Stumped!

Possible. But to get a number of people with the same motivation? That’s a large conspiracy!!!
Anyhow we can only draw limited conclusions from the results. As in any good research care needs to be taken in how far we can interpret the findings and what the shortcomings of the study were.
In this case we can say that a majority could not distinguish clearly between A and B
It may go against our entrenched beliefs but that’s the finding/result.
If facts don’t align with our beliefs then best to check our premise?
I think percentage wise those who couldn’t distinguish between A and B isn’t a majority , as per the numbers provided. It’s the same percentage as those who preferred the cheaper system.

38 people , assuredly audiophiles, participated in the test. Of course it is too small a sample to draw any statistical conclusion, but I feel if the differences between the setups were stark enough , the percentages would have been heavily skewed for the expensive system , which is not the case here.

All other variables are same for both the setups.

Didn’t get FM @Kannan ’s point about wobbly stands.The ATC SCM 12s are standing on pretty professional looking stands as far as I can see.
Furthermore the more expensive gear is kept on more expensive racks to nullify that argument too.
 
With these kinds of blind tests, there is no way to prove or disprove the intended goal.
I will assume there is no bias in the above reporting.

But in my personal experience, I have heard mid to high to very high end systems in my friend's showroom in Chennai.
The differences are defenitely there.
They all reproduce music very well, but the differences lie in scaling and dynamics.
I as much enjoy what I own and it works well within my constrains.

So the inference of the above test will remain subjective based on the readers own perceptions.

The best way to experience it is by personally listening to systems of various pricings anf judge.

Coming to racks, any good sturdy rack to safegard the equipment is good enough. Simple isolation like rubber feet (which we usually find in all equipment in more than enough in my experience.

However a wobbly or a feeble stand for standmounters (bookshelf speakers) makes a big difference to the sound output. I guess that was not done in the above test, if furniture quality was another test included above.
The speakers, stands and speaker cables used were the same for both systems.
Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments
 
In this blind test, the two biggest factors that contributes to the overall sound - speakers and the listening room, are constant. Other less significant aspects such as electronics, interconnects, power cables and audio racks are changed.

Also the choice of speakers in this test may also be an important factor. While I have never heard this specific set of ATC speakers, a quick search for reviews says 'flat midrange, bass-light, lack of upper mid energy and rolled off highs'. Maybe the speaker does not exhibit significantly different characteristics with different partnering equipment. It would be been a lot more interesting if the speakers were also swapped in the AB testing.

So I would not necessarily draw any major conclusions from this test.
 
if the differences between the setups were stark enough , the percentages would have been heavily skewed for the expensive system
You are right, it’s not a majority (my mistake)
The results showed:
38 persons participated on this test
14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one
10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one
14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.
1650866878278.png

But let’s not forget “if the differences between the setups were stark enough , the percentages would have been heavily skewed for the expensive system” implies a bias right at the beginning.
 
if the speakers were also swapped in the AB testing.
This would be mean a bias in the study design. The challenge is to keep everything constant while blind testing the electronic equipment.

But I too wonder what the results might have been if they had used a different set of speakers!
 
I can't tell the difference between amps in my room with my speakers. I recently had the Marantz PM 8006 and I could not tell the difference between my Marantz SR 7010 and the PM 8006.

I can definitely tell the difference between speakers and identify the one that sounds better to me.
 
Didn’t get FM @Kannan ’s point about wobbly stands.The ATC SCM 12s are standing on pretty professional looking stands as far as I can see.
Furthermore the more expensive gear is kept on more expensive racks to nullify that argument too.
What I meant is, they should have placed the speakers on an average stand also and tried with both setups. It would have shown that good furniture (stands) are critical for bookshelf speakers.
 
But let’s not forget “if the differences between the setups were stark enough , the percentages would have been heavily skewed for the expensive system” implies a bias right at the beginning.
Pardon me , how so @Analogous ?
If audible differences were heavy , don’t you think majority of 38 participants would have gone one way ?

What I meant is, they should have placed the speakers on an average stand also and tried with both setups. It would have shown that good furniture (stands) are critical for bookshelf speakers.
Agreed but that was not the objective of this test …. Isn’t it ?
 
Pardon me , how so @Analogous ?
If audible differences were heavy , don’t you think majority of 38 participants would have gone one way ?
What I meant was that If the study ensured heavy audible differences that’s a bias from the start.

I am sure if the set up at the start ensured one sounded clearly better than the other them most participants would have chosen the better sounding one. But this may not be worth a study?

Eliminating bias (both authors of the study and participants) is vital. In the description of the method they have discussed how they tried to do this (quite well IMO)

But as @Kannan and @shyamv have alluded, synergy between electronics and speakers is a variable they did not account for.
 
The ATC SCM 12s used in the test are reputed studio monitors for critical listening.

It can be speculated that they didn’t pair too well with the expensive gear , but it’s just a speculation (with bias if I may add ).
 
How are you deriving this from the test ?
I am not deriving, merely assuming. In a bathroom settings if an omshrisairam chanting random untrained devotional music enthusiast is put up a blindtest up against Alka Yagnik in same platform, you might get surprising results. But if they are given a mic in a studio settings, you can see the class difference more visibly (or audibly). Just assuming. Dont take me seriously.
 
The ATC SCM 12s used in the test are reputed studio monitors for critical listening.

It can be speculated that they didn’t pair too well with the expensive gear , but it’s just a speculation (with bias if I may add ).
It’s probable the results would have been different with different sets of speakers.
But doing this would be time consuming and tedious.
As we know, Synergy and matching is the biggest mystery and challenge. In this study it is impossible to predict how big a factor it was and how it influenced the choices of the participants.
 
I am not deriving, merely assuming. In a bathroom settings if an omshrisairam chanting random untrained devotional music enthusiast is put up a blindtest up against Alka Yagnik in same platform, you might get surprising results. But if they are given a mic in a studio settings, you can see the class difference more visibly (or audibly). Just assuming. Dont take me seriously.
I’m not disputing that , I’m asking how is this relevant in this thread ?
If you had cared to read the article (5 mins max ) you’d have seen that apart from electronics and connecting cables and stands , everything else is same.
 
They describe:
“The human testers were all trained ears and used to extensively listening to high end equipments, a good number of them participated, each with his own conception of the high end world, some totally subjectivists, some completely objectivists, some in between.”
It would have been interesting to know the results of choices by each subgroup (self identified objectivists, subjectivists and in betweens) but sample sizes would be even smaller.
 
But in my personal experience, I have heard mid to high to very high end systems in my friend's showroom in Chennai.
Purely for my learning, at what price point are Mid, High, and High-end components differentiated? presuming these are categorised by price and not SQ.
 
Last edited:
Someone had said in another thread that room treatment will make a huge difference and proportionally enhance the performance. Sorry i am just trying to learn. Dont scold newbies like me pls. Then we will start hesitating to ask questions.
 
Purely for my learning, at what price point are Mid, High, and High-end components differentiated? I assume these are categorised by price and not SQ.
I think it’s very arbitrary depending on how deep the pockets are.
The correlation between cost and SQ is problematic. Sometimes it’s there and often not.

Given that we listen to the entire chain and not individual components, the variable synergy between different individual components, room variations etc it’s challenging to ascribe subjective value to individual components reliably, I feel.

On the other hand objective measurements do not always correlate with subjective opinions of performance.

Apologies for the tangential (non linear) response :)
 
Purely for my learning, at what price point are Mid, High, and High-end components differentiated? presuming these are categorised by price and not SQ.
A very interesting question, Sir. Made me think long and hard.
 
Join WhatsApp Channel to get HiFiMART.com Offers & Deals delivered to your smartphone!
Back
Top