characteristics. You could do fake impulse measurements by striking each key individually and characterizing the attack and decay. 3D waterfalls of recorded pieces, heck, you could even take physical dimension measurements and calculate natural resonances, both mechanical and acoustic...weight of the keys, acceleration ratios, hammer shapes, etc...

I'm sure there are others, but that's where I'd start....and then if you start measuring enough good sounding pianos and enough bad sounding pianos I think you would start to find trends...maybe even find some ways to improve on existing pianos too.

Isn't that how digital piano sounds are modeled after real pianos? And if so, doesn't that suggest that the real pianos in fact sound different... different enough to be detected from one another?

That doesn't mean that there aren't terrible examples of all of those pianos, check your local school auditorium for those. But any credible orchestra performs and records with very good examples of those instruments. When Tori Amos plays her Bosendorfer does it sound remotely similar to Billy Joels Baldwin piano? Not to me.

I was more trying to argue that the sounds of different brands of piano (or different brands of anything) can easily overlap, especially in light of how bad some of them can sound...I would also argue that the sound of the acoustic hall will many times dominate the sound of the piano itself too.

I think comparing the possibility of something not performing at its best, or in a poor acoustical environment, would be like listening to a speaker system with a blown tweeter and in a glass room. Are we not comparing recorded pianos such as the examples I gave? Comparing ill performing instruments in less than ideal acoustical spaces is pointless in my opinion.

Why improve something by 1 when it's off by 100? Audio seems like one of those things that until you've heard it improved by 100 that the 1 digit improvement doesn't really impress you anymore...

And when you've improved your system by 100, what is left but to improve it by 1?

[DrWho]

What's good about the misuse and abuse of compression?

Nothing, but you're calling something misuse when it's intentional and accomplishing its purpose...

I
definitely don't enjoy listening to compressed music at home, but in
the car I definitely prefer it as it's easier on my ears. I also don't
buy a ferrari to plow fields and don't consider it a flaw that it's not
good at it...

I think comparing the possibility of
something not performing at its best, or in a poor acoustical
environment.....

I think you mised my point....the fact
that there are poor sounding pianos of any brand is an indication for
just how varied the sound from a single brand can be. I never suggested
using bad pianos or bad acoustical environments.....different does not
imply bad.

Btw, I'm not saying that all pianos sound the
same....that's absurd. I'm just saying that the sound of any one
particular brand is not as consistent as some might want to
think....every piano has its own sound. But the way a lot of people
listen, you could change the label and the
description would follow the label, not the actual piano behind the
label.

And when you've improved your system by 100, what is left but to improve it by 1?

The
key is "when" because many aren't even touching the 100.....and then sometimes fixing a problem means there
isn't even 1 left over any more...

Case in point....moving to solid state amplifiers removes all the changes available with tube swapping []

[Hifi jim]

What's good about the misuse and abuse of compression?

 

Nothing, but you're calling something misuse when it's intentional and accomplishing its purpose...

I

definitely don't enjoy listening to compressed music at home, but in

the car I definitely prefer it as it's easier on my ears. I also don't

buy a ferrari to plow fields and don't consider it a flaw that it's not

good at it...

Well then the sound engineers have accomplished their goal... compressed music that sounds good in the car and on MP3 players. Not sure where that leaves hi-fi enthusiasts though, considering 9 out of 10 recordings are overly compressed.

I think you mised my point....the fact

that there are poor sounding pianos of any brand is an indication for

just how varied the sound from a single brand can be. I never suggested

using bad pianos or bad acoustical environments.....different does not

imply bad.

Any poor sounding piano by the makers mentioned that I've heard have either been not cared for and in need of repair, or out of tune. While there are some slight variations to tone in any handmade instrument, the house sound remains. Guitars have lots of variations between them, but a Martin sounds like a Martin, and a Gibson sounds like a Gibson. The differences between the two are larger than the slight variations between the same brand and model.

Btw, I'm not saying that all pianos sound the

same....that's absurd.

