The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests

The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests

An ongoing controversy within the high-end audio community is the efficacy of blind versus sighted audio product listening tests. In a blind listening test, the listener has no specific knowledge of what products are being tested, thereby removing the psychological influence that the product’s brand, design, price and reputation have on the listeners’ impression of its sound quality. While double-blind protocols are standard practice in all fields of science - including consumer testing of food and wine - the audio industry remains stuck in the dark ages in this regard. The vast majority of audio equipment manufacturers and reviewers continue to rely on sighted listening to make important decisions about the products’ sound quality.

An important question is whether sighted audio product evaluations produce honest and reliable judgments of how the product truly sounds.

In summary, the sighted and blind loudspeaker listening tests in this study produced significantly different sound quality ratings. The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material.

In other words, if you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. It’s time the audio industry grow up and acknowledge this fact, if it wants to retain the trust and respect of consumers. It may already be too late according to Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt, who lamented in a recent interview:

“Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that
had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..”

That pretty much summed up my feeling about the audiophile industry - and the position that I take.

Its undeniable that in blind tests, many audiophiles would be hard pressed to determine that music produced by so called high end equipment are much better than their budget counterparts in most cases, not all.


Sighted tests can sometimes provide an "imaginary" impression of a product's superiority most notably because of eg: brand presence and prestige, price, accomplishments of previous equipment of said brand and track record of the company. To this day, I refuse to believe that even the most high end of company has a full line up of products that truly is great. But as said, some brands reflect such an aura that hardcore supporters will not accept that fact.


Of course, all the comments i have stated are merely my OWN opinion and anyone can disagree. It's just from my own experience, that after splurging an insane amount on a pair of speakers and in blind testing, I actually prefered another pair which was way cheaper, but the differences disappeared when I compared them side to side sighted. Or maybe I'm just biased

Rector,
You got the wrong intent of the OP. The purpose of this thread is not to compare between the differences that exist between high-end and low-end equipment. It is to prove that there isn't any audible difference between equipment in double-blind test. The OP does not believe in sonic differences between amplifiers and CD players and firmly believe that they all sound the same, low-end or high-end.

CN Yee,

I am curious to know if your listening source is predominantly CDs or concert DVDs, since you own the Denon AVR amp.

ryder wrote:Rector,
You got the wrong intent of the OP. The purpose of this thread is not to compare between the differences that exist between high-end and low-end equipment. It is to prove that there isn't any audible difference between equipment in double-blind test. The OP does not believe in sonic differences between amplifiers and CD players and firmly believe that they all sound the same, low-end or high-end.

Whoopsy doopsy then. But the original copy pasted article that I've read before is indeed pointing towards the sonic differences between lower priced and higher priced items, specifically pointing that a high end system does NOT necessarily sound better than a lower priced system in a blind test. To say there is NO SONIC DIFFERENCES between high and low priced items is simply ridiculous. Blind testing has never been about proving that systems sound indifferent, rather what sounds better or worse in comparison without the participants knowing the test subjects.


No audio systems from different companies sound the same, irregardless of price.Again my personal opinion

Sorry for taking it way off topic

Rector wrote:To say there is NO SONIC DIFFERENCES between high and low priced items is simply ridiculous. Blind testing has never been about proving that systems sound indifferent, rather what sounds better or worse in comparison without the participants knowing the test subjects.

The OP has been pontificating this point for ages here and on Harbeth user forum. It appears that he has a point to prove, for whatever reasons I am not aware of. He believes all other amps at whatever price levels sound the same as his Denon AVR amp.

ryder wrote:

Rector wrote:To say there is NO SONIC DIFFERENCES between high and low priced items is simply ridiculous. Blind testing has never been about proving that systems sound indifferent, rather what sounds better or worse in comparison without the participants knowing the test subjects.

The OP has been pontificating this point for ages here and on Harbeth user forum. It appears that he has a point to prove, for whatever reasons I am not aware of. He believes all other amps at whatever price levels sound the same as his Denon AVR amp.

