OK, I tried hydrogen audio. It didn't go too well.

[mmerrill99]

You're getting closer to it anyway. Again, depending on what you're interested in.

Nope, your logic is wrong. You only focus on this one factor & consider you've simplified matters for the listener & therefore there are less confounders. But you don't see the unscientific flaw in your logic - without validating that your blind test has not introduced other confounders for the listener, you are just living with this belief.

 

Your answer "sure" to the last time I said this seems to indicate that you are not interested in considering scientific logic & so I assume you have your beliefs that your sticking to.

[mmerrill99]

True. But that kind of knowledge doesn't lead you to expect something to sound better or worse for which you should have no expectation as to its sound quality before you've even listened to it. That's very different from telling me that I should look out for distortions in the first sample, but not in the second one.

I guarantee you that if you tell someone to look out for distortions in the first sample but not in the second, you will skew the results & your test is a shambles!!

 

Similarly, if you tell people that there is no difference between two samples or they have a preconceived notion that there could be no difference between whatever (cables, software, computer transports, etc) - you will similarly screw the test

[Bystander]

Let's put it another way: All else being equal, in how far is a sighted listening test superior to a blind listening test in evaluating the sound quality?

 

I guarantee you that if you tell someone to look out for distortions in the first sample but not in the second, you will skew the results & your test is a shambles!!

 

Exactly.

[Bystander]

Similarly, if you tell people that there is no difference between two samples or they have a preconceived notion that there could be no difference between whatever (cables, software, computer transports, etc) - you will similarly screw the test

Yes, a thousand times yes.

[mmerrill99]

Let's put it another way: All else being equal

But it never is - it can't be because of the test design,

in how far is a sighted listening test superior to a blind listening test in evaluating the sound quality?

You see, you're not listening, I never said it was "superior" - I said, like Jud, they are both equally untrustworthy

[Bystander]

I never said it was "superior" - I said, like Jud, they are both equally untrustworthy

Well, that's something then. At least you agree that sighted listening tests are untrustworthy.

[mmerrill99]

Well, that's something then. At least you agree that sighted listening tests are untrustworthy.

I do reach a decision though & it comes from living with a device or software or whatever & listening to it over time. This to me, reveals more about the nature of the sound.

 

Hope this doesn't disappoint you too much

[Bystander]

Not at all. It's certainly not my place to criticize whatever you do at home.

[Jud]

I would in no way disagree with that. But whatever effect the sight of an expensive hifi system has on your listening experience (or the knowledge that you're listening to 'Audio-Nirvana-HQ-Perfect-Plus' instead of 'iTunes'), it will not help you hear any more details in the music than if you had no such knowledge.

 

 

Howdy, been looking for old posts of mine as some food for thought in respect of blind vs. sighted testing, and finally found them. Please have a look at the following old posts regarding separate (mine and Superdad's) listening impressions of differences between different versions of the same bit-perfect software player:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/those-scientific-bent-17107/#post245776

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/those-scientific-bent-17107/index4.html#post246884

 

In these posts we're dealing with the degree of correspondence between separate, independent listening impressions.

 

Then as a followup, have a look at this post about my miserable failure at blind testing the same thing, differences between two different versions of the same bit-perfect software player: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/%2A%2A-should-set-cat-amongst-pigeons-19405/

 

So why the difference in results? Blind testing revealed that the correspondence between Superdad's and my independent listening impressions (liking the same two builds out of nine we listened to over a period of months, describing the differences between these and other builds in a similar fashion, even both deciding that a particular build sounded different than the previous one when the developer had explicitly told us not to expect any change) were just a series of remarkable coincidences? Or is there something in the blind testing process that is to a degree antithetical to discerning differences that might actually be audible under other circumstances?

 

As I said, this is just intended as food for thought. I'm very conscious of the fact that I can easily fool myself or be wrong for any number of reasons. Still, I would be interested in controlled trials of independent, sighted listening impressions versus blind testing to try to determine whether there were any consistent differences between the two methods in finding real differences audible and in false positives.

[tne]

With the complaints here about HA, a site that I value and appreciate for learning ( I form my own opinions, thank you ) just like I value CA, I would also suggest people have a look at changstar. It is headphones and measurement oriented, friendly, irreverent helpful people who do not seem to take their internet personas too seriously.

 

Check it out if that is your cuppa.

[mmerrill99]

As I said, this is just intended as food for thought. I'm very conscious of the fact that I can easily fool myself or be wrong for any number of reasons. Still, I would be interested in controlled trials of independent, sighted listening impressions versus blind testing to try to determine whether there were any consistent differences between the two methods in finding real differences audible and in false positives.

 

Yep, & including such positive & negative controls in blind tests would go a long way towards checking this out i.e. how many times a null is returned for subtle differences that are known to be audible. These controls would give us all an ability to judge how valid the blind test is at revealing differences it is purporting to be able to reveal.

[Barnaby]

Hi. Just came across this thread today. I had a brief visit to HA and it was clear it wasn't for me. There was one person I considered rude and unpleasant when I put in my first post ( a question about amplifiers ) he accused me of trolling and when it was obvious that I wasn't basically called me stupid. The mod apologised on behalf of the forum which I thought was quite nice.

 

The other replies I had were courteous and informative in the ways members of that forum see audio. I had no problem with them, though I find it impossible to agree with their assertions ( as I understand them ). Each to their own I guess. It isn't the sort of site I like but no offence to most of the folks on there who as I say seemed pretty decent people from my limited experience

[wgscott]

Sounds like a definite change for the better.

 

Maybe it is time to try it again!

[Barnaby]

I don't know. The general view of audio doesn't really coincide with mine and the "science thing" doesn't chime either. I have no axe to grind but was happy to leave the site for those whose view differs from mine

[sullis02]

On 9/16/2014 at 8:15 AM, Paul R said:

 

Oh, there are a lot of well reasoned and interesting posts there. But there are a lot of fanatical posts there too.

 

OOften, hundreds of posts get deleted after a person is driven away.

 

 

You sure they don't simply go to the HA 'Recycle bin' subforum?

 

I see three of wgscott's posts there.  And four still visible in the Unix thread he posted to.   And 15 others still visible in other threads he posted to.   That makes 22, the amount of total posts listed for wgscott to HA.  

 

 

[Speedskater]

And now some three years later, another post?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Speedskater said:

And now some three years later, another post?

 

You know how you come home after you speak with someone and think of all the things you should have said?  In this case it took a while.

[Snowmonkey]

54 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You know how you come home after you speak with someone and think of all the things you should have said? 

 

I believe the French call it "l'esprit de l'escalier" (staircase wit).

[Ron Scubadiver]

HA is good for FB2k support.  For anything else, forget about it.

[sullis02]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

 

You know how you come home after you speak with someone and think of all the things you should have said?  In this case it took a while.

 

No, in this case it was discussion of this thread, on another CA thread, reminding me that it exists.

 

 

[sullis02]

14 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

HA is good for FB2k support.  For anything else, forget about it.

 

Your posts may be good for something, but for HA information, forget about it. 

 

Here are topics with "Recent posts" as of HA login today:

 

 

Have a working 'expander' based on DolbyA (not same design) -- works well. 
[Scientific Discussion]

 

2018 Format poll [LOSSLESS] 
[Polls]

 

Once and for all .. Chromecast Audio device with Foobar 
[General Audio]

 

Album Art Downloader XUI 
[General Audio]

 

2018 Format poll [Lossy Formats] 
[Polls]

 

How to make XLD automatically number tracks? 
[AAC]

 

AV1 got released! (2018-03-28) 
[Digital A/V News]

 

How to exclude tracks from CD extraction with CUE Ripper? 
[CD Hardware/Software]

 

Why wasn't there ever a VHS based consumer audio format? 
[General Audio]

 

TAK 2.3.1 Beta 1 
[Lossless / Other Codecs]

 

Subwoofer advice needed 
[Audio Hardware]

 

Sony A30 / A40 Series Playlist question 
[Audio Hardware]

 

How to encode CD # in track tags (EAC/LAME) 
[MP3]

 

“Vintage” amps 
[Audio Hardware]

 

 

 

 

[Ron Scubadiver]

2 hours ago, sullis02 said:

 

Your posts may be good for something, but for HA information, forget about it. 

 

 

 

I really don't appreciate you putting a personal attack spin on my opinions of HA.  I have my opinion, you have yours.  We can agree to disagree, but don't stomp on me.  Due to the rules and their uneven enforcement, I find HA to be a mess.

[wgscott]

On 4/19/2018 at 12:39 PM, sullis02 said:

 

You sure they don't simply go to the HA 'Recycle bin' subforum?

 

I see three of wgscott's posts there.  And four still visible in the Unix thread he posted to.   And 15 others still visible in other threads he posted to.   That makes 22, the amount of total posts listed for wgscott to HA.  

 

 

Apologies for missing the necropost.

 

There was one point they were deleting what I wrote so fast that I thought there was some sort of software error.

 

The comical part of all of this is that I am probably in the 1% right-wing extreme objectivist camp here, and am a reasonably successful scientist (not audio-related, as Alex enjoys pointing out), but as far as their BB management was concerned, I needed to be sent to re-education camp.  

 

I think I got the message and got out before I was banned, but it was very clear that is where I was headed.

 

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, wgscott said:

I am probably in the 1% right-wing extreme objectivist camp here

 

That's you, Bill, right-wing.   

[AudioDoctor]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to restart old arguments...