Here's a well-known post by Head-Fi, which is the most exhaustive blind listening test summary I can find about the various metaphysics in HiFi. Of course, as the author of the original post said, some of this is not an ABX test, but just a blind listening test. I am not responsible for some of the test results in this meeting, but just translated the original post. The original text is not very smooth, I have tried my best.
Testing audiophile claims and mythswww.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/
In my spare time, it is inevitable that there will be negligence. Here is the original post:
(As I find more blind listening test results, I'll add them to the list here.) )
We love having a great discussion/argument/generalization here (and on all the other audio forums I've seen) about the metaphysics that many others think are nonsense by audiophiles. The arguments went back and forth: I heard different voices – but there couldn't be any difference, it was all the difference between the sounds you imagined – have you tried different fever wires? – I don't need it to be in your head and so on, and we all know how it works.
Occasionally, someone tries to verify these myths. For example, three What HiFi forum members have been invited to their listening room and have passed a series of blind listening tests ranging from audiophile wire to source bitrate. From the questions I have read, it is certain that the statement that "distinction is metaphysical" is incorrect and that differences are real. Different bit rates have been correctly identified, and different audiophile wires produce different sounds in the same Set of HiFi systems. However, these are just blind listening assessments, which is different from the ABX test, which requires people to correctly differentiate their products.
Here are some of the blind listening tests and ABX test results I found online. All I did was summarize their conclusions.
It is important to note the difference between blind hearing and ABX tests, as they produce different results.
A blind listening test, in which an listener does not know what they are listening to and is asked to describe how different they hear, is a common method of blind listening assessment in audio. The results of such tests are often high-fidelity "surprising" performance at low prices, factors such as high price, appearance, product reputation, etc. that listeners are unaware of. Some blind tests also involve competition between products, such as two amplifier PCs, and the winner advances to the next round. As you can see, my definition of the blind listening test is very broad.
The ABX test is more of a test. You listen to product A and product B, and then you play X, whether it's A or B, and you have to say what it is. There may be more than just A and B, as some tests involve multiple fever wires. Any differences must then be articulated, which is not the case for equipment similar to feverish wire. My definition of the ABX test is also broad.
The aim was to see what the overall results of these tests were, and whether they provided evidence to support or deny the so-called old burn metaphysical theology. Before you read the test below, you can try it for yourself to see how your listening is and understand what an ABX test is...
- ABX double blind listening comparator
This is a website dedicated to such testing. In May 1977, the amplifiers were compared. It is important to note that not all ABX tests are negative. Some people do find a difference. This suggests that some parts of the HiFi chain do have differences, but others do not.
A test of speaker lines found that no one could figure out the difference between the $2.50 to $990 speaker cables. All results are even closer to 50%
There is an interesting comparison to find 'video cables', which are easy to spot once over 50 feet (about 15.2 meters) compared to wires that are 6 feet long (about 1.8 meters).
DAC does not fit CDP Found that the original CDP can be distinguished from the more modern CDP, but the expensive standalone DAC is the same as the CDP.
None of the tests involved a large number of people, some just one person.
DACs don’t fair well with CDPs finding an original CDP being distinguishable from a more modern one, but an expensive stand alone DAC being the same as a CDP.（这句话我实在不知道咋翻译）
These tests were not attended by a large number of people, and some experiments were done by one person on their own.
2. The Influence of Wire, Speaker and Amplifier Interaction, International Audio Engineering Paper, 1991
A total of 12 wires were tested from Levinson to Kimber, including car jumpers and electric light lines, with prices ranging from $2/m to $419/m. The results are based on the theory that the speaker cable should transmit all frequencies, from any amplifier to any speaker without loss, and the loss is due to resistance. There is a hypothesis that getting more frequency and less distortion will sound better. In my opinion this makes sense.
The best performance is multi-core wire. Car jumper leads don't do well, while cables for digital transmission do a good job! The most expensive wire rod is not mentioned in the conclusion, but the cheapest wire is praised for its performance, and Kimber does a great job. Unfortunately, there is no clear list of costs and properties of wire, so it is not clear whether cost equals performance, but it is recommended that the structure equals performance.