Hi, Ryder,

Perhaps He who you mentioned should question himself whether He could, in the first place, Know How, to differentiate Correctly the difference of any sound quality produced by different hifi systems, only then He could make such statements.
As we all know that our hifi listening skill needs to be trained or taught either by own auditions experiences or by experienced audiophiles.
However, in reality, there are still many ( who are nomally not audiophiles ) who do not know how to differentiate the change of sound quality or difference in sound quality, they just know that it is the same music played with the same sound quality produced.

Hi hughesths,

Irony is he has shut down his doors on other equipment and didn't attempt to make any comparisons before coming up with firm conclusions based on bits and pieces of reports collected from the web.

Hi Ryder,

As long as He is happy with his own gears & statements, never mind.

My experiences with most entry level AV sound ( used as HIfi ), avr or av gears, the change of cable, player, gears...etc in the same AV system will normally give very subtle sound difference which is sometimes difficult to differentiate.
I've begun my av system from the entry level too, gradually upgraded by changing cables, adding ac products....And now a slight change of cable used in the system for example, will give a quite noticeable sound difference.
However it is not the case with most Entry Level dedicated Hifi gears like hifi amp, cd player....a change of a cable in the Hifi system will already give a noticeable sound difference, regards.

In addition to some people being trained on hifi listening
skills, but also an acumen for the awareness of how real-live music
sounds in the first place cannot be over emphasised. Then only can the re-constructed sound by means of hifi equipment can be deemed a good approximation of the original sound or not.

Same goes for the non-audiophile people who sometimes also can easily pick out and differentiate between good reprodutions of sound vs bad
reproductions.

Some friends' spouses are really good at this. And the
best part is that they are not visually distracted by the huge mammoth
size equipment or funky looking tower speakers. They just sit, listen,
and then whisper to their husbands ... " this sounds horrible!", or
"This one sounds very real!"


I believe the quoted article by J Gordon Holt was suppose to mean that people should call a spade, a spade. Not based on some herd mentality that if a certain majority believes in something, then that something must be true. For example, a class-A amp will always sound better than class-AB, or that tubes will always be more neutral than solid state amps, etc etc.
Specific blind-listening tests is but one of many tools one can make an honest evaluation of such gear.

We only need to look back into history that it was commonly accepted that the world is flat and the sun and the stars revolved around the earth... Until Mr. Copernicus came along.

Actually interconnect-cables would usually be the best thing to do a blind-test. They are usually tucked away behind, and as long as the shop guy just refers it to cable-A, then cable-B, then asks the customer which one sounds better, then this in essence is really a very good blind test already. And make sure the customer can't peek behind the equipment and see whats being connected, then its truly a blind test already.

If mr./ms. customer cannot hear the diff, then he/she should buy the cheapest cable that is of sturdy reliable construction.

If mr./ms. customer can hear the diff and chooses the more expensive cable, then it is said that he/she "kena racun" already but in a good way (by audiophile definitions at least).

ryder wrote:Hi hughesths,

Irony is he has shut down his doors on other equipment and didn't attempt to make any comparisons before coming up with firm conclusions based on bits and pieces of reports collected from the web.

There is a Japanese proverb: "If you believe everything you read, then it is better not to read."

Guess this definitely applies to stuff on the Internet as well.

On a lighter side, some of you might have seen this already... but here it is just for fun:


Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA

http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/


.... so this has got to be so TRUE then !

blind fold all those test listeners & see how they judges!!

azri wrote:blind fold all those test listeners & see how they judges!!

or better still.. sumbat their ears instead!

you know, i saw encik cardas tutup mata & kerutkan dahi during listening hours just to feel the rhythm & clarity of musiks.. what a crap haha

and i also saw encik Kimber Tanggal baju & seluar when he testing out the new cable design... to make sure he can "feel" the music without any ketat feeling !

i thought kimber was a cow??

no.... sheep actually!

when is a sheep like a sheep?

Now now guys, this was supposed to be a serious thread.

The most petinent observation of a claim such as this (that there are no sonic difference between all amplifiers, just make believe difference only) is that many people will -not- notice a difference until they become aware of it. But once they are aware , it annoys them so much that they really can't stand it anymore.

The phrase 'ignorance is bliss' is quite an apt description though it is important to highlight that I did not mention this phrase to insult anyone, rather that it so happens to be a very accurate description.

A very useful and eye opening test to do is this simple question.

How many of you notices or are aware of the artifiacts of the 3:2 pull down when playing a movie DVD on an LCD TV, especially one without technologies like motionflow. This one is especially easy because we can easily go to a superstore like HN or BEST to view numerous TVs.

Not so long ago, I used to not even know about such a thing and 3:2 pull down was greek to me. At that time, I wasn't ready to go into AV. A friend was already complaining about the 'jerkiness' of movies on LCD TV but he wasn't technically savvy enough to identify it as the artifact of the 3:2 pull down.

Then one fine day, I suddenly become aware of it. One can say that my visual aquity took a step forward in discernation of picture quality. Another way might also be to put it that I was damn unlucky that day. Because things were never the same again. Now all LCD TVs except those super expensive 200MhZ motion flow ones are totally unacceptable to me. I had to buy a Panasonic plasma with the 480MHz interpolation which was specially designed to nullify the 3:2 pull down. But it still wasn't completely enough and DVD was still quite unsatisfactory to me. I thought Blu-Ray was the answer to my prayers but with the Samsung BDP1400, I could still see the artifact (of 3:2 pulldown) on some movies (e.g. the opening scene of Day After Tomorrow).

If you have not noticed this problem yet and if you are not afraid of falling into a deep hole of never being satisfied with current technology in AV/HT, you can read up about the 3:2 pull down (and other artifacts like interlaced vs progressive scan) and so forth in the net. However, please do not blame me if you can never accept a normal LCD TV, or DVD, or even Blu-Ray again. For myself, I have since learned to live with the limitation and good Blu-Ray can almost make it dissapear on my Panasonic.

For those who are curious, 3:2 pull down refers to the conversion of standard 24fps movie to 30fps video standard used in DVD and TV. Since 24 frames is not compatible with 30frames, what is done is to divide each 5 frames into a set of 3 and 2 (for 24fps), then for the result, the first set of 3 gives 3 frames in 30fps but from the 2nd 2 frames, THREE frames are artificially created. The nett result is a picture that can never flow smoothly (unless one uses state of the art super computer to digitally create 3 unique frames from the 2 original frames, out of the reach of normal TV or DVD/BluRay).

Claims such as this thread is pretty much the same. Have one heard a truly high-end system ? Without the experience, how can one know ? An analogy. How often have we heard from someone that a certain car is 'very powerful', only to find out that it is a 110ps common family sedan. And yet here we are, complaining that a 250ps turbocharged sports coupe is not fast enough to let us overtake safely. The phrase 'power is never enough' ? Or are we just imagining things to the person who thinks 110ps is plenty enough?

The biggest trap is the use of live music as the justification by one who uses it wrongly. I just spend 1 hour sitting 10 feet away from a live band. But I purposely sit BEHIND, 10 feet away from the drummer and with the PA speakers pointing away to the other side. In short, I was able to hear, in full glory, what a REAL drum set sounds like. And I just realized NO system I have heard have been able to reproduce the sound of a real drum. But also that many different system manages to get close, and often the better ones gets closer, the more modest ones not so good.

It's all a matter of experience and exposure. But in the end, if someone is happy with the situation he or she is in and does not want to change it, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. Of course he/she should not put down others who have been enlightened lar.

WongKN wrote:...Have one heard a truly high-end system ? Without the experience, how can one know ? ...

...It's all a matter of experience and exposure. But in the end, if someone is happy with the situation he or she is in and does not want to change it, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. Of course he/she should not put down others who have been enlightened lar...

That is what that never ceases to amaze me. One has to be quite thick-skinned to claim there isn't any audible differences between amps and equipment and to refer them as nonsense or rubbish before having the actual experience to begin with. Mental torture of constant upgrades have been cited when referring to the audio industry as a complete disgust. Further to my amazement the OP has mentioned that his main objective is sound engineering that has led to his extreme hate and abhorrence to everthing in the audio industry which he regards as snake-oils. The short excerpt he had written on HUG is as below.

