more 'snake oil'

 

because it's one of the standard scientific basis of being able to say that the test you carried out was correct.  Without such things most tests would be deemed invalid. 

 

Not that I'm disputing that you heard differences, just saying that you might want to read up on what's considered "valid" testing for want of a better phrase.

Yes, absolutely agree with that. Double blind matters because as the blind tester on this thread makes clear he knew that something had been changed. There is then ample opportunity for a perceived 'placebo effect' to creep in. A double blind test could sniff that out quite easily by pretending to change things but actually leaving everything as it was and seeing if the listeners still perceive differences that they think should be there. You then do it enough times (along with standard ABX componant swapping) to make the results statistically vailid. The WHF 'blind' tests can be interesting, but I rarely if ever pay any real attention to them because they consistently use a flawed methodology.

Now in terms of the original post, I guess I have always had a hunch that for analogue signals a stable and vibration free environment is better than one that isn't. This is obvious for a TT, but I would accept that amps and interconnects could in a small way (and probably not one that you could detect) work better on a vibration free shelf. When it comes to digital sources I would seriously doubt that the 1's and 0's give a monkey's whether they are going though a pathway that doesn't move or one that is being used as a skipping rope - so long as the signal pathways remain clear all the way along. The exception to this rule would obviously be CD players where a certain relationship remains with a TT in the sense of having physical moving componants that benefit from not being shaken around...

Most chart music sounds way better under 15 foot of cement when you're a continent away.  I imagine.

 

And the cheapest upgrade you can make to any system is to cup your hands behind your ears when listening to your music. Et voila - surround sound for free!

According to ellisdj the listeners were told they were hearing three different systems.  Seeing that they actually weren't, yet they could still hear a difference, I'm not sure how WHF could have done it differently in order to make the results more valid.  Perhaps you could explain?  If you're skeptical about the results (skeptical as opposed to just being plain dismissive) then why don't you apply to be on a listeners' panel?  If you're just a plain 'atheist' and not at least an agnostic then don't bother; you've already convinced yourself there'll be no difference before you even sit down.

 

eh?  No need to get so defensive when your own question was answered in the quote you responded to.  He's already said that whf could have conducted a double blind test to make the test more accurate and fair.

 

If you tell somebody they are going to hear 3 different systems then there is already a bias involved.

 

Perhaps they shouldn't have said anything and just left it at something like "we are going to play the same music 3 times, please let us know if you hear any difference", for example.

Psycho acoustic memory is so shockingly poor and these 'tests' so impossible to implement in any meaningful way, you might as well just go to the pub and ask the nearest drunk what he thinks.  At least you might get some jokes and casual sexism and racism thrown in.

 

now that's an issue I would love to see

I have said it was hard telling distinct differences between them - which is obvious now knowing it was the same system we was listening to.

I dont think it mattered that they told us it was 3 systems - either way if they said we are going to play a song 3 times can you hear a difference - you would still be listening for differences - so I would have had the same mindset to look for difference

The 3 systems were jumbled for every song - each song being a distinct test as they were all very different types of music

so a was not a in test 2 or 3, or maybe it was I dont know to make it fairer

They mentioned the idea about swopping the same one back in without telling us - however as the experience was new to us that would have made things more complicated - the test was desinged to be a simple as possibleto make it easier - its harder than you might think trust me

The fact I picked out the same system for each test as my preferred even though the letters didnt correspond to the same stand material shows I clearly preferred that presentation and it was in the presentation of the music where there was changes.

The test was a couple of hours only  and we all came up with different preferences based on our experiences so there was no right and wrong answer - I preferred the sound with the player straight on the floor - work that one out.

 

I think that's supposed to be the main take home from the Big Q tests - they're not meant to be scientific experiments, but a fun way to demonstrate that people can (and do) hear different things and, generally, people don't agree on what is "the best sound" i.e. go away, do your own listening tests and make your own mind up - don't just listen to what people tell you to do because "it's the best way".

If you want to do your own double blind listening tests at home, that's perfectly your choice, just as it's perfectly okay for someone to do sighted tests at home - whatever is your bag and whatever you enjoy. Some people don't find the idea of setting up scientifically valid experiments at home enjoyable. Others do. Remember that for most of us this is a hobby. It's meant to be fun!

 

The Prof is right. When I was invited (in the early days) it was good fun and really interesting way of sharing opinions.

What the professor said, basically.

All this idea of 'testing' is complete nonsense really - If you listen to the same track three times in a row on the same kit,  you'll hear it differently each time. The brain picks different things to attune to and thats conditional on so many variables it's pointless even trying to nail it down and measure it.

The cable and the interconnect and the racks and the whatnot manufacturers all know this, of course, and so do you, and you all play along and turn 'double' blind eyes because it staves off the tedium and horror of life for a little while and keeps your hands and ears busy. And adds friction to the girlfriend and wife dynamic, of course, which is essential in perpetuating this merry dance we call existence. ;-)

Question to the bloke who was part of the What Hi-fi test - were you allowed to speak to the other guys doing the tests, did you have water to drink, how comfortable were the chairs, did you have breakfast beforehand, were you in a good mood? And so on.

Unless its absolutely scientifically provable, with data and charts and whatnot, forget it, its another bit of entertainment designed to rob your wallet. And fair play if you go along with it - I'm not judging anyone either way. 

 

Good slogan for a hi-fi manufacturer.

Well, perhaps not quite what I was trying to get across, but the part about live and let live is there I guess 

Oh, and having been to a Big Q test, I can tell you that you are allowed to speak, you're offered drinks and you sit on a sofa. And Cardinal Ximénez wasn't poking me with a soft cushion at the time either.

 

I had an experience with an iron & glass hifi stand i bought long time ago. I was told to change from my old target stand to the new stand, & that I will hear more detail. After setting up the stand then I sat down to listen.

Let me tell you my system sounded so bright. after just 3days the new system stand had to go.

I did this in studio enviroment so could hear the difference clearly. For me steel & glass stands are a no no from now on.

[EDITED BY MODS to clarify quote and response]