Headphone blind tests cannot use automated shuffling, so tactile cues leak into results.

Evidence

Some audio journalists are hostile to the very notion that audio is amenable to scientific investigation—asserting that only subjective opinion, preferably theirs, matters. There is nothing wrong with subjective opinions. As will be seen, it is these that have allowed for deliberate and productive research into what matters in sound reproduction. However, the opinions must be collected under circumstances in which the ever-observant human brain is deprived of information that could bias the opinion about the sound. The tests must be blind—the listeners must not know prices, brands, sizes and so forth. Ideally they should be double-blind, so the experimenter cannot bias the results. There should also be comparison sounds from competing products readily available, because humans are notoriously forgetful when it comes to recalling the details of sound quality. When this is done the subjective data begins to resemble technical measurements, in that they become impressively repeatable and, more importantly, generalizable to a large population. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 87 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 87; Virtual headphone testing cut switching time tenfold and improved rating consistency.

Related

• Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable (similarity 0.88)
• Subjective tests have no right answers because each listener’s perception is unique (similarity 0.85)
• Randomizing identifiers, positions, and music prevents experimenter bias in listening tests (similarity 0.84)
• Speaker cables and devices show near-zero audible differences in blind tests (similarity 0.84)
• Blind tests collapse personal preference into shared judgments (similarity 0.84)
• Pilot tests and controlled constants eliminate confounding in listening experiments (similarity 0.84)
• Physical headphone testing cannot be fully blinded because listeners feel weight and fit (similarity 0.84)
• High-end audio forfeited credibility by refusing blind testing (similarity 0.83)
• Blind listener tests reliably favor the most neutral loudspeakers (similarity 0.83)
• Audible resonances drove low sound-quality ratings in early blind tests (similarity 0.83)
• Psychoacoustic knowledge rests entirely on subjective listening tests, not direct measurement (similarity 0.83)
• Subjective audio opinions can behave like facts when gathered under controlled conditions (similarity 0.83)
• Highly trained listeners can repeat subjective judgments with remarkable consistency (similarity 0.83)
• Untrained listeners reach quick, consistent sound-quality judgments when switching is instantaneous and sequence-blind. (similarity 0.82)
• Subjective listening tests require repetition and randomization to be statistically valid (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Virtual headphone testing cut switching time tenfold and improved rating consistency. #expands (0.82)
• Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable #complicates (0.80) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 87