Callas wrote:

Your example and reasoning are poor.

It seems to me that your assertion is generalised in nature, but carries an
assumption about the listener that doesn't neccessarily apply in all cases.


To begin with, with audio equipment, the listener has paid for and so
wishes to perceive improvements in the sound to which he is listening.

We think like that with most things we buy, but we aren't always fooled by
our own hopes - I see no reason to assume that we will be when we buy audio
equipment.


There is no such parallel in your example; you are in no way
considering the desire on the part of the subject to perceive that
his exciting new piece of equipment makes a difference.

I'm saying that the desire does not neccessarily exist; at least not to the
extent of skewing one's opinion to the point of thinking that the 'poorer'
kit sounds 'better'. I don't deny that such psychological skewing exists,
but it doesn't seem a sound basis for a general proposition.


Next, the example given describes very strongly different flavours.
You are correct to state that I would certainly perceive the
differences. The sensory input from the two stimuli are *so*
different there is no mistaking them.

Its purpose was to convey the point that the original post compared the
sound qualities of a cheapo player and a decent DAC. The differences were
clear and present, not the subtle minutiuae that require 'critical'
listening. It seems to me that the notion that "non-blind tests are
inherently unreliable" is of low applicability in this case.

Some of the improvements I mentioned became apparent when I was doing
something else and not paying attention to the music. The clarity of strings
came about this way - I was sitting at the computer (out of the listening
area and behind one of the speakers) and I kept hearing little ticks and
squeaks. Being a newly-arrived piece of digital equipment, I wondered if it
was maybe some sort of digital artefact, until I paid more attention and
realised that I was hearing bowing noises. I *really* don't think the detail
in the strings was noticed because I wanted to feel that my spend had been
worthwhile. Indeed, I suggest that the difference really was there, and that
it was the fact that a difference was there that caught my attention.


The problem with audio comparisons is far subtler. The differences
sensory input can be small - and indeed, non-existant. As differences
become smaller, it takes a increasingly skilled listener to perceive
them reliably. Lesser listeners will fail outright in the first
place, or find that their subjective desire to perceive improve
generates a fake difference which is in fact greater than the real
difference.

As I said, I don't dispute that this happens.


I have to say also that given your emotive response in this matter, I
suspect you're being dogmatic;

I wouldn't do a thing like that, would I? ;-)


... this is a subject about which you have Opinions.

No, I don't have "Opinions" on the subject, although I do wonder at the
point in engaging in such involved analysis of minute differences in bits of
kit. I dare say the value of such analysis is a function of the listener's
propensity towards having a skewed opinion for whatever arbitrary reason.


Have you tried blind testing yourself?

Not as an arranged thing with someone else pressing the buttons; not that I
can remember, anyway.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar