Ian Molton wrote:

Bull****.

I suspect what you meant to say was that a non-blind test isnt
necessarily invalid in terms of testing gross changes ;-)

Thank you for translating. :-)


For tiny changes on the threshold of perception, you must use blind
testing.

It seems to me that the idea of blind testing is that it assumes the
listener is unable to separate what he hears from what he thinks he hears -
that the piece of kit that is considered to be 'better' actually does sound
better to him, and that blind testing eliminates such preconceptions or
biases and permits a more impartial comparison.

While I realise that a biased opinion can occur in a non-blind test, I don't
think it's neccessarily so. If there is a detectable difference between,
say, the sound of a ride cymbal played on two different bits of kit, then
that difference must be a detectable one, regardless of whether or the
listener knows which bit of kit is being used. Were it otherwise, then the
difference wouldn't be detectable in either kind of test.

In other words, the problem isn't some inherent drawback in the nature of a
given test, but in the approach or attitude of the tester. That
notwithstanding, it's my view that, by the time the differences are so small
that blind testing is deemed to be neccessary, then the differences are so
small that they're neither here nor there.


In your case it was 'crap DVD player' vs 'decent DAC' which isnt
exactly a subtle difference ;-)

I refer the honourable gentleman to my later posting, in which I bring ****e
and sugar into the discussion. :-)


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar