Why Live-vs-Recorded Listening Tests Don't Work Options

[solive]

Thomas Edison was probably the greatest stereo salesman that ever lived. He believed that "listeners will hear what you tell them to hear", and he was pretty successful convincing thousands of listeners that his 1910 Edison Diamond Disc Phonograph reproduced recordings that sounded identical to a live performance. His secret weapon was an elaborate live-versus-recorded demonstration that managed to convince people that his phonograph sounded a lot better than it really was.

Several times over the past 10 years, I have been asked by live-versus-recorded apologists why I don't do these types of the tests since they claim they are the only true valid measures of loudspeaker fidelity or accuracy. That is what prompted me to write about why I believe live-versus-recorded listening tests don't work, in this month's blog article

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

This post has been edited by solive: Jul 10 2010, 11:30

[greynol]

Unless he can assure us that his opinion about the relative sound quality of a live event cannot possibly be influenced by other factors than just sound quality then he hasn't a leg to stand on.

In case you aren't catching on, Scott, lofty esoteric comments about sound which are not backed by blind testing is generally frowned upon.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 12 2010, 02:31