Wine Asylum

Posted by hexenboden (A) on April 04, 2006 at 16:37:40

In Reply to: Wine vs. audio. posted by jimbill on January 18, 2006 at 14:44:34:

Although blind tasting in wine is generally considered quite acceptable as a means of establishing quality, there is a paralell with audio in that blind tasting does not necessarily give the subject enough time to completely assess his preference.

Wine evolves over time, after opening, and it is quite contextual. In my experience the only way to properly "understand" a complex wine, say a 1982 Haut Brion for example, is to drink it several times over the course of different meals, and over the years. yet the "scores" that are assigned to wines are made in short blind (or many times non-blind) A/B type comparisons.

I think that iks a method which is acceptable for a first impression on a wine and it certainly has its uses.

Moving to audio, the siumilarities are striking. Once again, it is only after extended listening that an individual can really asess how good a component is, since, among other things, components tend to produce accumulative fatigue. Yet the use of blind testing is also useful, as in wine, to determine obvious and immediate difference amongst components, such as speakers or even tubes versus solid state. Yet the audio industry considers blind testing a sacrilege.

I can only conclude that there are too many exisiting interests that do not wish to see blind testing established as a practice in audio. Most recently John Atkinson of Stereophile wrote a diatribe against blind testing that is a complete phallacy. That a smart, senior editor of a magazine would take the trouble to go that far is symptomatic of the power of the "audio establishment".
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/whine/messages/8258.html