Double Blind Tests- NOthing to see hear!!

[LHC]

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?

 

I agree the end results of the two are the same, i.e. an ordered list of candidates. But the way they achieve this and the thought process involved can be different. 

[Guest fordgtlover]

I agree the end results of the two are the same, i.e. an ordered list of candidates. But the way they achieve this and the thought process involved can be different. 

 

It was this last point that I was keen to explore in my original post. Apart from the obvious mechanics of dealing people versus a system, how might the thought processes vary?

[davewantsmoore]

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

 

No.   "Fee better" is not the point of it.

 

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

 

No.   They don't even "prove" that.... because one orchestra, does not the "orchestra world" make.

 

 

What the experiment shows is that (in this instance), when a certain piece of information was hidden from somebody, they chose differently.   Nothing more, nothing less.

 

... and there are zillions of other account of the same effect in other situations.   There's a whole branch of scientific study dedicated to it.

[betty boop]

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.

 

I think you will find even the original paper says that a "presumption exists" and that is all the paper is investigating the correlation of. unfortunately the data is a bunch of stuff just looking for hire's over the years from the 70s when some "blind auditions" began and the steady increase of female selections. it doesnt at all consider other reasons or factors as to the increase in participation rates though. it could possibly for instance be the case that a lot more women are even actually being involved in a very heavy male orientated and discriminating environment. and by that very nature a lot more very talented women coming forward to be selected. I see nothing in the paper...whcih is an economics paper by the way. that doesnt show exploration of other correlation factors. talking about blind ...well the research is a little blinkered in that regard.

 

all the paper in my opinion shows is greater participation of women which is great. whether it is just the blind or several other factors over the years whether participation, changing society etc who is to know its not something the paper explores.

 

it just shows an increasing participation over the years. sorry.

[davewantsmoore]

I see nothing in the paper...whcih is an economics paper by the way. that doesnt show exploration of other correlation factors. talking about blind ...well the research is a little blinkered in that regard.

 

Of course.   The paper is nothing like definitive....   it needs to be read with all the other write ups which attempt to examine human vagaries of bias, perception, choice, etc.

 

Do you not agree.....  that there can be information presented to you, which affects your ability to perceive other information in the same way?

 

Ted - Eyes

McGurk

Cube Colours

Lines

Edited September 7, 2015 by davewantsmoore

[Guest Muon]

Comparing visual and hearing is flawed, two very different senses with each sense using different parts of the brain for processing.

 

It's not a valid comparison IMO.

[Tony ray]

If Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder are the musicians behind the screen does this make it a Double Blind Test (DBT)?

[sir sanders zingmore]

I think the point is that what we see affects what we hear

[Guest Muon]

It's still smoke and mirrors to push an invalid point IMO.

 

This is more of the same circular debate that goes round and round, and will still be no different 5 or 10 years from now....see you guys in that future thread for some of the same :lol:

[sir sanders zingmore]

It's still smoke and mirrors to push an invalid point IMO.

 

This is more of the same circular debate that goes round and round, and will still be no different 5 or 10 years from now....see you guys in that future thread for some of the same :lol:

 

Yep, go to any audio forum and you'll see variations on this theme over and over again

[Guest Sime]

Comparing visual and hearing is flawed, two very different senses with each sense using different parts of the brain for processing.

 

It's not a valid comparison IMO.

And as an invalid comparison that is the comparing DBT's Between humans and cables, as what the original post was suggesting.

[davewantsmoore]

Comparing visual and hearing is flawed, two very different senses with each sense using different parts of the brain for processing.

 

It's not a valid comparison IMO.

 

The only "comparison" going on is that they share a common theme, which is that there can be additional information presented to you which inhibits your ability to perceive other information.

 

This isn't just limited to audio, or visual .... it applies to everything.

 

 

Another example:

 

I sold some shares last week.   It turned out to be a bad decision.    If I had of considered only the important information, I would not have sold ..... however my perception (and ultimately my decision) was affected by additional information which impaired my ability to perceive the important information.

 

It isn't "wrong" to choose a performer based on their sex, or a speaker based on sighted listening.... or to sell shares based on "the vibe of it" .... or to be affected by optical or audio illusions.      But sometimes, it pays to know about it.....  because sometimes we might want to avoid those traps  (and knowing they exist is the only way to avoid them).

