Overcoming the Perception Problem Options

[item]

I've noticed an increase in forum debate about the validity of transferring the credibility of ABX from the physical domain to perception testing. I'm wondering if anyone has found a way past this issue?

The purpose of blind testing is to subtract subjectivity from the effect of - for instance - a drug trial: to assess a medication's impact on a subject's physiology with interference from their psychology. But what about when the purpose of a test is subjective perception? How do we then subtract the effect of the method to arrive at a meaningful outcome?

While we would like to remove expectation bias from the equation, if the conditions under which this is done also change the perceptive state of the listener, the test is invalidated as surely as they would be by tissue sample contamination.

Recent large scale public experiments by Lotto Labs (http://www.lottolab.org/) demonstrated that perception acuity is dramatically altered by test conditions: for instance, that time contraction/dilation effects are experienced when exposed to colour fields. In one experiment, two groups were asked to perform an identical fine-grained visual acuity test. One group was pre-emptively 'manipulated' by filling in a questionnaire designed to lower their self-esteem. This 'less confident' group consistently performed worse on the test that the unmanipulated one: their acuity was significantly impaired by a subtle psychological 'tweak' that wasn't even in effect during the test.

It seems undeniable that the much grosser differences between the mental states of sighted and 'blind' listening - considered generously - cast serious doubt on the results thus obtained.

The harder line is that blind perception tests are a fundamental misappropriation of methodology. In psychology it's axiomatic that for many experiments the subject must be unaware of the nature of the test (see Milgram). If a normalised state is not cunningly contrived, results are at best only indicative of what a subject thinks they should do; at worst, entirely invalid.

Probing hearing, the point is that a test must not change the mental state of the listener.

The contrast between outcomes of sighted and listening tests is as stark as those demonstrating suggestibility (see McGurk), but giving too much credence to such an intrinsically unsound experimental approach (not spotting this difficulty) does no favours to our credibility at all.

The only way past the dilemma seems to be direct mechanical examination of the mind during 'normal' listening to explore why the experiences of sighted and unsighted listening differ. This seems to be an interesting question.

In the meantime, the idea that - despite the method problem - results from blind ABX are valid is at least supported by the majority of data derived from home testing, Audio DiffMaker et al, so we needn't get hung up on it.

[googlebot]

While the OP's reasoning and claimed inference from his cited studies are certainly flawed, he touches a valid point: Double-blind testing of isolated senses puts a subject into an artificial mode of perception, that is different from our usual perception of the world, which is always a multisensory blend. It should also be out of question, that the human brain makes excessive use of inter sensoric correlation while forming a consolidated mental representation of the outside world.

An ABX test can tell you, what an attentive mind, with artificially blocked non-auditory senses, can differentiate at best through the remaining, isolated auditory channel. I do not question, that this is probably as objective as it can get, when the auditory channel alone is all you want to map. I do question how much can be inferred regarding to the experience of actual listening situations in peoples' homes, where not only other senses (seeing your carefully composed system), but also a history of attached memories, associations and whatnot are constantly part of your perception of the world. I'm not claiming that aiming to be objective in a subjective environment is senseless, but it certainly might also make sense, that well situated, older men write magazines for each other, reporting about their experiences of trying to transform their surplus of dollars back to some sense of meaning. Subjective prose, that isn't castrated by some blinded, pain-in-the ass protocol as ABX, might be an actually more "objective" guide to identify an perfectly matching audio system for a member of any common enough group of individuals.

Long term HA usage might turn your mind into something, that has become unable to extract joy from owning expensive audio gear. A history of personal ABX comparisons can attach enough associations, so that this road is just closed. Not everyone might like that and I have come to a point, where I think that both is fine. I do also have come to the belief, that a man convinced that his gold cables sound better in a sighted test, even when he is unable to verify the same results blindly, is probably not lying to us.

PS & BTW Could it be shown already that results from double-blind listening tests correlate with the results of sighted tests over a large enough pool of listeners and different setups?

This post has been edited by googlebot: Oct 11 2012, 22:24

[sld]

Long term HA usage might turn your mind into something, that has become unable to extract joy from owning expensive audio gear.

On the contrary, I enjoy my audio gear knowing that I didn't get fleeced by myself or by someone else.

I don't know if you can actually break down your definition of "Long term HA usage" into specific activities, but ABX doesn't affect musical experiences in any way. If and when you question the quality of your gear, or want to espouse its superiority, you speak the scientific lingua franca by relating your ABX results. Only after that is established can you go on to sighted tests or spectral analysis to bring up discussions of any flavour as to why there were or not any differences.

Most people don't care for comparisons for a variety of reasons. They don't see the need to make claims, and therefore don't need to perform any tests to verify their claims. But in such cases, even a casual discussion of audio gear among friends would really be a discussion of the variety of placebos that people fall prey to.

If the difference is really night and day, it should empower you that your ABX results would come up with the necessary statistical significance in the minimum number of trials and a very short test duration, just to shut the mouths of your sceptics. Yes? And if you had the financial resources to purchase expensive audio gear, it wouldn't be a pain to get some quality switching equipment to facilitate your testing. I see anything otherwise as scientific laziness.