3. Do all amplifiers sound the same? Original Stereo Review blind listening test
Many different price ranges and types of amplifiers have been tested. As to whether the audiophiles' claims were true, the listeners claimed to be believers and skeptics.
There are 13 sessions, each with a different number of listeners. There was not much difference in the performance of skeptics and believers, with 2 skeptics getting the highest correct score and 1 believer getting the lowest correct score. The overall average is 50.5%, which is the same as the result of random guessing. The cheapest Pioneer amplifier is perfectly capable of surpassing the more expensive amplifier, and it is "strikingly similar to Levinson".
In addition to that, to explain why amplifiers all sound the same, here's a Wikipedia entry about Bob Carver and his amplifier blind listening challenge.
4. Wire directionality
Not the best link as it only involves a test and doesn't give too many details. Fever wire manufacturer Belden conducted a test with a lesser-known magazine and found that the results were completely random.
I liked the next sentence, "Belden is still happy to make and sell directional wire to enthusiasts"
5. Head-Fi cable ABX test, August 2006
Three fever cables from Canare, Radio Shack and Silver were camouflaged inside the same snakeskin net, each with a marker on it so that only the person initiating the test knew which one was which and then sent to different forum members. The result was that only one forum member answered all three questions correctly. Radio Shack's cheap cables and Sliver's are the least easily distinguished.
Unfortunately, I can't see from the article how many members attended and what the exact outcome was.
HiFi Wigwam power cord ABX test, October 2005
This is a good large-scale ABX test. Similar to Head-fi, forum members received four cables, including 2 electric kettle cables (a backup power cord included with the hifi product), an enthusiast cable, a DIY cable, and a test CD. These results are uncertain, to say the least;
The electric kettle cable is C. There are 23 answers:
4 said the kettle line is A
6 say B
8 say it's C
5 said they didn't know.
The overall conclusion is that the electric kettle cable is not properly identified, or that one power cord is better than the other.
One participant in this test noted that the two water bottle leads described as identical in the test are actually not the same, but are just the basic leads of hifi products.
7. What HiFi's biggest question about wire 2009
From September 2009. Three forum members were invited to What HiFi (WHF) for a blind listening test, and they thought the toolkit (Roksan, Cyrus, Spendor) was changing, but instead, the cable was. The same three tracks run through it.
This test was initially done using the cheapest wire What HiFi could find, and no one liked it and claimed to sound bland. Next, a Lindy power conditioner and a Coperline Alpha fever power cord were introduced and the sound was improved.
The audio line was changed to Atlas Equators, and two of the 3 tracks are said to have been boosted, with both low frequencies and details getting better.
Finally, the 60 pence/m speaker cable was changed to the £6/m Chord Carnival Sliverscreen. Similarly, changes have been noted, but not much.
Various exchanges were carried out after that, which confirmed the above situation, that is, the power cord had the greatest impact. When the test results were revealed, the participants were amazed!
However, this is not an ABX test, but a blind listening assessment, and when you read the explanation at the beginning of this article, you will find that the two tests produce different results. Worryingly, when I asked lead editor Clare Newsome about such tests, she claimed that the tests were ABX, while elsewhere on the forums they claimed to do ABX tests. But they didn't, they were blind to the assessment, which gave people the opportunity to claim differences, but without providing evidence, they could really hear different.
8. Home Theater with High Fidelity Secrets. Can we hear the difference between different power cords? One ABX blind hearing test. In 2004
A comprehensive article with pictures, out of 149 tests, the total result was 73, so the accuracy rate was 49%, which was no different from random.
9. Boston Audio Association, an ABX blind listening test for Linn founder Ivor Tiefenbrun, 1984
A rather complicated test of Ivror Tiefenbrun himself, who at the time was very pro-vinyl and against digital audio (almost the opposite of how Linn operates now!). There are a variety of different tests, and the overall conclusion is:
In conclusion, in this series of tests, Tiefenbrun did not provide any evidence that it was possible to reliably identify:
(a) there is an undriven unit in the room,
(b) The Sony PCM-F1 digital processor appears in the audio chain, or
(c) The presence of relay contacts for A/B/X switch boxes in the circuit. ”
Even Linn's founder couldn't back up the claims he made when he was tested on ABX.
