|
Wine Asylum The Wine Asylum, the leading Internet destination devoted to the enjoyment of wine. |
For Sale Ads |
Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.
Original Message
At least we have wine in common.
Posted by jimbill on January 21, 2006 at 12:09:35:
I feel the exact opposite. Blind tests are the only way to get true objectivity. Otherwise set prejudices can creep in.
Do you think the blind wine tasting back it the 70's where the French finally admitted that California wines could be as good or better than theirs would have happened if the judges had been aloud to see the labels?
If you can hear the difference with a bit of time, knowing what the equipment is and is supposed to sound like, then why would listening over a period of time, NOT KNOWING, make them sound any different?
If it all sounds the same under blind testing conditions, maybe it does all sound the same.
Wine tastes different so blind tastings only take away any preconceived ideas about a certain wine. Speakers sound different in a blind test because they have audible differences. The blind test just might takes away the same prejudices.
Or do you feel blind tastings of wine are a waste of time? If not, why?