Ryder - my main objective is in understanding the sound engineering. That was my interest since I built my equalizer back in 1978. I worked as a researcher at Monash university for some 8 years and have written quite a few peered reviewed articles, so my approach tends to be more methodical and critical (i.e. characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment). If you take the totality of what I posted in HUG you will see the full range of subjects that I am interested in. When I came across things that are really ridiculous I will write about them also. The critical articles that I posted are mostly from known industry players and audio researchers with solid research background - not just critics who have some axes to grid. My sense in reading some of the reports is that even industry players are getting despair of how ridiculous the industry has became.

By bringing up the point of having done a research about computer modelling (which totally has no connection with the subject at hand), and citing his "sense" obtained in reading critical articles from industry players, he has indirectly implied to have obtained the rights to claim that everything with regards to the audio industry is rubbish. I cannot understand the logic here.

I felt compelled to add any further response on HUG as the discussion has gone to the point of ridiculous. As I have mentioned before, the OP does have a strong point to prove by constantly portraying the audiophile industry as a nonsense, and this goes without having actual experience in hand apart from taking bits and pieces of articles from the web(okay, articles from industry players) in supporting his claim. I am actually flabbergasted that the OP actually thought his approach as being methodical characterised by exact evaluation and judgement when in actual fact he has done nothing on practical evaluation on the real subject at hand and is relying on articles from others which have not objectively confirm on the subject matter. I am truly surprised by this self-contradictory statement from the OP.

In order not to make myself look even sillier responding to the OP's post on HUG(I am not aware if he feels the same), I have refrained from posting my thoughts over there but here instead.

WongKN,

You seem to have quite a bit of experience on display sets. The motion picture on my projector screen seems to be not too smooth either and kind of choppy, difficult to make out the fast moving objects at certain times. I may need to explore the latest technology that the market offers soon. Display sets on the HT front get obsolete quicker than one can imagine, and it is sometimes disconcerting having to replace one just after 2-3 years of use when something better comes along.

My old Sony 40 inch W series is not too great with motion either. Must be that 3:2 drawdown issue you mentioned. Although in the menus it has a 24P conversion feature and I have it enabled for movies.

I have a newer Sharp 42 inch which also has a similar feature but motion jerkiness seems worse compared to the older Sony.

As for the topic of The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests, yes I believe it's true. The brand of your equiptment, how it looks and the money you paid for it plays a big psychological part in how it will sound to you but I have also heard megabucks systems sounding less than stellar. In fact, in a blind test it would be totally plausable to pick a lesser system over a more expensive or branded one.

All systems sound the same? Not true.

Wong KN, you missed the points of the article I quoted. The article is not about that we cannot hear differences - but how we rate the differences we hear.

Most people can hear differences between speakers, and between different placements of the same speakers. But how biased are we in rating which one sounds 'better'?

As a case in point - when I replaced my Audio Pro with Harbeth C7 my wife was very upset, she claimed that she can't tell the difference between the two speakers. Well she liked the Audio Pro better because of the slick think body with piano black finishing. So her judgments was terribly biased obviously. I think most husband will share my predicaments. Brining home a new gadget usually meets with stiff resistance because it will mean more clutters in the house, less time for her and less time for house chores.

Anyway back to the article I quoted. Results of two experiments were presented. The first experiment demonstrates a very clear bias in preference rating between sighted and unsighted tests.

The second experiment is about different placements of the same speakers. This one is particularly interesting. In unsighted test the participants clearly indicate a preference of one placement over another. But in sighted test - the preference disappears, i.e. they stopped hearing that the different speaker placements do make a difference!


The experiment was conducted by Sean Olive, the Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, a major manufacturer of audio products. The participants were employees Harmon International as well. To quote from the article:

...after I joined Harman International as Manager of Subjective Evaluation [1]. My mission was to introduce formalized, double-blind product testing at Harman. To my surprise, this mandate met rather strong opposition from some of the more entrenched marketing, sales and engineering staff who felt that, as trained audio
professionals, they were immune from the influence of sighted biases.

Let me say that again. The article is not about whether we can hear a difference. It is about how to make an unbiased decision as to which one sounds 'better'.

The lacking in blind test is making the audiophile industry a breeding ground for snake oils and unscrupulous manufactures masking inferior products with fancy looks and exorbitant prices (more expensive must be better right?).