10. Famous Audioholics Forum Post, Wire & Drying Rack, June 2004
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/lfe-problem-in-marantz-receiver-sr-4000.24/#post-97
11. Matrixhifi.com Forum in Spain, ABX testing of two systems, June 2006.
Two systems, one inexpensive (A) Sony DVD player and Bailingda amplifier (supported in a folding chair) with chepo cables, and the other more expensive (B) with Classe, YBA, Wadia and expensive audiophile equipment and suitable racks, hidden behind the scenes and connected to the same set of speakers.
The results are:
38 people took the test
14 people chose the "A" system as the best listening system
10 choose the "B" system as the best listening system
14 people didn't hear the difference, or didn't choose any one as the best.
AVReview, Wire Blind Listening Test, May 2008.
Some members of the AVR forum went to a HiFi store in Sevenoaks and auditioned the same device with two cheap Maplens cables (priced at £2 and £8 respectively) and a Chord Signature (priced at £500). They found that the cheaper Maplins filaments were easy to distinguish, and the more expensive Maplins were harder to distinguish from the Chord. Their resident skeptics agreed that he could hear the disagreement. The final conclusion is;
...... From our nearly 20 test samples, we got 14 correct answers. The result is 70% correct...
This is the second display cable added to What HiFi that does have a difference in the ABX test. But as What HiFi shows, the results of the blind listening test and the ABX test are different, and how easy it is to try and blur the two tests.
13. AES, International Association of Audio Engineering, AMX testing of CD/SACD/DVD Audio, September 2007.
One of the summaries states that "a carefully controlled double-blind listening test attended by many experienced listeners, the results of which showed no differences between formats could not be heard". As a result, in 554 trials, 60 listeners did not hear any difference between CD, SACD and 96/24.
Note that this experiment is flawed, basically the high-resolution sound source is converted from the original CD.
14. What HiFi, HDMI Wire Blind Test, July 2010
Another What HiFi test, the changes being made by the three forum members are using three HDMI cables. As far as they know, the device may be replaced. The cables are free, £75 Chord and £150 QED. Throughout the test, all three struggled to find differences, but more confidently, the differences were in sound rather than pictures. They prefer free cables to chord cables and find it as good as the most expensive QED. This result is common in blind trials and really sets it apart from ABX trials.
In my opinion, these wires that have been reported to have differences can be explained by three brave testers who say there is no difference. They were invited to a test hoping to find out what was different.
15. AKG, Infinity, JBL Floyd Toole; Audio, A Science in the Service of the Arts, 1998.
A paper written by Floyd Toole on many topics of scientific measurement and audio. Going to pages 10 and 11, there is a paragraph about the blind listening test. It shows how much greater the "difference" between speakers is when a non-blind listening test is performed instead of a blind listening test. The obvious conclusion is that non-blind listening tests cause factors other than sound to play a role in deciding what sounds better.
Sean Olive, Research Director of Acoustics at HARMAN International, Dishonest Factors in The Non-Blind Listening Test, 2009.
A study of 40 HARMAN employees and comparison of blind and non-blind listening test results for four loudspeakers. As a colleague at Director Harman put it, the listening test that allows the use of vision shows biases that are not present in the blind listening test.
Below the article are various responses to the blog, including a very interesting exchange between Alan Sircom, editor of Hifi Plus magazine and Sean Olive. Alan Sircom makes the very interesting point that volume has a role to play with blind tests
"Here's an interesting test to explain what I mean: run a blind test a group of products under level-matched conditions. Then run the same test (still blind), allowing the users to set the volume to their own personal taste for each loudspeaker under test. From my (admittedly dated and anecdotal) testing on this, the level-matched group will go for the one with the flattest frequency response, as will those who turn the volume 'down', but those who turn the dial the other way often choose the loudspeaker with the biggest peak at around 1kHz, saying how 'dynamic' it sounds."
