Just expanding on an earlier post: some thoughts on ‘audio science’ and its observation that human perception of sound is often influenced by our imagination. Blind testing doesn’t eliminate our imagination, merely prevents it from biasing the result of the test. We can still imagine anything we like when switching between A and B – and under such conditions, the imagination is likely to flourish. In amongst these high levels of imaginary ‘noise’, audio ‘scientists’ think that the magical powers of statistical formulae can enable them to discern audible differences that the test subjects didn’t even know they had heard. Or they can confidently state that no difference was heard. Such confidence in the validity of their statistics brings to mind a study of the brain of a dead fish that, with the dumb application of dumb formulae, could be interpreted as responding to images flashed up in front of its eyes.
Outside the laboratory, there is an awkward shift when the people who espouse ‘audio science’ want to sell us their products, or even to buy something themselves. It is their implicit position that any demonstration of the product in a showroom or the customer’s own home, is a sham. Customers – including themselves – are malleable creatures that imagine what they are persuaded to hear. Even the ‘science’ that has been used in the equipment’s creation and is promoted in advertising (or, indeed is advertising), feeds back into how people perceive the sound. The audio scientist/objectivist is in a completely paradoxical position where they cannot even know whether they actually like something! They must acknowledge that they only think they like something on that particular day in that particular showroom, or in their own workshop as they tweak their crossover design. They could conduct their own blind listening tests to establish their preference scientifically, but how many of these would they have to run in order to cover every permutation of the variables when they change a setting? Much more than a lifetime’s-worth. And as discussed before, there is no way to tell whether taking part in a listening trial affects our ability to discern differences, anyway.
The only way out of this impasse while maintaining the listening trial dogma is to argue that statistics from blind listening tests carried out by others can tell us what to like on the basis of sheer scale, and the probability that our hearing preferences are the same as everyone else’s. But do we then allow just anyone off the street to tell us what is best, or do we use “trained” listeners? The former would seem just silly, but the latter leaves the whole scheme open to accusations of incestuousness and circularity. In a deft move, a claim is made that trained listeners still register the same average preferences that ordinary people would over thousands of tests, but that they do it more clearly and decisively. Attempting to determine whether this is in fact the case would be such a circular absurdity that people can only accept it on faith. This is one of audio science’s self-deluding sleights of hand: being as rigorous as anyone could like in the execution of the actual trials, but basing the premises of the experiment and the conclusions to be drawn from it on the flimsiest of hand-waving. Of course, as this is science, anyone can challenge those conclusions or conduct their own experiments, but this just replaces one flimsy assertion with another.
Why is this all so difficult and farcical? Well, I think it is because science has no meaning in the world of ‘art’ so our troubles start there. Technically, perhaps it can be argued that we are only attempting to use science to create hardware for reproducing art – which doesn’t sound too difficult. But when we say “reproducing” do we mean “most accurate”, or “most preferred”? The fact that anyone would go to the lengths of using listening trials is a giveaway that they are not sure whether they know (a) how to determine “most accurate” objectively, (b) whether listeners actually want accuracy in the context of listening to music in their own homes. and (c) whether recordings created while monitoring on existing speakers should be reproduced accurately anyway.
At this point, the entire enterprise is doomed to circularity and farce. The human trial participant is subjected to reproduced ‘art’ (but not the original!) and either by directly registering preferences, or indirectly by registering differences, is assumed to be capable of determining the ‘best’ method of reproducing that art. ‘Art’ is the thing that no one can define – the thing that is supposed to affect us emotionally in ways that cannot be predicted. Using it as the stimulus to gauge human reaction to the hardware is not obviously compatible with science is it?
In contrast, it is perfectly rational to admit that scientific experiments cannot tell us the best way to reproduce art. It is perfectly rational to simply work out on paper a likely way of doing it, then build it and listen to it. We will never know scientifically whether we actually like it, because this is beyond the remit of science. But this doesn’t stop us from enjoying it, anyway. In a normal setting we are not entirely slave to our imaginations – we can make a fair assessment of when something is obviously good or bad.
Rather than the (pseudo)scientific blind listening test, I think there is a much more fruitful test. It is the ultimate ‘sighted’ test, that suppresses imaginary differences, and is only possible because of DSP – which can be used to simulate the characteristics of real world hardware in many ways. The test is this: While listening, be allowed to change whatever parameter you like using DSP and hear the result instantaneously. Change one variable and flick backwards and forwards between two values while listening. Or change several variables simultaneously if you like. Close your eyes while pressing the supplied ‘random’ button and see if you were right. Such a test would condense a lifetime’s worth of exhaustive listening trials into a few minutes or hours of ‘fun’ that is much more representative of normal listening than the dreary alternative. (For example, with my own system I can make instantaneous radical changes to the crossovers that other people can only achieve in a much more limited way with huge effort and long intervals of silent soldering in between). It isn’t science. It won’t tell you definitively what you prefer, or what you are sensitive to in normal listening, but it will certainly put into context the scale of the changes you have to make in order to hear a ‘night and day’ difference. It allows an instantaneous comparison between various types of technology that could never be achieved otherwise. It could help lay to rest a few audio demons.