Many thanks Rector, the second poster, for sharing your experience.

Believing is Hearing

Floyd Toole presented a paper at the 97^th convention of the Audio Engineering Society, November, 1994 titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things. Floyd originally worked at the National Research Council in Ottawa, Canada and then went to Harman International Industries, Inc., Northridge, CA. Floyd concludes: “Overall, though, it was clear that the psychological factor of simply revealing the identities of the products altered the preference ratings by amounts that were comparable with any physical factor examined in these tests, including the differences between the products themselves. That an effect of this kind should be observed is not remarkable, nor is it unexpected. What is surprising is that the effect is so strong, and that it applies about equally to experienced and inexperienced listeners.

Since all of this is independent of the sounds arriving at the listeners’ ears, we are led to conclude that, under the circumstances, believing is hearing, The bottom line: if you want to know how a loudspeaker truly sounds, you would be well advised to do the listening tests “blind.”

http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#believing

CN Yee wrote:Wong KN, you missed the points of the article I quoted. The article is not about that we cannot hear differences - but how we rate the differences we hear.

Most people can hear differences between speakers, and between different placements of the same speakers. But how biased are we in rating which one sounds 'better'?

Well, then perhaps the listener who is most-enlightened to know what sounds good vs what sounds bad would be the best to comment. This would likely to come from people in the industry, and those who have enough relevant experiences of having heard many a well set-up high-end (not necessarily high priced) system and actual real-life music like performances in classical halls, small concertos, and even the full glory of famous performance Halls all over.

CN Yee wrote:
As a case in point when I replace my Audio Pro with Harbeth C7 my wife was
very upset, she claimed that she can't tell the differences between the
two speakers. Well she likes the Audio Pro better because of the slick
think body with piano black finishing. So her judgments was terribly
biased. I think most husband will share my predicament. Brining home a
new gadget usually meets with stiff resistance because it will mean
more clutters in the house, less time for her and less time for house
chores.

Please don't take your wife's judgements or opinions to be representative of the general populace. This situation **could** be many many std devs from the peak of the bell curve disti.

CN Yee wrote:
Anyway back to the article I quoted. Results of two
experiments were presented. The first experiment demonstrates a very
clear bias in preference rating between sighted and unsighted tests.

The
second experiment is about different placements of the same speakers.
This one is particularly interesting. In unsighted test the
participants clearly indicate a preference of one placement over
another. But in sighted test - the preference disappears, i.e. they
stopped hearing that the different speaker placements do make a
difference!

I dunno about you, but the bunch of audio kakis i come to know seem to spend endless amounts of time moving their same pair of speakers and changing listening positions to experiment. Safe to say, no one position seems to satisfy them longer than 9 months before they try some new position. But its all done in good faith, and good fun. And as long as one doesn't hurt thyself, its also good exercise compared to the usual laziness of planting one's bum on the comfy listening chair enjoying hifi.

Same goes for one particular audio shop that also keeps changing the speaker and listening positon (some of u will know which is the shop being referred to). As opposed to most hifi shops that just place a pair of speakers for the purpose of making some sound alone.

Not that one method is more "right" than the other, but it goes to show that your statement above is all subjective, and relative. Your quoted group of people would think that the sonic presentation doesn't change if they "see" the same loudspeakers. There is however another group that I have pointed out, who "hear" great sonic changes merely by changing the positions of the speakers and listening position, all the earnest while keeping the same equipment, speakers, etc throughout. I am definitely not generalising here... and neither should you. I'm sure we can both keep an open mind about the 2 contrasting examples above. Right ?

CN Yee wrote:
The experiment was conducted by Sean Olive, the
Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, a major
manufacturer of audio products. The participants were employees Harmon
International as well. To quote from the article:

...after
I joined Harman International as Manager of Subjective Evaluation [1].
My mission was to introduce formalized, double-blind product testing at
Harman. To my surprise, this mandate met rather strong opposition from
some of the more entrenched marketing, sales and engineering staff who
felt that, as trained audio
professionals, they were immune from the influence of sighted biases.