I had not thought of that before. You will end up with different conclusions between a blind test where the volume is set and where the volume can be adjusted. Adjustment allows preferences for different sounds to be expressed, without other influences being present that clearly have nothing to do with sound.
17.
It's not a blind listening test, but I think it's worth putting in this post. The studio used by David Gilmour (which I think he owns) was reconnected by Russ Andrews with a Kimber line. This is apparently extensive AB comparison testing. I would love the ABX test after that!
18. DIY Audio Forum, A Player's Confession, 2003.
One forum member joined in and admitted, "Then I started hearing about some convincing blind listening tests, and finally I did it myself." I was shocked by the results. In the store where I work, there's no difference between a $300 amplifier and a $3,000 amplifier. Neither can other people who work there. "He then did a blind listening test on a friend himself with an Onkyo SR500 Dolby digital amplifier and a Bryston 4B 300 wpc amplifier + a Bryston 2-channel preamp — his friend's system." The red-faced friend couldn't hear the difference.
19. Boston Audio Association, Discussion and Analysis of Two Blind Listening Tests, 1990.
In an article discussing the Stereophile CD-tweek blindness test, the Boston Audio Association said, "In the CD-tweek blind test, Atkinson and Hammond conducted 3222 single blind listening tests to determine whether cd-tweaks (green ink, armor, expensive transports) changed the sound of CD playback." Overall, subjects were only able to identify tweaked CDs and unendified CDs 48.3 percent of the time, and the proportion of high scores (five, six, or seven out of seven trials – stereo enthusiasts' definition of a keen listener) was well within expectations without subjects merely guessing. ”
20. Cowan Audio, an Australian enthusiast, blind listening test between different CD players, 1997.
An unknown $1800 model (they don't want to disclose the model) CD machine compared to a $300 Sony CD machine, the result is only about 50% correct rate, no different from blindness. William Cowan first took a non-blind listening test and claimed that "it's too easy, let's move on to the blind listening test". ah!
The results were 3/7 and 5/8 correct.
22. Tom Nousaine, article to Tweak or not to tweak? 1988.
One uses the same CD player and speakers, but different amplifiers and wires for testing. One is $300 and the other is $5,000. There were 7 listeners, and 10 trials failed.
23. Monster VS Opus MM 2002年
Not particularly rigorous because there weren't enough tests, but as the poster put it, "and to get to the point, Mike couldn't accurately identify Monster and Opus MM with our testing method (or conversely, if he was consistently wrong, it would have been a positive result). We stopped testing less than halfway through and I think we went through 8 A/B's before giving up. ”
24.
This is an Australian forum, so the conclusion is usually straightforward "conclusion: there are errors between the two preamps, they are so close that no difference can be reliably picked." "Although the testers seemed to have some doubts, the tests worked well.
25. Stereomojo, Digital Amplifier Comparative Test, 2007
Multiple amplifiers are tested blindly, a group of two are PK, and the better performing amplifiers pass the test to enter the next round. The winner was a cheap amplifier called the Trends Audio TA-10, which sold for $130 and was a small amplifier in the upper right corner of the stack.
Head-Fi filament ABX testing 2006
Three feverish wires, Canare, Solid Silver and Rat Shack, are camouflaged and look the same. Only one person can tell the difference, and when there is no audible difference, one is likely to be guessing, and you would expect the difference to happen.
27. Blind listening test of HDMI lines on a French website
Nine participants used nameless wire, Belkin and Magic Sound HDMI lines. Only one person claimed which line was preferred, but his feedback was inconsistent with his claim.
28.
These wires include Taralabs, VDH, Audioquest and a DIY cable. The result is that no one can reliably tell the difference.
29.
All three failed, and listeners used their own equipment, music, volume, and time.
Note - Unfortunately Tom Nussein has passed away and direct links to his articles have been interrupted.
