[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

I think it's pretty well established that this is not a realistic expectation, and with digital audio double blind testing is not logistically challenging, the tools are available and free to anyone who is already recording audio.

Actually " not realistic" is not "well established", particularly in "audio testing" .
Unfortunately you are confusing audio testing with medical group testing results analysis ( where it has been established that bias on part of the person conducting the tests and analysing the results has a " Possibility" of influencing the outcome of the "evaluation" of the results. BUT that has literally nothing to with the logistics of how audio blind tests are conducted.
In audio testing no . Actually what has been established in the field of "audio testing", is that single blind testing can be very effective in evaluating differences So in terms of what I was "actually talking about", it is a perfectly realistic and reasonable expectation.

I did not say ABX was logistically challenging. I was observing that for "audio testing" it holds marginal value if any over blind testing ( with the caveat that the software you linked, does allow one to do blind testing by themselves, which is why I stated " Yes the link for the ABX test software is helpful thanks "

ALSO NOTE:
I see that I left out ABX in my last sentence and realize that might be confusing what I was attempting to say.
It should have read : So while ABX blind testing is no doubt a very good exercise and I would encourage it, it may not quite be the panacea be all to end all, that some believe it to be.

Here is another good link and an excerpt excerpt:http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php This sight has numerous very informative tests


A "blind test" is a method of testing in which the people being experimented on have no idea about what they're getting. This test method prevents results from being influenced by any prior information. In the field of Audio, blind tests truly highlight what a listener is able to hear.

In the so-called ABX blind listening test, the listener has access to three sources: A and B are the references, X is the mystery source. X can be A or B. When the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A, it doesn't prove anything yet: flipping a coin achieves the same result half of the time anyway. This is why we provide the listener with many trials to determine if the number of correct answers is statistically significant.

The kind of detailed comparison I'm talking about can't be done across different samples. Besides the focus issue, audio memory is too transitory.

Exactly what I was saying we agree

Since we're talking about someone evaluating equipment for their own recording efforts, if the person is unable to listen critically to a comparison, either due to lack of experience or hearing issues or both, how will they evaluate their recordings? How will they know when they have the magic microphone and the perfect preamp? What do you suggest as a solution?

Fran

That's sort of a good question and one would assume that taking the time to learn to listen critically is probably the solution. As far hearing issues obviously they can only evaluate what they can hear (if it is significant high end loss they may never be able to hear (SOME) of what the better mic's may bring to the table) non the less learning to listen critically in the range they can hear again would seem to be the logical solution. But in neither of those cases case is ABX going to make a difference over single blind .

Obviously there is no "magic" mic or preamp. There are only mediocre , adequate , good, better, and excellent. And ultimately the determination of these is subjective . Which returns us to the OP for which the answer is " it depends"