Let
me say that again. The article is not about whether we can hear a
difference. It is about how to make an unbiased decision as to which
one sounds 'better'.

OK Noted. If one needs to be blindfolded to properly evaluate some stuff.. so be it. Same goes for those wine tasting parties as well. (in this case, they just hide the bottle, or peel off the labels lah.. but same concept).

BTW, you do know the stable of brands under the Harman umbrella right ?
It ranges all the way from the budget entry level stuff to the super high end exotics.

CN Yee wrote:
The lacking in blind test is making the audiophile industry a breeding ground for snake oils and unscrupulous manufactures masking inferior products with fancy looks and exorbitant prices (more expensive must be better right?).

Could you give an example of any particular brand of "unscrupulous
manufactures masking inferior products with fancy looks and exorbitant
prices" to further substantiate this motherhood statement ?
(I promise not to hammer you personally if u happen to quote any of the brands I am currently using. )

Mungefoo - I can only say that you have a knack in missing the points.

Name me ONE place that provides blind test. That is my contention.

OK. You have the last say. Sigh.

CN Yee wrote:Mungefoo - I can only say that you have a knack in missing the points.

Name me ONE place that provides blind test. That is my contention.

The Hatlen Center

CN Yee wrote:Mungefoo - I can only say that you have a knack in missing the points.

Name me ONE place that provides blind test. That is my contention.

OK. You have the last say. Sigh.

If i named the place, would you come and validate, or in your contendment and withdrawal from venturing to the frontiers of audio excellence, stay closed off in your own state of audio Limbo.

I'd guess not ....


BTW, its not about last says .... it's you who just cannot argue your points logically or effectively.

The game of hifi for enthusiasts is that people will want to fiddle with their gear, trying different brands of speakers, amps, power cords, cd players, etc etc etc... and also playing with different bunch of accessories , cone feets, sand-boxes, rubber dampers, and the sort.

I am always reminded of my newbie experience with one such item called the "Mission Isoplat" almost 20 years ago. Simple piece of wooden board with 4 rubber feet. At that time, not knowing the function nor the price of the item, the diff i heard was totally astounding. Was it a physical-blind test ? No .. but it was a Mentally & Emotionally - Blind test. And this has been one of my main axioms of eval hifi gear ever since


Its like some guy who's been driving the same model of car all the while, then
heralding that all cars drive and ride the same, coz they all got 4 wheels, one
steering wheel, & they run on petrol. It is as if that person's
understanding about cars is just limited to wheels, steering and petrol.

Same goes to CN Yee: just limited only
to internet articles, whatever equipment you have in your home, and
some X-Y graphs of frequencies or whatever certain figures that tickle
your fancy.

If you think at your age that you've learned all there is to learn about this audio game, and to make matters worse: then start telling people what they hear is more psychological or make-believe becoz it was a blind-hearing test or becoz of visual distractions... etc, then i truly feel sorry for you. This is not meant as an attack on you, but merely stressing the position that you've placed yourself into. But it's ok, no one's trying to change your mind here. But just pointing out that your certain ideas, opinions , and take on things here aren't really helpful in the least bit (at least to some of us).


And this goes back to the main title.... don't lump and generalise that all sighted listenings are "dishonest". This is just BS.

mugenfoo wrote:If i named the place, would you come and validate, or in your contendment and withdrawal from venturing to the frontiers of audio excellence, stay closed off in your own state of audio Limbo.

I'd guess not ....

Name the place. Describe your setup and you test equipments.

I guarantee you that I will come. I guarantee you that a lot of people will come.

Oh good !

Lemme arrange something then .. will PM u the details.

mugenfoo wrote:Oh good !

Lemme arrange something then .. will PM u the details.

Good. Do it properly, with proper equipments and follow through all the proper procedures. Send out some invitations for other participants and witnesses, and gathers a few equipments for the ABX tests. I volunteer my cheap Denon 1909 AVR.

Document it fully and report is as well. That could be the first in Malaysia.

CN Yee wrote:I volunteer my cheap Denon 1909 AVR.

No, Not fair ... you'd better bring a decent stereo amp in this case instead.