30. Crazy Sounds, Blind Listening Test CDs with Digital Files, Expensive Speaker Cables & Cheap Wires. The Wall Street Journal, January 2008
Tests conducted at a video show in Las Vegas found that Wav files (52 percent) were better than MP3 (33 percent) when compared to CDs, and in a $2,000 Sigma speaker cable versus hardware wire, 61 percent of the 39 people who took the test preferred more expensive wire. There are no substantial conclusions about these test results, but interestingly, John Atkinson and Michael Fremer from Stereophile magazine have been described as people who easily pick out more expensive wire.
AV Sience Forum, Observations on Controlled Wire Listening Tests, November 2007
Blind listening test between Monster wire and Opus MM, which as far as I know is $33,000 worth of wire.
However, the owner of the equipment and the wire in the very High End cannot distinguish the difference between the two.
32.
A letter from Tom Nousaine to an audio critic describing an ABX test for the owner of a very High End system in which the Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 200w mono amplifier was randomly replaced with a Yamaha AX-700 100w combined amplifier. In the first test, the Owner of the High End equipment identified 3 out of 10, followed by 5 out of 10. His wife was right 9 times out of 16 and his friend was right 4 times out of 10.
33.
Two TVs, two Sony's PS3s and a James Bond movie played side by side, the only difference being the replacement of the HDMI cable. Interestingly, the difference in this photo is small, but the difference from the sound is more pronounced. However, many people prefer a cheaper sound over expensive cables.
Note - Not an ABX test, and reviewers have admitted that tv and PS3 may also have slight differences.
34.
35.
Tenth paragraph. A "whole trick" blind listening test, at CES, a group thought they were listening to a $20,000 CD player, but in fact, they were listening to the iPod.
Vision really does a lot with sound.
36. A full night of auditions of different wires, AVForums June 2006
In addition to the ipod experiment described above, a member of AVForums reported his experience conducting a non-blind hearing test and a blind hearing test at a distributor.
Compare the conclusions of the trial
"That's what I heard.
- With one exception, all wires sound slightly different.
2. Some of the differences in music are less pronounced
3. My evaluation when I listen blindly is different from my "non-blind" evaluation
37. Blind Listening Test on Classic and Modern Violin, Westerlunds Violinverkstand, March 2006
It's really interesting, but it shows again how different we are when it comes to doing a non-blind listening test and a blind listening test. In this test, six violins, three c1700 (including one Stradivari) and three modern violins are played to a group of string teachers who vote on their favorite violin. The stage was pitch black, and they couldn't see which one it was. Stradivari came last, with a modern brand winning.
38. At the edge of audibility, blind testing of recordings with or without filters. June 2011
You can download and try recordings yourself. Of those who have already had, 2 chose number one, the others chose number 6, and no one chose number 10.
39. Try the bitrate blind listening test
A very well set up and easy to use website for testing blind listening at different bitrates.
40. Blind Listening Test on a CD Turntable, StereoNET Australia - Hi Fi & Home Cinema News, October 2008
Well set up and described, after a set of failed tests, they admitted that no one could hear the difference, gave up, and instead drank some beer!
41. ABX tests for adding different levels of jitter jitter jitter to audio tracks, HDD Audio forum, March and April 2009
One member recorded his score, no different from random.
42. Stereophile ABX testing on amplifiers, 1997
A total of 505 listeners participated and came up with the following elaborate result chart
It's a random bell curve, as you get from guessing. However, Stereophile claims that the test was successful because some people did it better than average. There may be some facts, because there have been blind listening amplifier tests that have passed. Even so, a small percentage of the subjects need to be tested again to see if they are out of luck. The statistical significance of this test is not enough to indicate that there are audible differences.
43. Head-Fi, a member conducts a non-blind listening test and a blind listening test on the wire, November 2011.
This provides more evidence that vision tests and blind tests produce different results, i.e. people can hear a difference when they can see the product, but not in a blind hearing test.
44. Minnesota Audio Association. Wire listening test. April 2012
The results are complex, and no wire can make a clear difference. They admit that there is no objective difference, but since they found a difference that is easily explained by random selection, they conclude that there is a subjective difference, so the so-called "wire does have an impact."
45. Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge, June 2006
"The Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge is a hearing test designed to show the difference between the amplifiers that the human ear cannot hear as long as modern amplifiers work within their linear range (below the limit)."
This is an ABX test that takes two sets of 12 correct identifications. It is said that more than a thousand people participated in the challenge, but none of them passed.
Does the result show that I should buy the cheapest amplifier?
No, you should buy the best amplifier. Factors to consider are: reliability, quality, cooling performance, flexibility, quality of mechanical connections, reputation of the manufacturer, special characteristics, size, weight, aesthetics and cost. Buying the cheapest amplifier may give you an unreliable amplifier that is difficult to use and may not yet have the features you need. This test shows that the only factor you can ignore is the sound quality of the power lower than the clipping. ”
This is an excuse for those who have spent a lot of money on a beautiful amplifier.
46. Audio Video Revolution Forum, Blind Listening Tests on Speakers, November 2007
The good news is that the results strongly suggest that even under blind listening conditions, the speakers will be significantly different, whether it is subjective listening or objective testing.
47. PSB Speaker, Comparative Blind Listening Test of Four Speakers, November 2005
The author is glad he didn't choose that cheap speaker, but he didn't mention whether the speaker was easily recognizable.
magazine
UK consumer magazine values its independence and testing procedures to provide fair and independent advice.
"Tests have shown that cheap HDMI filaments – even those worth just a few pounds – can work just as well as more expensive filaments. When we last did our HDMI test, we found no significant difference in image quality between a £10 HDMI cable in a supermarket and a filament worth nearly £100. ”
49. Believe Me, I'm a Scientist - Audio Poll: Neil Young and High Resolution Audio, May 2012
A test of The high-resolution WAV version of Neil Young's debut album of the same name compared to the standard AAC file.
"Most of you are audio engineers, professional musicians and ambitious enthusiasts, and I think if anyone can differentiate between these file types, it's you.
So, what's the result?
All right...... Please accept my warm congratulations and congratulations to 49% of you for guessing correctly.
Yes: even among our readers, the results are not much better than tossing a coin. We don't even need a huge sample size to get results consistent with the large number of studies already done in the field. ”
50. Analogue Planet, Evidence that Fever Power Cords Can Bring Huge Sound Differences, January 2018
However, comparing the wire with the rubber skin "in stock" with the AudioQuest fever cable, the most important point is to prove that there is indeed a difference between the power cord, and even with the second row of gun microphones, you should be able to hear it! ”
Watch the video, which starts for about 33 minutes, the sales pitch ends, and then plays the same piece of music with different power cords. Can you hear different voices?
conclusion
The clear conclusion is that abx test results do not support the claims of many enthusiasts, so they become the metaphysics of enthusiasts because they show that the wires themselves do not change the sound. Any change in sound quality comes from the interaction between the listener's imagination and the senses. The distinction that is claimed to be audible is not reliable. Blind hearing tests are also sometimes referred to as ABX. But the blind hearing test is not really an ABX test, it is a measurement of a product without seeing it, and allows for the declaration of unverified sounds.
If HiFi is about sound, and more specifically about sound quality, then even if the other senses are removed, we should still be able to hear differences that can be verified by being able to identify one product and another just by listening. But we can't hear these differences, failure after failure.
Therefore, you can buy good but inexpensive HiFi products such as wire, amplifiers, AND CD players, and be satisfied that the sound they produce is excellent. You do need to take the time to choose the speakers because they do sound noticeably different. Or you can buy expensive HiFi products, such as fever wire, etc., to imagine and distinguish the difference between one hifi equipment and another through appearance and sound. But you can't distinguish expensive equipment from cheap equipment based on sound alone. But that's important.
https://www.stereophile.com/?ifaud=true#wsTQZ0dOJYDcJv5K.97
One Straophile employee said after a failed blind listening test:
"For example, more than 10 years ago, in a blind test organized by Martin Coloms, I failed to distinguish the Quad 405 from the Naim NAP250 or TVA tube amplifier. Believing in the validity of these results, consistent with what consumer reports say, I sold my exotic and expensive Levinson amplifier that made me happy, and bought a much cheaper Quad 405, the biggest mistake of my career! ”
The author of the article went on to say;
"My point is that taking any kind of blind listening test is bound to create an unnatural state that we have never encountered when listening to music and feeling happy."
