UHF Magazine's idea of "blind testing!"

[Pat D]

I'll just give a short description of part of their test procedure, published in "Four Audio Interconnects, "Ultra High Fidelity, No. 74, page 27:

"Once again Albert and Reine knew the test cables only by number. Gerard knew which was which, but had no idea which "should" sound better. The only cable not thus hidden was of course our Pierre Gabriel ML-1 reference."

http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue74/UHF74.pdf

The apparently did do fast switching and apparently the participants knew when the switching took place--about the only things they did right.

They sure have a strange idea of what constitutes a blind test! There is no pretense to a double blind test as Gerard Rejskind, who I gather is the switcher, knew what the products are. However, the other two participants know not only what the reference is, but they know they are listening to 1, 2, 3, or 4, and that's all it takes. These were sighted auditions.

There are no statistics and there was no attempt to prove that they could hear any differences. Rather, this was assumed.

The participants could discuss their reactions with each other during the auditions.

There was no level matching--probably not necessary with interconnects but you never know . . .

 

[mtrycrafts]

Nothing new with that rag either

 

[Pat D]

Nothing new with that rag either

They seem to want to get credit for doing blind testing without actually doing any!

 

[mtrycrafts]

They seem to want to get credit for doing blind testing without actually doing any!

And they get credit from the believers, not knowing better

 

[Pat D]

Getting some of those "believers" to start thinking is like pulling teeth!

At AA, one of them has brought up the old conundrum of the person, one of those alleged 'naysayers,' who doesn't expect to hear differences and so will be less likely to identify any audible differences. I'm trying to suggest they stop trying to read the subject's mind and stick to what's observable.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Getting some of those "believers" to start thinking is like pulling teeth!

At AA, one of them has brought up the old conundrum of the person, one of those alleged 'naysayers' who doesn't expect to hear differences and so will be less likely to identify any audible differences. I'm trying to suggest they stop trying to read the subject's mind and stick to what's observable.

Yes, I saw that one as I do read them now and then just to get a good laugh, when things get dull here

 

[Pat D]

Yes, I saw that one as I do read them now and then just to get a good laugh, when things get dull here

I thought Silver Eared John's remark was quite funny:

"Y'all can tell who is listening and who isn't. That's one thing that controls are for."

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/422582.html