Ryder, Bimmerman,

What I learned is that when you go watch a demo on a TV on display, -often- the source is originally VIDEO. Now, video is shot at 30fps. So when we replay an original video source on an LCD or Plasma, there is no 3:2 pull down conversion involved. For such demo, the motion will be super duper smooth. The crunch comes when we put in a DVD or BluRay of a commercial movie, one of the older ones. Those are shot in 24fps on film and those are the ones which require the 3:2 pull down conversion. All those 24P features, etc, they are attempts to try to convert from 24fps to 30fps as smoothly as possibloe. But the -physical- constraints dictate that it is never possible to retain all 24 frames and yet convert to 30frames smoothly. The problem is spacing of the frames. The only way really is to recreate all 30 frames from the 24 frames of the source. And of course that is beyond the capability of any commercial TV or player. If you are relatively OK with maths, give it some thought to understand the problem.

With DVD, the problem is worse because DVD itself is 24fps. But BluRay is better because it is 30fps. But it's just that when we start with a 24fps source, we -have- to convert it somewhere along the line. When the movie studios re-issue a movie in BluRay, -in theory- they would have used a very powerful system to convert to 30fps but I am afraid they still need to start with 3:2 pull down.

I highly recommend you do some research on what 3:2 pull down is, to appreciate the problem more.

One of the pitfalls of blind listening test is the use of equipment that do not have the resolution to allow easy discernation. If CN Yee wants to use his AV amp, then someone should contribute a Krell 300i for e.g. BUT it is important to use a speaker that matches the Krell at the very least, or something which outclasses both amps. Similarly the source and the cables must be commensurate. A lot of blind listening test I have witnessed are flawed, even rigged in this sense because the supporting equipment they use DO NOT allow the better amp to show its capability. It's like someone saying 'my Honda is as fast as a Ferrari 360' and then when challenged to a race says 'OK, we must compete inside KL City, KLCC area, during rush hour'.

Compare the AV amp against the Krell 300-i with a proper speaker (I think even a higher end Harbeth can be used) and a good CDP plus PROPER cables. Arrange a PROPER procedure. DO NOT use any so-called 'acoustically transparent cloth' (often used in blind test) to hide the equipment from the listener. Use the testing procedure to hide the amp being used. I am certain numerous people will be able to hear the difference.

WongKN wrote:Ryder, Bimmerman,

Spoiler:

What I learned is that when you go watch a demo on a TV on display, -often- the source is originally VIDEO. Now, video is shot at 30fps. So when we replay an original video source on an LCD or Plasma, there is no 3:2 pull down conversion involved. For such demo, the motion will be super duper smooth. The crunch comes when we put in a DVD or BluRay of a commercial movie, one of the older ones. Those are shot in 24fps on film and those are the ones which require the 3:2 pull down conversion. All those 24P features, etc, they are attempts to try to convert from 24fps to 30fps as smoothly as possibloe. But the -physical- constraints dictate that it is never possible to retain all 24 frames and yet convert to 30frames smoothly. The problem is spacing of the frames. The only way really is to recreate all 30 frames from the 24 frames of the source. And of course that is beyond the capability of any commercial TV or player. If you are relatively OK with maths, give it some thought to understand the problem.

With DVD, the problem is worse because DVD itself is 24fps. But BluRay is better because it is 30fps. But it's just that when we start with a 24fps source, we -have- to convert it somewhere along the line. When the movie studios re-issue a movie in BluRay, -in theory- they would have used a very powerful system to convert to 30fps but I am afraid they still need to start with 3:2 pull down.

I highly recommend you do some research on what 3:2 pull down is, to appreciate the problem more.

Here are some useful & informational links...

http://www.gnss.com/tch_dcdi_overview.phtml

http://www.dvdfile.com/tech/articles/36181-what-the-heck-is-32-pulldown

Agreed with WongKN's notions on the Krell KAV300i vs. AV amp. The character of the amps would need to be fairly different so as the differences can be perceived more easily. Choices of music would be important as well. Setup and procedure is important as different folks would have different views on how the test would need to be carried out.

WongKN wrote: I am certain numerous people will be able to hear the difference.

To quote Sam's views when comparing between speaker cables:-

Even the deaf can hear the difference.