I 100% agree, I also did the same testing, reading and researching these posts, I will be from using my Firestone Fubar DAC and power to reconnect my MF XúCANV8P ear put. All test status sounds the same. But they didn't!!!!! That's because when I listen happily, I can see my device, and its red, green, and blue lights are on to tell me it's working. This makes me happy, and happiness makes the sound quality better.
That's all there is to it in the main text of the original post, and the reply below left me speechless:
For some enthusiasts, this is actually not about "loving sound" and "believing in your ears", but about having the most expensive sound system, knowing the least about it, having a long-standing hobby of knowing it, and knowing what sounds best.
I think everyone needs to feel important and go through midlife crises in their own way (some never end).
The difference between the ABX test and the double blind listening test was actually detailed in my article two days ago.
The ABX test is a method of comparing two sensory stimuli to determine if there are detectable differences between them. Two samples A and B are played separately, followed by an unknown sample X, X is randomly selected between A or B, participants need to give a clear judgment on whether X is A or B, and if X cannot be reliably judged by a low hypothesis value (p-value), it cannot be proved that there is a perceptible difference between A and B.
The ABX test can easily be performed in the form of a double-blind listening trial, eliminating any potential impact from the researcher or test host. Since Sample A and Sample B are provided before Sample X, there is no need to distinguish the differences between them based on assumptions of long-term memory or past experience. Thus, the ABX test answers whether there is a perceptual difference in ideal circumstances.
ABX testing is commonly used for the evaluation of digital audio data compression methods; Sample A is usually an uncompressed sample, and Sample B is a compressed version of A. Audio compression artifacts that indicate flaws in the compression algorithm can be identified by subsequent tests. AbX testing can also be used to compare the degree of fidelity loss of two different audio formats at a given bit rate.
ABX testing can be used for audio input, processing, output components, and cabling: virtually any audio product or prototyping.
If only one ABX trial is conducted, random guesses have a 50% chance of choosing the right answer, as with a coin toss. In order for a statement to have a certain degree of credibility, multiple trials must be carried out. By increasing the number of trials, the likelihood of statistically determining a person's ability to distinguish A and B increases at a given confidence level. A confidence level of 95% is generally considered statistically significant. QSC recommends performing at least 10 hearing tests in each round of testing.
95% confidence level required for results
The result required for the 95% confidence level, i.e. if 10 tests are performed, then at least 9 correct answers should be taken, and so on.
The results of 16 tests are generally considered more convincing. However, it was also suggested that more times could be done, by grouping the results of the test and allowing participants to take adequate breaks during the period.
With a common music playback software Foobar official ABX test plug-in, you can try the difference between 320k MP3 and WAV, I believe it will make many people doubt the life of ~
https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
ABX is a mandatory selection test. The choice of an experimental subject can be valuable, i.e. the subject is indeed honestly trying to determine whether X looks closer to A or B. If one person in a multi-person test finds no difference, this may dilute the results of other subjects who concentrated on the test, making the results consistent with the Simpsons' paradox, leading to a false summary of the results. Simply looking at the total number of test results (m out of n answers is correct) does not necessarily reveal where the problem occurred. (i.e., the results of individual individuals need to be analyzed one by one)
Strictly speaking, the ABX test is a type of double-blind listening test. But in reality, the ABX test is used to determine whether a difference can be heard, and a double-blind listening test (e.g., MUSHRA) is used to subjectively evaluate which one is better when different differences can be heard, and how big the actual difference is between the individual products, and to exclude other bias factors other than sound interference.
