Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

[Walt]

Unless You Can Do It Blindfolded, Please STFU

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/unless-you-can-do-it-blindfolded-please-stfu

(reacting to Gary's observation that the posting has been light lately,
thought I'd pass this one along...)

--
//Walt

[ST]

Read about this article long time ago. I even downgraded my equipment many years ago because I am unable to pass the blind test and yet now I think blind test may not be telling everything. Read somewhere in one of the science journals that brain scan revealed different part of the brain active when a saxophonist plays a score and while improvising the known score. I wonder which part of our brain working under blind test.

I do not believe that we can distinguish strads or wines or Beluga caviar from Sterlet on immediate blind test but over a period of time they may well have a preference. All this while, our understanding is the brain functions uniformly but now science has proven they do not and therefore matters involving taste or senses and emotion may need to be relooked.

[Audio-Empire]

In article <bqodot...@mid.individual.net>, Walt

I've seen this discussion on another news group. I don't doubt for a
moment that many modern violins sound better and are easier to play
well than are the Cremona variety of the 16th century. In fact, I've
seen many an accomplished violinist state that the carbon-fiber
instruments from makers such as Luis & Clark beat everything when it
comes to loudness, purity of tone, ease and comfort of playing as well
as practical considerations such as ease of travel, environmental
stability (in that changes in temperature, humidity, altitude, etc.,
don't screw 'em up) etc.

Audio_Empire

[Scott]

Silly article. Self proclaimed skeptics that don't know how science actually works tend to make science and skepticism look bad. Case in point...

"I've long suspected this, but now we have Scientific Proof(tm). Professional violinists who insist that there's nothing like a Strad can't even tell them apart from modern instruments:"

This is such a gross misrepresentation. 1. No one who knows anything about science would ever make such a dogmatic claim based on one study. 2. This was not what the test concluded. Not even close.

Then the author made some pretty wild assertions that are in no way supported by the study he is writing about. Here are a few zingers....

"Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfolded."

Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection.

Then we have this wild leap...

"Pro violinists can't pick out a Strad from a decent modern violin."

Huh? "decent?" Did he actually read the study? The Strads were hardly being compared to "decent" modern violins. This was a blind shoot out between the creations of one man hundreds of years ago against modern artisans who have all the advantages of modern materials, tools and machinery not to mention CAD programs, and modern testing facilities. That the Strads were as competitive as they were speaks to what an amazing achievement they really are. But anyhooo. The test did not demonstrate that the violins were indistinguishable. All it demonstrated was that state of the art modern violins are very competitive with Strads. How is this anything but a testimonial as to how amazing Strads really are?

Then he concludes...

"So am I skeptical when you claim your $90,000 turntable is really and truly light years better than some mere $2,000 POS? Yes I am."

As if there were any meaningful connection between this test and the sound of high end turntables.

This is a classic case of self proclaimed skeptic's misunderstandings of science and misrepresentations of science as something that supports his personal prejudices.

[Walt]

On 4/12/2014 4:30 PM, Scott wrote:

> "Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfolded."
>
> Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection.
>

Um... not "total nonsense" but the result of a 2001 experiment at the
University of Bordeaux:


"The perceptual ambiguity of wine helps explain why contextual
influences—say, the look of a label, or the price tag on the bottle—can
profoundly influence expert judgment. This was nicely demonstrated in a
mischievous 2001 experiment led by Frédéric Brochet at the University of
Bordeaux. In one test, Brochet included fifty-four wine experts and
asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of
red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of
which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn’t stop the
experts from describing the “red” wine in language typically used to
describe red wines. One expert said that it was “jammy,” while another
enjoyed its “crushed red fruit.”

Another test that Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a
middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle
bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de
table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts
gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was
summarized as being “agreeable,” “woody,” “complex,” “balanced,” and
“rounded,” while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table
included “weak,” “short,” “light,” “flat,” and “faulty.” "


As for the connection to violins and turntables, I'll leave that as an
exercise for the reader.

--
//Walt

[Walt]

On 4/14/2014 3:47 PM, Walt wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 4:30 PM, Scott wrote:
>
>> "Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfolded."
>>
>> Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection.
>>
>
> Um... not "total nonsense" but the result of a 2001 experiment at the
> University of Bordeaux:

Sorry, forgot to include the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/wine-taste.html


--
//Walt

[Scott]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC-7, Walt wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 4:30 PM, Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfolded."
>
> >
>
> > Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Um... not "total nonsense" but the result of a 2001 experiment at the
>
> University of Bordeaux:
>
>
>
>
>
> "The perceptual ambiguity of wine helps explain why contextual
>

