Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear

Concerning your essay:

"The reality is that all the playback system is doing is producing two continually varying sound-pressure waves from two loudspeakers. Everything else is the result of massive signal processing taking place between the ears. Nothing is real, nothing to get hung about. It's all an illusion constructed on a foundation of illusions."

Agreed.

"In normal listening, this happens unconsciously. When we listen to a stereo Chopin recording on our systems, we perceive an image of a piano on which a work of Chopin's is being played. But in the blind test, we have to do consciously what would otherwise be automatic. We have to start examining the character, the quality of individual auditory objects. We have to start consciously determining whether the sum of those objects has crossed the line between noise and music. In other words, we are no longer listening as we normally do. And if we are not listening normally, then the test itself becomes an interfering variable."

I understand your point regarding the last two sentences, but I'm unclear as to the rest. Are you suggesting that because one is asked to differentiate between two amps, the exercise takes on an analytical flavor that clouds or detracts from one’s normal listening experience? That it interferes with the emotionalism that many find so enjoyable when listening to their favorite music? If so, that much seems plausible.

But it occurs to me that someone familiar with Chopin, who is conducting a relaxed, blind test of two amps, would have no more trouble "perceiv{ing} an image of a piano on which a work of Chopin's is being played," than during his “normal” listening experience.

And while I acknowledge that getting caught up in the process of judging which amp delivers Chopin to me in a more enjoyable manner might render the experience of listening to Chopin less pleasurable--I don’t understand how a blind comparison would cloud my earlier perception as to which amp I had judged to be more sonically enjoyable, during sighted listening.

"Sighted listening has its own pitfalls, of course, and no one has said otherwise. But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the naïve assumption that the mere fact that a test is blind inherently—his word was intrinsically—confers legitimacy on the test and its results. That assumption, I suggest, is "bad science"—even voodoo."

Now we've arrived at the heart of the matter. While your intellectual honesty is greatly appreciated in pointing out that both tests are flawed, it is precisely at this juncture that this eternal debate never seems to advance. The question arises, What, if any, methodology or solution would you suggest for enhancing the objective element, as a way of ensuring that one's personal feelings about the brand under evaluation do not bias the evaluation?

Since there is little one can do to control for personal approval or animus of a brand during sighted evaluation, it would appear that greater emphasis should be given to improving the blind format, as a way of silencing your critics while lending even more credibility to your review process.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]