If the difference is small, those who participate in the test may be frustrated and simply complete the test by random voting. So when the difference is small, if appropriate measures are not taken, mandatory selection tests like ABX may tend to have negative results.
However, I personally believe that for some people who claim that "one ear difference" and "world difference", they should not have this kind of frustration.
Human senses are not as reliable as imagined, nor are they as sharp as imagined. We can tell the difference between red and green, we can tell the difference between sweet and sour, bitter and spicy. But for some audio enthusiasts and sommeliers claiming abilities that are a bit too extreme, if they are truly talented, they should be tested and proven to everyone.
——A netizen of the Quora forum
PS: I don't understand the wine, but I did try the blind test cappuccino and latte myself, and I can still tell the difference
Finally, sigh, the rise of Star Wars 9 Skywalker is indeed a street fight, but recently revisited the first six parts of Star Wars, it is indeed too classic, very good. Plus the seventh Force Awakening is also OK. After writing this article on abx testing, I suddenly remembered a famous quote by Master Yoda:
Do or do not, there is no try~
If you do click on the link to the Foobar ABX comparison plugin above and test it, may the Force be with you
(By the way, tomorrow update the Sony A105 player review)
The big wet people are also making a fool of themselves by saying that abx blind listening is not scientific, because the listening time is too short to distinguish.
But the big wet people are usually one ear difference, why abbx can not have an ear.
In fact, anyone who knows a little about abx or has done abx knows that such a statement is pure nonsense, or that they have not blinded themselves at all. Because abx does not limit the time at all, you can listen to as long as you want. You can listen to it for a month if you want.
Before, fraudsters liked to say that the blind listening time was too short and unfamiliar. However, anyone who has slightly done the abx blind listening test knows that this is pure nonsense. Because abx double blind listening does not limit the time at all, listen as long as you want. There is no restriction on the source of the sound, and you can choose the music that you think is familiar with. The Big Wets see this scam as untenable.
Now the wet people say that the interval between the middle switches is too long to affect their memory.
This shows that although the big wet people have been cheating for so long and saying that blind listening is wrong, they have not tried blind listening themselves.
Because I still did the foobar abx test, I know that the switch is instantaneous. And you can even choose whether to continue playing after switching or play from scratch. If someone thinks that the whole piece of music is too long and makes excuses, in fact, the test music does not have a mandatory time limit, and theoretically you can also choose to edit a shorter music clip. abx also does not limit the number of switches. You can listen as long as you want to.
Entities like ear amplifier players can use physical switchers like well-known big directors. Physical switchers Can also be done in an instant as long as there are no relays.
Let's assume that this interval is 0.1 seconds. Yes, the big wet is only 0.1 seconds.
When I listen to the big wet, how many seconds do I change the equipment? How many seconds to change music? Shouldn't it be so fast? How can I remember it?
However, since the big wetness itself can't be remembered, it means that the big wet is only 0.1 seconds, and everyone here is a witness
And as mentioned before, abx does not limit the number of switching times, and can theoretically switch all the time until a conclusion is drawn. Let's assume that the first time of the big wet is really not good, and 0.1 seconds will not last. So what about twice? Three times? If the result is still wrong, does it mean that the big wet is really not good? But why is it that when the big wet is usually only changed once, the equipment is different from one ear?
abx double blind listening can effectively debunk scams such as wire ear players, and I hope that everyone will spread this method out so that more people can avoid being deceived and spend meaningless money.
vitality? Don't be funny. Audio as a hobby is dying out, in large part because of the audio itself. In the real world, the Hi-End speaker has lost its reputation in the 80s of the last century because it categorically refuses to use basic unbiased controls (such as double-blind listening tests). And this rejection becomes the source of the endless ridicule and ridicule of rational people, and it is also the source of my infinite embarrassment, because it is my fans who have caused such a chaotic situation, and I myself cannot blame it. Solemnly: I never said that the measurement results are not important. What I'm saying (and often say) is that they don't always tell the whole story. Not exactly the same.
J. Gordon Holt, founder and CEO of Stereophile Magazine, said in a 2007 interview. J. Gordon Holt died in 2009.