> influences--say, the look of a label, or the price tag on the bottle--can

>
> profoundly influence expert judgment. This was nicely demonstrated in a
>
> mischievous 2001 experiment led by Frédéric Brochet at the University of
>
> Bordeaux. In one test, Brochet included fifty-four wine experts and
>
> asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of
>
> red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of
>
> which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn't stop the
>
> experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to
>
> describe red wines. One expert said that it was "jammy," while another
>
> enjoyed its "crushed red fruit."
>
>
>
> Another test that Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a
>
> middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle
>
> bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de
>
> table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts
>
> gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was
>
> summarized as being "agreeable," "woody," "complex," "balanced," and
>
> "rounded," while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table
>
> included "weak," "short," "light," "flat," and "faulty." "
>
>
>
>
>
> As for the connection to violins and turntables, I'll leave that as an
>
> exercise for the reader.
>
>
>
> --
>
> //Walt

When blind tests are reduced to parlor tricks to shame people they cease to be anything other than a tool to promote an agenda. I remember an interesting and eye opening experience I once had. I went to get a glass of milk in the middle of the night. Without looking I poured from a carton of unfiltered apple juice and took a big drink. I instantly ran to the sink and spit out what i thought was rancid milk. So what does that prove? That we really can't tell the difference between rancid milk and unfiltered apple juice by taste alone? That we are fooling ourselves when we think we like apple juice or dislike rancid milk?

Or maybe, just maybe we are wired to use our different senses and previous experiences in conjunction and that the right misdirection with one sense or preconception can cause our perceptions to go haywire. The idea that we can set up a test with deliberate misdirection that can fool the senses hardly shows that there is no discernible differences. this is why it is so difficult to actually put together really good tests of human perception. agendas can easily creep in and ruin the test.

[news]

What Scott says may be true, but when you do it blind you remove all of
those prejudices. But remember there are (at least) two kinds of blind
tests, difference tests and preference tests. For a wine tasting, you could
either ask them their reactions and preference toward two unknown samples
(preference testing), or you could simply ask them if they can tell ANY
difference between the two.

HOWEVER, it is not sufficient that they tell you whether they can tell a
difference, they must prove it in a statistically significant manner by
doing it at least 16 times, because if they only guessed one time it could
be luck. So, for example, if they can tell the white from the red, or the
fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of
confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but not
a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not have
a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether there
is any difference between the two at all.

The obvious connection to audio is if someone is trying to sell me a $15,000
set of speaker cables, the easiest way for him to prove that he can hear an
improvement with his own product would be to test his ability to tell a
difference between them under blind conditions. If he can't even do that,
then he cannot convince me that he hears an improvement with his fancy
wires. Of course I could take the same test, but if I flunked it he would
just give the standard phrase, well you can't hear it but I can. So you make
him put his ears where his mouth is.

The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about
what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it
is done under sighted conditions. They will never say "well, this new
$50,000 amplifier is certainly the same as all other decent amplifiers."
That wouldn't show the fineness of their hearing or advance their magazine
sales.

But most of us know all that. Just saying for the benefit of the newbies
lurking in.

Gary Eickmeier

[August Karlstrom]

On 2014-04-16 19:39, news wrote:
> HOWEVER, it is not sufficient that they tell you whether they can tell a
> difference, they must prove it in a statistically significant manner by
> doing it at least 16 times, because if they only guessed one time it could
> be luck. So, for example, if they can tell the white from the red, or the
> fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of
> confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but not
> a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not have
> a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether there
> is any difference between the two at all.

If I'm not misstaken five trials will suffice; the probability of
guessing correctly five times is 0.5^5 = 0.03125 which is less than five
percent.

-- August

[Walt]

On 4/16/2014 1:39 PM, news wrote:
> ...if they can tell the white from the red, or the

> fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of
> confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but not
> a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not have
> a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether there
> is any difference between the two at all.

It probably should be noted that the wine tests cited were not really
difference tests, but rather a demonstration of the rather large effect
of suggestibility.

A real difference test would be to give the subjects two different wines
(a red and a white, or an expensive and a cheap) and see if they could
detect the difference while blindfolded. My hunch is that they would be
able to do so at the 95% confidence level.

But the expirement didn't do that. Instead, the expirement gave the
subjects two identical wines (except for the food coloring and the
bottle) and the subjects perceived large differences when there was
none. That's explained by suggestibility.

Agree with your larger point - in order to get to *preference* one must
first establish *difference*.

> The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about
> what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it
> is done under sighted conditions. They will never say "well, this new
> $50,000 amplifier is certainly the same as all other decent amplifiers."
> That wouldn't show the fineness of their hearing or advance their magazine
> sales.
>
> But most of us know all that. Just saying for the benefit of the newbies
> lurking in.

The science of why $50k amplifiers and $15k cables sound better than
$500 amplifiers and Belden 8451 is pretty well explained by the Asch
Paradigm.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments


--
//Walt

[Scott]

No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted bias. But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own stereo. Does that make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked about those perceptions at length and have come up with some very unconventional beliefs on stereo playback based on those perceptions.

> They will never say "well, this new
>
> $50,000 amplifier is certainly the same as all other decent amplifiers."
>
> That wouldn't show the fineness of their hearing or advance their magazine
>
> sales.

So why did Stereo Review/Sound and Vision say just that for all those years? By the way, you don't know that those unnamed 50,000 dollar amps sound the same as all other "decent" amps. (whatever you may mean by "decent" amps)

>
>
>
> But most of us know all that. Just saying for the benefit of the newbies
>
> lurking in.
>
>

Yeah me too.

[news]

Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:

>> The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry
>> about
>>
>> what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless
>> if it
>>
>> is done under sighted conditions.
>
> No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted
> bias. But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own
> stereo. Does that make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked
> about those perceptions at length and have come up with some very
> unconventional beliefs on stereo playback based on those perceptions.

Not totally unconventional. There are a few others who have observed the
same, such as Linkwitz, Moulton, Davis, maybe include Toole if you consider
his reports on the prefernce for a wide, smooth response to indicate
something about radiation pattern.

But all of that is why I, too, must compare my new speakers against some
conventional ones in a blind study.

I do wish I knew which Scott you are, so that I know what body of discourse
we are referring to when you mention that you have read my material before.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:21:12 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
>
>
>
> >> The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry
>
> >> about
>
> >>
>
> >> what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless
>
> >> if it
>
> >>
>
> >> is done under sighted conditions.
>
> >
>
> > No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted
>
> > bias. But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own
>
> > stereo. Does that make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked
>
> > about those perceptions at length and have come up with some very
>
> > unconventional beliefs on stereo playback based on those perceptions.
>
>
>
> Not totally unconventional.

I didn't say totally unconventional though did I?

> There are a few others who have observed the
>
> same, such as Linkwitz, Moulton, Davis, maybe include Toole if you consider
>
> his reports on the prefernce for a wide, smooth response to indicate
>
> something about radiation pattern.

While I disagree with many things Floyd Toole and company assert about speaker design I don't think his ideas are at all in line with yours.

>
>
>
> But all of that is why I, too, must compare my new speakers against some
>
> conventional ones in a blind study.

But you haven't. That was my point. Perceptions, even under sighted conditions are not "totally meaningless." You find meaning in your own sighted perceptions.

>
>
>
> I do wish I knew which Scott you are, so that I know what body of discourse
>
> we are referring to when you mention that you have read my material before.
>
>
>

There are only two Scotts that regularly post here. I go by Scott. The other Scott goes by ScottW. He always has.

[KH]

On 4/19/2014 6:20 AM, Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
>> The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about
>>
>> what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it
>>
>> is done under sighted conditions.
>
> No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted bias. But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own stereo. Does that make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked about those perceptions at length and have come up with some very unconventional beliefs on stereo playback based on those perceptions.

Not "totally", no, just meaningless if *audible* differences are your
only interest. I don't doubt that many, if not all, of us have used many
different factors in selecting our gear, including it's looks. But I
don't need a reviewer to wax poetic about how the gear looks, I need
only see a picture for that. I can research the manufacturer, and
obviously I can see the price, so the sound is really the only other
criterion of interest, and a subjective, sighted-only review won't
reliably provide that information. So..."essentially meaningless".

Keith

[Scott]

That's just wrong. The actual sound of the gear is an actual factor in a person's perceptions of what they hear. Even under sited conditions. There is this thing called gray between the black and the white.

[KH]

No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.
If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be
preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with
*audibility*.

Keith

[Scott]

I am not conflating anything. If you put two different components that are known to sound different in those same boxes the sound difference will also affect preference. Once again you gravitate towards the black and white and ignore the gray in between. We actually do hear things under sighted conditions and what we actually hear also affects what we think we hear. Bias hardly makes up 100% of our perceptions.

[KH]

Uhmm, yes, because they sound different.

> Once again you gravitate towards the black and white and ignore the gray in between. We actually do hear things under sighted conditions and what we actually hear also affects what we think we hear. Bias hardly makes up 100% of our perceptions.

It is black and white. Sighted, you cannot *know* how much bias is
introduced, or whether it suppresses differences or "creates"
differences in perception where no audible differences are present. That
is an established fact. So, virtually meaningless for any subtle
differences in components where, from an engineering perspective, no
audible difference should exist.

[Scott]

Alas, as John Atkinson said so wisely. Everything sounds the same except when it doesn't. You have now attached enough conditions that I think I can probably mostly agree with you...now. Of course the goal posts have been moved so far that this is no longer the original assertion. That being "The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is done under sighted conditions."

[KH]

You need to read more carefully. I have put *no* conditions on
anything. The "subtle" comment above only acknowledges that no one ever
argues that speakers, for example, need blind testing to hear the
obvious audible differences. You know that, clearly.

It's clear that sighted testing is subject to bias - unrelated to the
actual audible signal. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows how
bias affects any given reviewers perception, only that it *will* affect
it. So, as I originally said, the statement "The subjectivist audio

press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what they hear in
the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is done under

sighted conditions." is perfectly accurate if the *sound* is the only
thing of interest. No goalpost moving or conditions. If you're
interested in a reviewers Gestalt of a piece (I have no idea why one
would, but...) then feel free.

[Barkingspyder]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:21:12 AM UTC-7, news wrote:

Why compare your speakers in a blind study at all? The difference between speakers are not in any question, their differences are usually painfully obvious. The use of blind testing that I know about is to determine so called subtle differences. Nothing subtle about speakers, they are and always have been the weakest link in the audio chain.

Frequency response is all over the map and often times so is the impedance. They can present loads that make amps cry uncle.

The only blind testing of speakers that I know of that have any meaning are the ones done by the BBC when they were getting out of building their own speakers and deciding which speakers from which company they were going to choose. They wanted the most accurate speakers they could get, so they lined up some likely candidates based on measured performance and blind listening. As we all probably know Dynaudio won. Not that hard to see why once you listen to any Dynaudio speaker, at least that's been my experience. I have yet to hear a better tweeter made by anybody than the D28 and the T330.

But I digress.

I ask again why would you need to compare speakers in blind listening comparisons? I know you have a thing for direct reflecting speakers, and almost nobody seems to understand why, but to compare them to any more conventional speakers is bound to show a difference.

For any other audio device blind comparisons likely are going to show no difference, assuming everything is working like it should and one designer has not decided to try for something other than accurate response, meaning flat frequency response.

I have a hard time understanding why this is still being talked about as if double blind testing had not been shown to be the best possible way to determine if there is any difference between audio devices. Why do people still tell the same stories about non-existent stress? Can the subjective pundits really be powerful enough and persuasive enough to fool so many people so often?

[Low Hertz]

As a musician and good friends with luthiers, you have to understand that
virtually no Stradivarious violins are in original condition. To begin with,
their necks/fingerboards were adapted for modern music.

That's less of a consequence as violin shops, to make the instrument sound
immediately bigger and louder, removed wood. This provided short term benefit, but in the long run, without the mass the tone became compromised,
as it takes mass for a clean sound to carry.

Carbon fiber is interesting. If you heard carbon fiber dropped it has a horrible metallic sound. Yes, I've heard Lewis and Clark instruments, and they are amazing for what they are. But in cold weather, musicians such as Yo Yo Ma, were considering using them, but the weather warmed up enough so they were able to use their warmer, richer sounding spruce and maple instruments.

I'd like a Lewis and Clark bass as a back up instrument, they're light weight, indestructible, sound good. But they sound no where near as complex and interesting as my old Italian bass.

For a while Coda make great carbon fiber bows, Coda Orchestral Bows.

I wanted one but they no longer make that model. It drew a lot of sound and spoke really quickly. The new models are much stiffer and I don't like them.

[Peter Wieck]

On Monday, November 10, 2014 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Low Hertz wrote:
<Much Stuff Clipped>

Coming late into this thread by virtue of two recent posts - I would suggest that the horse is thoroughly dead, cannot be revived, and at this point is probably not even good for leather.

By way of costs - the point of diminishing returns is far, far below $90,000 in any piece of audio equipment, moving parts or otherwise. There is only but so much *stuff* that may be crammed into an object specific to any given audio purpose, and that *stuff* can only cost so much. After which the rest is eyewash. With moving parts, agreed that the threshold is much higher than with electronics. But even if made entirely from titanium and with ruby bearings, humanely harvested whale-oil lubricants, solid silver wire insulated with virgin kynar, there is still but so much. $90,000 - the price of a modest house in many, many parts of the US, including a car in the garage, is well beyond that 'so much'.

Violins: The story of the mis-shipped 'fiddle' comes to mind. De Gustibus non est disputandum. Those who prefer *THIS* to *THAT* might be persuaded to consider *THAT*. But those who consider *THIS* vs. *THAT* to be matters of revealed religion have no such flexibility, nor should it be asked of them. They believe what they choose and will continue to do so, other considerations notwithstanding.

Every so often, this fly is cast across these waters - and always some few rise to the bait. We are a highly opinionated bunch, it is to be expected. Participate as you choose, but with humor, not hostility....

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

p.s.:
a) Ruby is naturally lubricious. Diamond and/or many other precious stones are not. Hence rubies commonly used as 'jewels' in machinery over other materials.
b) Silver is the best room-temperature conductor - far better than gold.
c) kynar is an extremely thin, extremely tough insulator with very high dielectric properties. Much better than lacquer or shellac.