Sighted listeners ignore program differences that blind listeners react to
Evidence
In one case at least, Stereophile magazine, useful measurements are made (full credit to John Atkinson), but then, by my observation, these data are rarely incorporated in the discussion by the subjective reviewers who practice the “take-it-home-and-listen-to-it” method. Adaptation sets in, and numerous non-auditory influences are at play. There are many quotable passages in these reviews, but one sticks in my memory. It pertained to a loudspeaker with significant faults, clearly revealed in Atkinson’s measurements (and ours), and one can only presume heard by the reviewer. The subjective reviewer, perhaps believing in “breaking in,” persisted and stated that after living with the speaker for about two months he experienced an epiphany, and he suddenly heard wonderful things. So, did the loudspeaker “break in”? No. Did the reviewer come to an accommodation with the faults in it? Yes. In the absence of comparison listening to other products, the reviewer will never know what really happened. Readers were encouraged to go spend a lot of money on a mediocre product. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 158 (
#expands, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Listeners habituate to reproduced-sound faults without comparison listening — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 158; Experimental method determines what discrepancies listeners can perceive; Room differences dominate loudspeaker differences when listeners cannot adapt — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 547 (+2 more)
Related
- Listeners adapt to flawed speakers yet recognize superior ones (similarity 0.91)
- Listeners habituate to reproduced-sound faults without comparison listening (similarity 0.87)
- Sighted listeners become ‘deaf’ to program-dependent sound differences (similarity 0.84)
- Listeners adapt to loudspeaker flaws and still enjoy reproduced sound (similarity 0.84)
- Modern loudspeaker differences are often statistical ties decided by program material. (similarity 0.84)
- Sighted listeners recall prior ratings and ignore audible position differences (similarity 0.82)
- Loudspeakers do not break in but listeners adapt to new sound (similarity 0.81)
- Sighted loudspeaker evaluations are contaminated by non-auditory visual and social cues (similarity 0.81)
- Speaker break-in effects are listener adaptation, not hardware change (similarity 0.81)
- Recognizing reproduced-sound deficiencies is a universal skill independent of taste (similarity 0.81)
- Seeing a known loudspeaker erases sensitivity to room-position changes (similarity 0.81)
- Reviewers often conflate the room and program with the loudspeaker’s own sound (similarity 0.81)
- Audible resonances drove low sound-quality ratings in early blind tests (similarity 0.80)
- Stereo and multichannel listening make listeners more forgiving of loudspeaker flaws (similarity 0.80)
- Most listeners can recognize audio excellence when comparing loudspeakers side by side. (similarity 0.80)
Broader Connections
- Listeners habituate to reproduced-sound faults without comparison listening
#expands(0.82) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 158 - Listeners adapt to flawed speakers yet recognize superior ones
#expands(0.80) - Experimental method determines what discrepancies listeners can perceive
#expands(0.78) - Room differences dominate loudspeaker differences when listeners cannot adapt
#expands(0.72) — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 547 - Hearing-impaired listeners gain half or less benefit from longer stimulus durations
#corroborates(0.70) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1112