"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

I don't see the big deal. Lets have Arny create a PC controlled
switch box which stores results over the net in a secure server.
All the reviewer has to do is hook it up and make his
selections. Results tallied and bingo.


I don't see Arny working with Stereophile.

The point is the creation of a tool that would
minimize the labor involved in a DBT is
no great endeavour.



Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it.


I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well.

I guess I need your definition of well.
No more difficult than listening to gear,
subjectively characterizing the sound and putting
that to paper.

I think if Stereophile were
to do something like this it would be wise for them to consult someone
like JJ
who conducted such tests for a living. Would you suggest that such DBTs
be
limmited to comparisons of cables amps and preamps?

Those are certainly the easiest components.

Digital sources being next with a challenge to sync them
such that the subject isn't tipped off.

I think DBT with speakers
and source components are quite a bit more difficult.

Speakers are definitely out. It could be done but not without
significant difficulty.

Would you limmit such
tests to varification of actual audible differences?

Yes, if that fails then the preference test is really
kind of pointless.

Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted
comparisons
for obvious reasons.


The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.



How so?

I think they are afraid of the possible (or even probable)
outcome.

ScottW