Scott said


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



I said


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


Scott said



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


Well would be within the bounds of rigor that would be scientifically
acceptable. I see no point in half-assing an attempt to bring greater
reliability to the process of subjective review. Let's just say Howard fell way
short in his endevours and the results spoke to that fact.

I said



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?


Scott said


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 said



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


Scott said



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


I did do some single blind comparisons. The dealer was very nice about it.

I said


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


Scott said



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



I don't think so. It has been shown that with components that are agreed to
sound different sighted bias can still have an affect on preference.

Scott said



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



I said



How so?



Scott said


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


Maybe but I am skeptical of this. It didn't seem to hurt Stereo Review to take
the position that all amps, preamps and cables sounded the same. Stereophile
did take the Carver challenge. They weren't afraid of the outcome of that.