wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

With something as subjective as the perception of sound, non-blind
tests are inherently unreliable.

Bull****.

No, it's true.

There are cases when the notion that non-blind tests are "inherently
unreliable" just doesn't wash. I'm sure that, if "Callas" was fed a spoonful
of ****e, and a spoonful of sugar, s/he/it would be able to establish which
is the ****e and which s the sugar, and could do so regardless of whether or
not they were blindfolded. Indeed, even if one were to conduct a hundred
such tests 'eyes-on' and a hundred blind, I bet the result would be
consistent and reliable.

Your example and reasoning are poor.

To begin with, with audio equipment, the listener has paid for and so
wishes to perceive improvements in the sound to which he is listening.

There is no such parallel in your example; you are in no way considering
the desire on the part of the subject to perceive that his exciting new
piece of equipment makes a difference.

Next, the example given describes very strongly different flavours. You
are correct to state that I would certainly perceive the differences.
The sensory input from the two stimuli are *so* different there is no
mistaking them.

The problem with audio comparisons is far subtler. The differences
sensory input can be small - and indeed, non-existant. As differences
become smaller, it takes a increasingly skilled listener to perceive
them reliably. Lesser listeners will fail outright in the first place,
or find that their subjective desire to perceive improve generates a
fake difference which is in fact greater than the real difference.

I have to say also that given your emotive response in this matter, I
suspect you're being dogmatic; this is a subject about which you have
Opinions. Have you tried blind testing yourself?

--
Callas