Double Blind Tests- NOthing to see hear!!

[rantan]

But it doesn't go either way. The reality is in sighted auditions, females get the gig less often

 

I must admit I was not aware that this was the case and even though I absolutely believe what you say, I do find that somewhat surprising

[Guest fordgtlover]

I must admit I was not aware that this was the case and even though I absolutely believe what you say, I do find that somewhat surprising

 

Page 6 of the cited document includes the text,

 

Claims abound in the world of music that “women have smaller techniques than men,†“are more temperamental and more likely to demand special attention or or treatment," and that" the more women [in an orchestra], the poorer it will sound"

http:/www.nber.org/papers/w5903.pdf

 

A specific bias against women.

[Newman]

....I need no moderation in auditioning audio gear. I like what I like and I have my own methods of evaluation and frankly I don't give a rodent's derriere about bias. I love my biases and have done so for my last 40 years in audio, both in the trade and as a civilian

I fully concur. I do the same myself. Where you and I might differ from so many, however, would be in our reluctance to 'cross the line' and pronounce the sound waves to be vastly superior because we "heard it with our own ears" and similarly publicly diss a product as rubbish, for the same reason. And to recommend that others consider or avoid certain products, on that basis.

[rantan]

Page 6 of the cited document includes the text,

 

Claims abound in the world of music that “women have smaller techniques than men,†“are more temperamental and more likely to demand special attention or or treatment," and that" the more women [in an orchestra], the poorer it will sound"

http:/www.nber.org/papers/w5903.pdf

 

A specific bias against women.

 

Amazing in this day and age. I know quite a few musicians and females are among the very best of them, but I am not overly familiar with orchestral selections.

 

Very interesting indeed

 

Thanks

[rantan]

I fully concur. I do the same myself. Where you and I might differ from so many, however, would be in our reluctance to 'cross the line' and pronounce the sound waves to be vastly superior because we "heard it with our own ears" and similarly publicly diss a product as rubbish, for the same reason. And to recommend that others consider or avoid certain products, on that basis.

 

True dat

[David.M]

Well, that 'small group' seems to include over 99% of all paper and internet audio reviewers who write for the audiophile consumer. And over 90% of the active posts on StereoNET Forums and almost everything on the StereoNET News, Articles, and Reviews areas -- all in a 'small group'.

 

Do you realize that if anyone in that 'small group' uses sighted (biased and useless) listening 'tests' to announce that, say, a particular turntable sounds vastly superior to anything else available in the price range or even double the price, then in many forums that is deemed so conclusive and beyond discussion, that any objective discussion taking a different point of view might be valid grounds for reporting and moderation? And that the only acceptable way to offer a contrary view would be to conduct an equally nonsense personal listening test and pronounce its sound to be ordinary or even unlikable? In which case everyone would fold their arms in satisfaction and acceptance because his view is based on a 'genuine listening test'?

 

Given such realities, David, are you suggesting that a small minority group is running the show, in almost every forum, everywhere? 

I think Newman you're allowing your own biases to interfere here  How on earth have you concluded that over 90% of active posts on SNA are from those who refute the bias implications of sighted listening or don't accept the theoretical benefits of blind testing?  I haven't done the numbers but I would guess there wouldn't even be 5% of posts that would contain sufficiently relevant information.  IMO the majority offer opinions to mean no more than just that, an opinion, no more valid than the opinion you have of a majority of audiophiles.

As for professional reviewers, there are obviously a lot of commercial factors/realities that influence things in addition to their own biases.  Where is the evidence that 99% of those individuals refute bias in sighted listening?

The small minority group isn't running the show, they just happen to be the most vocal and consume more space per capita, some times they are entertaining or at worst they are tolerated by the reasonable majority.

Edited September 7, 2015 by David.M

[Guest fordgtlover]

Amazing in this day and age. I know quite a few musicians and females are among the very best of them, but I am not overly familiar with orchestral selections.

 

Very interesting indeed

 

Thanks

 

I had no idea either. I found it to be an interesting insight into the evolution of what some consider to be the epitome of 'culture'.

Edited September 7, 2015 by fordgtlover

[davewantsmoore]

So what's the answer?  I wonder how I would go asking the various distributors/retailers for a group of components that I had shortlisted to bring their gear to a central location so I could blind test before making my purchase decision.  

 

It's a good point....   and I don't think all this discussion re: controlled testing methods, lead to the conclusion that "everybody should do them".   Of course it can easily weed out the outliers pretty quick when A vs B, tells you amazing vs terrible.

 

Like you say, people just need to be aware of how they themselves work ..... and be sure to not make too many "conclusions" based (solely) on testing which might have flaws.    One way to ensure "testing" doesn't have too many flaws is to cross reference many types of "tests" (both subjective and objective) .... and see if they agree.