[Newman]

It's still smoke and mirrors to push an invalid point IMO.

This is more of the same circular debate that goes round and round, and will still be no different 5 or 10 years from now....see you guys in that future thread for some of the same [emoji38]

Sorry, which debate? And are you referring to yourself as one of the non-learners or non-listeners, or only others? What is your current understanding of fact on the topic that you refer to as being permanently stuck?

[davewantsmoore]

It's still smoke and mirrors to push an invalid point IMO.

 

What is the invalid point?

[davewantsmoore]

Yep, go to any audio forum and you'll see variations on this theme over and over again

 

Not every  

[Guest Hensa]

Unlike many of the blind-test threads that have gone before, I find the discussion on the correlation between blind auditioning of live artists and blind evaluation of audio components quite interesting. The aim of both is purely to remove a particular factor from consideration in the evaluation: In the case of the audition, removing the gender of the musician as a consideration thus enabling better focus on the artistic interpretation and performance; In the case of audio components, removing the price/value of the component from consideration thus enabling better focus on the sonic performance.

 

In both cases, I can see the merits of the blind test. In both cases, a subjective evaluation will still take place based on other personal biases: artistic style preferences in the case of an audition of a performer; and sound presentation preferences (forwardness, warmth, neutrality, etc) in the case of a component evaluation.

 

So yes, I can see a correlation as it specifically relates to enabling a more focused (but still subjective) evaluation on either artistic performance (artist audition) or sonic merits (component evaluation).

[davewantsmoore]

And as an invalid comparison that is the comparing DBT's Between humans and cables, as what the original post was suggesting.

 

Please explain how the comparison is invalid.

 

Why don't you try and help people understand your point, rather than just implying they are stupid ??!?

[davewantsmoore]

The aim of both is purely to remove a particular factor from consideration in the evaluation

 

 

It's simply the basics of good experimental design.  Controlling variables.  Sometimes controlling a variable significantly affects the outcome.

 

Consumers are free to not care about this (and I don't mean that in a side or sarcastic way)   .... so the "blind test or get out" crowd are often picking the wrong battle there.....   but OTOH, it is a real thing, and definitely something which should be taken into account if someone were to use their results for something more serious than their own free preference. 

[betty boop]

Of course.   The paper is nothing like definitive....   it needs to be read with all the other write ups which attempt to examine human vagaries of bias, perception, choice, etc.

 

Do you not agree.....  that there can be information presented to you, which affects your ability to perceive other information in the same way?

 

Ted - Eyes

McGurk

Cube Colours

Lines

 

putting aside this research which am glad to see you agree isn't very definitive. 

 

the human mind is very powerful ! 

 

if its a topic that interests, I would suggest watching the horizon documentary "The battle in your mind" it talks about system 1 and system 2 thinking and how humans are prone to error.

[davewantsmoore]

putting aside this research which am glad to see you agree isn't very definitive

 

One instance doesn't  "prove"  anything.    Otherwise I could conduct a running race with people of all different heights, have a short guy win, and conclude that short people run better.

 

The apple falling from the tree didn't "prove" gravity....   but when the 100th apple fell, and all the other objects tested fell, and different people repeated the same experiment over and over in different situations ....people decide there might be something going on.... and people began to use the prediction that objects fall to their advantage.    Of course, objects don't always fall, so we have to be careful not to be to blinkered.....   but a clear understanding of how they fall, why they fall, and when we would expect them to fall - is naturally better than dogmatism.

 

It isn't controversial to state that there can be information presented to you which impairs your ability to assess or perceive other information.    The paper quoted is just another example.

 

 

if its a topic that interests

 

Only in how it relates to speaker design.

[Newman]

So when you say 'very powerful', you mean in a weak and easily misled way? 

[Guest Muon]

And on it goes :lol:

 

Ah well, I'll cease interrupting the familiar flow of the thread.

[davewantsmoore]

Ah well, I'll cease interrupting the familiar flow of the thread.

 

See previous sincere questions to you.

[Guest Muon]

There is no point in answering anything in these threads, history has shown this time and time again.

[davewantsmoore]

There is no point in answering anything in these threads, history has shown this time and time again.

 

Wow.   Thanks for wasting my time.