I never suggested that you said that all pianos sound the same, you've either misinterpreted my post or misquoted it. You did make this statement; DrWho's quote earlier: "I also really really doubt Manley would be able to identify the brand of piano without reading the label." No matter the slight variations between these handmade instruments, they have a general house sound that is very unique, and in the case of some such as Bosendorfer... extremely unique. If you can simulate that sound in a less expensive piano, you wouldn't be chatting here... you'd be a millionaire owner of the most successful piano company ever. Same if you could recreate the vintage Martin guitar sound... many have tried and come close, but not nearly close enough.

And when you've improved your system by 100, what is left but to improve it by 1?

The

key is "when" because many aren't even touching the 100.....and then sometimes fixing a problem means there

isn't even 1 left over any more...

Case in point....moving to solid state amplifiers removes all the changes available with tube swapping 

You definitely assume that a lot of people have horrible sounding systems. I don't know what you've heard, but maybe the systems you've heard are horrible, or perhaps you don't care for their flavor. Most systems I've heard are very good if not excellent, maybe not all to my tastes but very good nonetheless. Improving theses systems with subtle changes are what these listeners have done or are willing to try. To suggest that a larger change would reap bigger benefits is a possibility, however many cannot afford the speakers they desire, or the amp they really want. Sometimes there is not enough space for their dream speakers, or running tube amps is an impractical venture. At this point, many listeners are content with their system and want to extract that last bit of performance from it, and so they tweak by using the things that cannot be measured. What's wrong with that?

[SSnyder]

The "double blind test" will live forever as the ultimate rationalization used by people who want desperately to be relevantly involved in audio, but who obviously have no discernment for what they are hearing - thus "everything sounds the same". It's ironic that they attempt to negate the main reason for being in the hobby in the first place, but hey, that's why it's called rationalization.

There's another group that embraces the double blind myth. People whose egos insist they always must have the best, but whose wallets won't cooperate, will insist forever that their $29 CDP is exactly the same, and sounds no different than, a $2900 state of the art unit........

You make an argument ad hominem and build a straw man. You'd never get away with that in a Jesuit high school.

Many who value DBTs don't deny things can sound different but they want to know which things really do sound different. That's how progress is made for one thing. It's also how you avoid wasting money and effort. And if a cheaper device can sound the same as a more expensive one then isn't that a good thing?

I think many don't dare put themselves to the test. And I must add that having bullshitted myself I've no doubt of the ability of others to do the same.

Could not aggree more

[russ69]

Nice job, Lazarus.

[whatever55]

I wanted to illustrate blind testing with an example. Let's say we have a photograph of a very well hidden tiger in the brush. Now if we ask people, what do they see in the photograph many might not see the tiger. On the other hand if we say; Can you see the tiger in the photograph, most people will know what to look for and find the tiger. Listening is the same way, if you help people to locate what they are listening for they can focus on the task and identify changes more accurately.

Read and Discuss............

Thanx, Russ

All depends on what you are looking for.....

Overall picture quality, sharpness, color, depth or looking for the tiger

sound stage, true to life sound reproduction, " live or Memorex" or did you hear the distortion on that cymbal.

[Don Richard]

Blind testing is designed to detect differences, that's all. Blind testing cannot prove that A is better than B or vice versa. It is normally used in audio to determine thresholds of audibility and to develop population based data. As a tool for assessing audio equipment, it has limits, mostly in qualitative evaluations between products.

One instance where blind testing would have some value is to disprove someone's claims of the audible superiority of one product over another by that person. As an obvious example would be to test someone's claims of one cable's superiority over another by duplicating the original equipment setup (or use the same equipment) along with the same music or test signals employed in the original assessment. If it cannot be determined that the person can even detect a difference in the two cables in such a blind test it is safe to conclude that his qualitative judgements regarding these cables are suspect. Note that here we have not tested any equipment but that we have tested a person in order to determine the accuracy of their perceptions.