[sir sanders zingmore]

So what's the answer? I wonder how I would go asking the various distributors/retailers for a group of components that I had shortlisted to bring their gear to a central location so I could blind test before making my purchase decision. Of course I need a suitable location (I'd happily offer my home) & everything else needed to do the blind testing while I lay back and enjoy my listening

Not that hard. If you are testing DACs for example, just get the retailer to switch them and not tell you which is which

[davewantsmoore]

I like what I like and I have my own methods of evaluation and frankly I don't give a rodent's derriere about bias

 

I think it's very important to recognise that discussions about controlled testing, are attempting to talk about how to get around biases, or other flaws in subjective evaluation.

 

If you're happy not to do that  (and all power to you)  then nobody is really trying to 'convert' you IMO.

[LHC]

The difference between this thread and all other blind test threads is the musician and component comparisons.

No two musicians will play the same piece of music the same as another, and in 99.9% of the time it will be bleedingly obvious, and it's not the same differences as two different cables playing the same source.

I'm just shocked that this is even being argued about.

 

You made a good point but people posting have ignored it. Yes, even if two musicians are playing the same music off the same score, they could add their own colour, individual touches, interpretation and voicing. Their instruments may be different also and have slightly different timbre and would sound different. This differences between musician is what Dave would call 'artistic difference'.

 

When you compare differences between components, you are comparing their distortions and it effects the overall sound of the same recording. So the difference now is no longer an artistic difference, but one of distortions.

 

Recalled we have already spent many posts debating this in the other thread http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/70188-coloration-whats-wrong-with-it/

 

So you are right, there are differences between blind testing musicians, and blind testing components. 

[LHC]

You don't need rocket science to blind test, just simply turn the chairs around to face the other way. The Voice music competitions have this worked out, so I don't see the need to use a screen. 

 

As to whether blind testing can truly eliminate gender bias, I suspects it may depend somewhat on the instrument played and the particular passage of music. Perhaps there are instances where an expert could tell by ear alone whether it was a male or female musician. 

[Guest fordgtlover]

You don't need rocket science to blind test, just simply turn the chairs around to face the other way. The Voice music competitions have this worked out, so I don't see the need to use a screen. 

 

As to whether blind testing can truly eliminate gender bias, I suspects it may depend somewhat on the instrument played and the particular passage of music. Perhaps there are instances where an expert could tell by ear alone whether it was a male or female musician. 

 

Yet many here seem to want avoid blind testing because its so complicated and fraught with problems. lol - the voice does it... hilarious

 

Fascinating question about whether anyone could tell the difference between male and female playing an instrument. Great point.

[Guest Sime]

You made a good point but people posting have ignored it. Yes, even if two musicians are playing the same music off the same score, they could add their own colour, individual touches, interpretation and voicing. Their instruments may be different also and have slightly different timbre and would sound different. This differences between musician is what Dave would call 'artistic difference'.

 

When you compare differences between components, you are comparing their distortions and it effects the overall sound of the same recording. So the difference now is no longer an artistic difference, but one of distortions.

 

Recalled we have already spent many posts debating this in the other thread http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/70188-coloration-whats-wrong-with-it/

 

So you are right, there are differences between blind testing musicians, and blind testing components.

Thanks for getting my point.

[Guest fordgtlover]

You made a good point but people posting have ignored it. Yes, even if two musicians are playing the same music off the same score, they could add their own colour, individual touches, interpretation and voicing. Their instruments may be different also and have slightly different timbre and would sound different. This differences between musician is what Dave would call 'artistic difference'.

 

When you compare differences between components, you are comparing their distortions and it effects the overall sound of the same recording. So the difference now is no longer an artistic difference, but one of distortions.

 

Recalled we have already spent many posts debating this in the other thread http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/70188-coloration-whats-wrong-with-it/

 

So you are right, there are differences between blind testing musicians, and blind testing components. 

 

It didn't get much air-time because I think we all accept that point as largely obvious, else the world would have dozens of Jimi Hendrixs'.

 

The blind test with the performers isn't to test if they all sound the same, but to rank the performers in preference order (or above a threshold or whatever). Do I prefer performer X over performer Y and performer Z? Presumably none are terrible and the assessment panel creates an ordered list of results.

 

I am questioning whether it is the same thought process as when we compare cables (or speakers or amps) - determining preferences - do I prefer cable X or cable Y or cable z? What is the order of my preference?

Edited September 7, 2015 by fordgtlover

[Guest Sime]

After nearly 30 years of listening to Hi-Fi, cables have never once made a difference to the way any of my systems have ever sounded.

I buy good audio cables simply because they are built well and are of a standard in build quality as the gear it supports, why, because that alone makes me happy.

Never once for sonic reasons. Not once.

Now, my favorite piece of music is Mozarts Requiem, and in the 30 years I've liked it, I've only ever heard one orchestra play it the way I like it, and that's my point.