Well of course, unless the listener is really deaf.

Oh kay .... if u guys wanna insist on CN Yee's Denon AV Amp ....
but i'd much prefer a proper stereo amp instead.

Why bring a knife to a gun-fight ?



Ryder, Sam who ? the local Harbeth-seller Sam ?

Yup. That's him.

mugenfoo wrote:Oh kay .... if u guys wanna insist on CN Yee's Denon AV Amp ....
but i'd much prefer a proper stereo amp instead.

I don't insist, any properly built and reasonably new plain Jane amp would do.

In the automobile industry, car reviewers don't get dissed for not doing blind test. Coz it's impossible, right?

Because I know of car reviewers, local and foreign, who think, like, "okay, it's a BMW, no matter what, it's better than anything else in its class, everything else is rubbish." And the real car enthusiasts will tell you, get an Audi for the money!

Blind car reviews .. hmm ... ... wonder if they'll get insurance on that. ha ha ....

Just trying to switch on the air-con, it's getting hot in here ...

bassraptor wrote:
Just trying to switch on the air-con, it's getting hot in here ...

Good one !

CN Yee,

I have previously owned Denon Avr3808 and now Avr2809, and 2 hifi stereo amps....I have separate hifi and av systems, for your info,
when i compared the Denon with any of the hifi amps with the same speakers, cd player, cables, accessories...in the same room, I easily Heard Big Difference, those are my receiver and hifi amp, no bias issue here.

Just skip the hassle of blind test.

I ask CN Yee, are we the same human species?

CN Y : yes

I : we look the same?

CN Y : no.

I : Does your voice sound Exactly like mine?

CN Y : Of course not .

I : so this means our voice sounds different, right?

CN Y : yes.

I : so, do you still think blind test is necessary?


CN Y :

CN Yee wrote:I don't insist, any properly built and reasonably new plain Jane amp would do.

Sorry, in blind test cosmetics dont apply since it is blind right? If that is the case then, what is left? Price?(assume that equates better spec/build etc). So to really see if the assertions hold merit, it need not be a plain Jane right?

Bite wrote:

CN Yee wrote:I don't insist, any properly built and reasonably new plain Jane amp would do.

Sorry, in blind test cosmetics dont apply since it is blind right? If that is the case then, what is left? Price?(assume that equates better spec/build etc). So to really see if the assertions hold merit, it need not be a plain Jane right?

Plane Jane does not necessarily refer to look - more generally refer to something down to earth mass consumption level electronics, as opposed to the highly priced exotic amps, mono blocks etc.

One example http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx

There are quite a few more if you Google a bit. I have not seen it being refuted yet. Malaysia could make history - if you guys managed to refute this!

hughesths wrote:CN Yee,

I have previously owned Denon Avr3808 and now Avr2809, and 2 hifi stereo amps....I have separate hifi and av systems, for your info,
when i compared the Denon with any of the hifi amps with the same speakers, cd player, cables, accessories...in the same room, I easily Heard Big Difference, those are my receiver and hifi amp, no bias issue here.

Just skip the hassle of blind test.

Ahh... but its not done while "blind" ... so your example is disqualified already! (according to CN Yee, that is)...

Mr Yee,

Sorry but now I am lost. Fill me in as i dont relish having to re-read this entire thread. I came away with the impression that the claim made against the audio industry is they dont favour blind tests as, they wouldnt be able to justify their prices, as audio equipment more or less sound the same. Hence the need to brand, package etc.

If that is the case then why are we limiting this to mass consumption level electronics.

mugenfoo wrote:

hughesths wrote:CN Yee,

I have previously owned Denon Avr3808 and now Avr2809, and 2 hifi stereo amps....I have separate hifi and av systems, for your info,
when i compared the Denon with any of the hifi amps with the same speakers, cd player, cables, accessories...in the same room, I easily Heard Big Difference, those are my receiver and hifi amp, no bias issue here.

Just skip the hassle of blind test.

Ahh... but its not done while "blind" ... so your example is disqualified already! (according to CN Yee, that is)...

What I emphasized here is blind test is not necessary if you can already differentiate the sound difference regardless of personal equipment preference/bias.