Forwarder wrote:
Paul B wrote:

Thus spake Don Pearce:

OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com



This subject, for good or bad, really fascinates me


Yes, I am in it for the fascination also. We have on the one side, a
sincere bunch of folk claiming that they get "blown away" by this or
that power cable or interconnect or speaker cable, cd player, or even
amplifier! .. which is brushed off by another bunch of folk, as much
sincere, as "imagination" .. to put it diplomatically. One side really
does hear things, the other "proves" that what they hear is their
imagination by employing "scientific" tests that seem to mask out even
the real differences(note 1)..

Reading between the lines of all the flame texts, the spite, the
bad-will, (audiophoolery, conmen, borgs, class-envy of the poor etc) I
want to understand what got these two camps to where they are. AANDD I
want a plausible explanation as to why in the heck I am originally and
sincerely hearing differences between amps, cd players, etc, that seem
to "originally and sincerely" vanish into thin air when these
"scientific" test and abx boxes are employed in between. I see this as a
"problem" and I want to solve it. I do not want to just be smug in
accepting this or that explanation as I know that neither is able to
explain the whole truth.

Let's do some speculation now: All tests have one trait in common; They
take away the knowledge, the sight from the listener. Once this happens
what one hears is also "altered". Or, is it the other way around?

Obviously, knowledge and sight aid us in hearing subtle details in sound.

Is there anything inherently wrong with this? Is it not true that *all*
of our senses help each other out? And is it also not true that although
they "help", they are not able to ultimately determine what we hear, or
taste, or see, in the end.

I have listened to a *very* good looking transparent cable, for
instance. It's appearance was giving cues of wholesomeness, richness of
flavor, abundance power, air, (it was thicker then thick, shiny, etc).
But it's sound was thin, screechy, too fast attack and decay, dry and
bodyless bass, etc. On it's own, my eyes closed and all (*without*
comparing) this cable would sound the exact same way. I know that since
when it was employed a freind of mine came over and commented on the
stereo, playing in another room, as being "wrong and screechy".

When a given dish, or wine is supposed to be tasted does the sight of
the dish, and of course the smell of it assist us in getting all the
subtle details of flavour and taste of that dish/wine? If the answer to
this is yes, then is there anything wrong with that?

Imagine a tall glass of lemonade on a hot day. Ice, dew around the glass
.. etc, the works. Imagine that you are thirsty, you've just had some
great sex, or you just did some exercises, etc. You grab that lemonade,
you start drinking, and instead of sugar salt! You spit the thing out.
But imagine a more *subtle* difference in taste.. Sugar vs artificial
sweetner for instance. When you know you are drinking something
sweetened with artificial sweetner you make funny faces, it tastes
terrible. But you are hard pressed to spot it in a double blind test. We
know this from the dbt's they did when developing the product!!

We normally listen to music with the sight and knowledge of what is
being employed for the playing. When this "sight and knowledge" is
stripped away in an ABX or DBT, is it any longer possible to claim that
what is being tested is whether or not a difference in the SOUND exists?
Rather, is it much more the *listener*, ie, the subject who is being
tested? More then anything else, the subject's ability to *adapt* to a
whole new and strange mode of listening to music is being tested, his
ability to instantaeniously transform an action of pleasure seeking into
a stressful task of problem solving is being tested.



There's obviously no harm in people running their own informal tests

I agree, but to a point. There are is some "harm" if one draws all
encompassing conclusions from tests that are inadequate. Just look at
all the hatred around here..


I hate auditioning new stuff & would love to be able to select equipment on
specification, looks, build quality, ergonomics, power consumption, price
etc.

Some would say that what's keeping you, they all sound the same.. But
you *know* for a fact that they do not. And you do not want to diminish
the amount of pleasure you are getting from consuming recorded music by
listening to it from inferior sounding equipment (or equipment that just
is not to your taste). Or by constantly having to convince yourself that
all this stuff sounds the same in tests : "my friends Linn cd player
sounds the same as this yamaha dvd/cd player I have, I *know* .. Science
tells me so... I was over there, I lstened to that damned Linn, it
sounded so wonderfull, so musical, so dramatic, and this yamaha just
DOES NOT, GODDAMNIT!, but they all sound the same, but they all sound
the same, so say my scientific tests, GODDAMNIT! they all sound the same
.." etc..


I don't presume to be an expert, so several points I've made may well have
many weaknesses but any tests done without much thought would just
perpetuate the schism.


Yes, that's exactly what is happening.

(note 1) .. when we were fooling around with ABX and amps we actually
tried out this also: we put the *same* brand and model two amps on the
ends of the abx box (it was a cambridge audio azur model). We messed
around with the *tone controls* of one (+%50 bass and treble) and left
the other alone. It was still almost impossible to hear a difference in
the abx protocol, with all those boxes, whatnot in between. When we
fully employed the bass and treble in one the task eased a bit, but it
was still very very hard.

As you point out the more "refined" you make the DBT/ABXing protocol
the more it interferes with any possibility of an average testee ever
hearing any difference between anything and anything else in audio With
a lot of training designed to make them cope with the ABX fog a few
may hear something even if ABXed.. It is not my business to speculate
why ABX is the way it is. It is the business of its proponents to
prove that it helps to show differences instead of making it harder. .
In place of experimental evidence we get devotional confessions of
faith.
This suits not a few: They never heard and never intend to hear
real-life "acoustic instruments playing "acoustic" sonata, a quartet or
a symphony. ABX is a wonderful placebo (Yes, Mr. Pearce- I did say
placebo!) a real balm for their minds. Here is "science" confirming
that if they don't hear differences anyone who does is a deluded victim
of "bias".
Incidentally; money helps but is not the end and the beginning. I heard
some DIY stuff superior to most competition- and certainly superior to
what you hear in a rock concert or through your blaster or you Bose
system.
Ludovic Mirabel
Sorry, we human beings also differ from each other in ways not as yet
classifiable or testable.
Ludovic Mirabel