Originally Posted by arnyk
Room treatments can effect such dramatic improvements that no DBTs are necessary.
As AJ said, that is completely incorrect. Existence of large differences does not remove personal bias. Bias comes in whether there is an audible difference or not. DBTs help rule that out.
I didn't think of all people, it would be you Arny that would repeat this myth
If you don't believe me, here is a good starting point: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/0...o-product.html"The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests"
Here are the scores for sighted and blind testing of speakers which I am sure you agree also have very different sound (perhaps far more than many acoustic products):
You see how three out of four speakers changed roles in sighted vs blind?
Same can easily happen with room treatment. Put some impressive looking diffusers in a room and folks are immediately impressed and might thing the sound is better even if it has no changed perceptually or changed for the worse. Heck, put some foam on the wall and folks immediately think they are in a recording studio and be inclined to say the sound is better irrespective of the objective merit of the system and room. Misapplication of acoustic products can degrade the sound and AJ is right to ask for unbiased reporting on that. You can't dismiss that request on the basis of it doesn't matter because the differences are too large.
Indeed, if the differences are too large, then we better know what we are doing because we could also do big damage.
You can put electronic band aids on the sources all day long and not reliably hear a difference. Why do you think Amir runs and hides every time we bring up DBTs of his dogma about improving sources?
Me? Hiding with respect to blind test? No way. My track record here is excellent. I have been in more blind tests and conducted/created them than just about anyone here. One of the mandatory video codecs in Blu-ray came from my team due to two rounds of double blind testing. Sure, I argue for better measurements to augment the situation where we lack proper listening tests. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in application of blind testing. I wish I had 1000 times more blind tests to draw upon than we do now.
Specific to this example, I have twice sat through the Harman speaker double-blind testing lab. You should ask to see if they let you sit in one. I guarantee that you will change your views here. For now, here is another reference on the topic, from the chapter in Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook written by Floyd Toole and Sean Olive:In practice, the principal difficulty with subjective evaluations is to control what the listeners are responding to...It is well known, in subjective evaluations, that humans are susceptible to influences other than the parameter or device under test. We simply find it very difficult to ignore the evidence of brand, size, price, and so on.
...In loudspeaker evaluations, there is no argument that there are audible differences between products, and clearly audible differences traceable to interactions with programme and rooms. In comparisons of evaluations done in both blind and sighted conditions, it has been observed that listeners substantially altered their ratings of products when they were in view, following biases suggested by visual cues. "
The research here is pretty clear and conclusive Arny. You need to support people giving us objective evaluation of acoustic treatments, not sighted guesses and "art" as it was called in the other thread.