Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear

Posted by regmac on April 24, 2006 at 12:05:18:
Mr. A:
Concerning your words below:
"This subject was debated in the fall of 2005 in our online forum. "DTH" had asked, on September 6, "Why is blind testing not such a hot button with: Drug testing in the pharmaceutical field? Wine testing? Perfume testing? Food testing? Where lies the difference(s) between these (and many other) areas where blind testing is common and noncontroversial, and the audio field?"
I had responded that "it comes down to the fact that in all those fields, what is being tested is the direct effect of the stimulus. With audio, you must test the stimulus indirectly, through its effect on music, which itself has a varying effect on the listener. (I think this is why blind tests of audio components are much more sensitive using test tones than music. But then, the fact that test tones are not music removes the test one step from reality.)"
But the same can be said for wine tasting, when a critic is attempting to determine whether French Nevers oak enhances the wine to a greater degree than American oak. Or when a critic is comparing (blind) the same wine and vintage, knowing that one bottle benefited from new oak, while the other did not. Or filtered vs. unfiltered. Or when one bottle has benefited from impeccable storage conditions while the other has been deliberately "cooked." In each case wine critics have displayed an ability to differentiate "the stimulus indirectly, through its effect on {wine}..."
In the examples cited above I fail to see how the wine critic's task would be any easier than that of the audio critic.