Music is not science, cables is.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Sime

[davewantsmoore]

When you compare differences between components, you are comparing their distortions and it effects the overall sound of the same recording. So the difference now is no longer an artistic difference, but one of distortions.

 

Why does that matter?     The point is that there's an element, that when present, impairs your ability to choose well.      It doesn't matter what you're trying to choose between.

 

It's like the many optical illusions, or the mcgurk effect .... or countless other situations, where we can be biased in our 'choice'.

[davewantsmoore]

Music is not science, cables is.

 

.... but taking away the ability to see the performer, because if you can see them, you wont do a good job of assessing their playing.

 

That's not 'science' either?

[Newman]

You made a good point but people posting have ignored it. Yes, even if two musicians are playing the same music off the same score, they could add their own colour, individual touches, interpretation and voicing. Their instruments may be different also and have slightly different timbre and would sound different. This differences between musician is what Dave would call 'artistic difference'.

 

When you compare differences between components, you are comparing their distortions and it effects the overall sound of the same recording. So the difference now is no longer an artistic difference, but one of distortions.

 

Recalled we have already spent many posts debating this in the other thread http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/70188-coloration-whats-wrong-with-it/

 

So you are right, there are differences between blind testing musicians, and blind testing components. 

 

I don't think that was ever the claim that anyone was asked to consider. The real point was, do you really think that listening under controlled conditions is only applicable to one of those two scenarios, and it's not the audio components?

 

Thanks for getting my point.

 

I got your incidental point, and the manner of your delivery. 

[Guest Sime]

Nobodies perfect.

[Guest Muon]

Not that hard. If you are testing DACs for example, just get the retailer to switch them and not tell you which is which

And the one that sounds best in the shop system, may not be the best sounding one once placed in your system.

[Guest fordgtlover]

After nearly 30 years of listening to Hi-Fi, cables have never once made a difference to the way any of my systems have ever sounded.

I buy good audio cables simply because they are built well and are of a standard in build quality as the gear it supports, why, because that alone makes me happy.

Never once for sonic reasons. Not once.

Now, my favorite piece of music is Mozarts Requiem, and in the 30 years I've liked it, I've only ever heard one orchestra play it the way I like it, and that's my point.

Music is not science, cables is.

 

The research isn't arguing that music is or isn't science.

 

The research is telling us that by using blind trials gender bias has been removed (reduced) and more women are now part of professional orchestras.

 

Following on from your statement about Mozart's requiem, the research indicates that it is more likely in recent years that the orchestra will contain more women performers than it would have 30 years ago.

 

Whether you like the performance has nothing to do with the research posted. It wasn't testing for audience preferences.

Edited September 7, 2015 by fordgtlover

[betty boop]

the very problem with this research is I believe the misplaced associations being made. my own profession when I started out some 20+ years ago women were very rare. this is greatly changed these days with as much as 50% in some environments not only in junior positions but even to senior to highest levels to the very top of companies. and this has nothing to do with blind testing or people being interviewed behind bedsheets or anything to decide on suitable candidates. its just changing society. the very fact that a greater proportion of women graduating. Greater proportion of women staying in the work force longer and plus changing attitudes towards women and greater acceptance and women feeling more welcome to want to stay and progress with careers in these fields.

 

by all means people can use blind testing but lets not join dots like blaming people falling off ladders or or all accidents on the point that black cats often cross the road or go under ladders if they see one !   -_-

 

ps on a personal note...with regards performers I for one if going to a live performance I do think would rather actually see the performers and musicians be they male or female ... probably adds greatly to the overall performance. if I went to watch  live orchestra or performance and was forced to partake with them sitting behind a bed sheet...I would simply get up and walk out and ask for a refund ! 

[Guest fordgtlover]

I understand your point, but this research found a specific bias against women... as posted previously in this thread.

 

Page 6 of the cited document includes the text,

 

Claims abound in the world of music that “women have smaller techniques than men,†“are more temperamental and more likely to demand special attention or or treatment," and that" the more women [in an orchestra], the poorer it will sound"

http:/www.nber.org/papers/w5903.pdf

 

The paper also includes data that from 1970s onwards women made up about 30% of all auditions.

 

 

The nice thing about published papers is that your 'participation rate' argument would have already been considered. So, in terms of dots and connections, that's something you would need to take up with the authors. Noting that the paper was done in 2000 and still appears to be the most often cited work, I feel comfortable with it.

 

Let's argue responsibly and not dismiss published and reviewed papers without evidence of equivalent veracity.

Edited September 7, 2015 by fordgtlover

[Guest Sime]

So all this to make you feel better about cable choices?

To me this is scraping the barrel in the cable A/B testing debates.

All these published papers prove is that the orchestral world is misogynistic.