In Reply to: Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear posted by John Atkinson on April 24, 2006 at 10:20:06:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - regmac 12:05:18 04/24/06 (22)
- Ever notice... - Ozzie 17:48:12 04/25/06 (6)
- Ironic actually! - bjh 18:35:51 04/25/06 (5)
- Re: Ironic actually! - Ozzie 18:29:43 04/27/06 (1)
- Equipment on the list ... - bjh 19:00:43 04/27/06 (0)
- More irony - kerr 04:50:41 04/26/06 (2)
- Re: More irony - Ozzie 18:22:44 04/27/06 (1)
- Re: More irony - kerr 04:26:24 04/28/06 (0)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - John Atkinson 09:19:50 04/25/06 (14)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - Soundmind 04:31:52 04/28/06 (0)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - regmac 14:33:22 04/25/06 (12)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 14:37:00 04/25/06 (11)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - John Atkinson 04:16:24 04/26/06 (8)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 05:53:32 04/26/06 (7)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - regmac 08:00:02 04/26/06 (6)
- Re: Stereophile tells readers and manufacturers what they want to hear - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 10:49:59 04/26/06 (5)
- Re: "my company" - Bruce from DC 11:01:48 04/26/06 (4)
- Re: "my company" - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 12:56:51 04/26/06 (3)
- Thanks, JP! - Bruce from DC 06:49:15 04/27/06 (2)
- And one has to be very carefull when dealing with. - Ivan303 10:01:04 04/27/06 (0)
- Re: Thanks, JP! - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 08:32:17 04/27/06 (0)
- Very well put Matt. - Ozzie 18:17:06 04/25/06 (1)
- Re: Very well put Matt. - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 14:42:12 04/26/06 (0)