| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
May 15, 2009 - 11:47am
#1
Blind Testing Works With Wine
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Blind tasting and wine appreciation have a long history of compatibility.
There are degrees of expertise that are based on blind tasting skills.
Not much talk of DBT Dysgusia like we do of DBT Deafness.
Not much credence for a wine reviewer who needs to know the label, year, grape, etc. of what he's drinking in order to be consistently able to describe what he's experiencing.
But then, I say all this on a day that the lunar cycle says is a good day to taste wine.
I want to know what the test conditions were. Was the test single or double blind. What are the "measured" results? Where are the graphs, test results and assorted data? If I run the test under the same conditions should I expect the same results?
Are you guys pulling my leg? According to chemical analysis there really isn't any difference between a vintage wine and a "fresh" one.
You guys are just deluding yourselves with the expensive "stuff". I'm going to the liquor store and buy a bottle of Great Western and save $35 over that bottle of Dom Perignon, after all they are chemically so close you really can't taste any difference. Some people are misled into thinking more expensive is better! I know it isn't because my testing says so! So there!
Are you pulling our legs? Do you seriously believe that in a world of electron microscopes and mass spectrometers that there is no chemical difference between good wine and cheap wine?
Of course I know what a mass spec is. Electron microscopy is also no stranger to me. Have you no sense of humor? Maybe not since you can't DBT test it.
Well, that's the thing, you see! They can ridicule DBT methodology in their own terms, and when the fallacies are pointed out, they can whine that you can't take a joke. It's a beautiful set up.
So it seems. Except there's nothing beautiful about it. I wonder who they think they are fooling? Themselves?
So long story short, your whole analogy was a joke and you had no serious intent at all?
Why then do you bother to post on this thread? Are you saying that you think that high end audio is a joke?
I post on this thread because I can and I want to. If you don't like it that's just too bad.
No, High End Audio is not a joke, DBT is a joke.
As I said, you have no sense of humor. At 61 I've probably been involved in high end audio longer than you've known it existed. You need to lighten up!
Along the way I've learned some things I didn't know when I got a BS EE in 1975. The two most important being, I don't know everything and neither do you!
In my 2 fully POOGED Hafler DH-200's higher quality caps have made an audible difference. Different wires and cables sound different to me, my friends and both ex-wives. You ask for proof of these differences. Proving anything to you is just not important in my scheme of things.
As my brother would say F U if you can't take a joke!
Incidentally, I hope your ears are better than your grammar. It should read "To make a long story short".
Perhaps I was being too subtle or should have added a bunch of smiley faces. Turned out to be a poor attempt at humor at any rate but c'mon. Didn't anyone notice that the person doing the tasting was BLIND???
I thought my response was at least slightly humorous.
It was VERY humorous.
It was but then Arny came sailing in and off the thread went to the same pissing contest they all go to.
I think Arny was just thrown off by the idea that Dom Perignon could be hand for only 35 bucks more than Great Western.
Here in PA our state stores have Great Western way overpriced. They sell Moet White Star for $35.
Alas, there is no more Kornell Blanc de Blanc.
(sob)
According to chemical analysis, there really isn't any difference between me and a bathtub full of water plus a few pounds of soot and a few ounces of other raw material. My wife prefers me to the other choice, but she may be prejudiced.
Uh, guys, it seems that the original quote there was intended quite sarcastically.
Well, I took it that way, and given that I know something about the results of gas chromatography and so on of various ages of wine, it really should be sarcastic.
At one time I was a field engineer for Fisher Scientific. You should know they make gas chromatography equipment. I installed and repaired them among other things.
You may know Fisher, but I am an authority on both Fisher and Price.
In fact, they made a toy set to honor my big bad wine expert self...
I also paraphrased Isak Dinesen:
Who's the hot redhead and what kind of decent wine has screw on tops?
Yeah, that would imply major sarcasm. That is how I read it.
I took the ones on the left to be gold capsule rieslings, maybe 2006 Prum, Joh Jos Graacher Himmelreich Riesling Auslese Long Gold Capsule Riesling, so perhaps not screw cap.
The red, maybe wax capsules.
You'll also notice they are using inferior stemware and overfilled their glasses and it appears the rose's on the wine rack are being stored too warmly.
But, hey, it's a kids' toy, so I'll give them some leeway toward establishing healthy pediatric oenophilia.
Fringe audiophiles are like the "Ah, back to France!" guy.
Of course blind testing works for wine. It works for everything but high-end audio. But don't think high-end audiophiles are a bunch of bullshit artists just because of that
.
The difference between the Paris tasting event and the so-called "great debate" of high-end audio is that with the Paris tasting, people accepted the results 30 years ago. With high-end audio, there's basically been 30 years of "My dog ate my homework".
I am doubtful that the Paris tasting means everything you'd like it to mean.
Link to scores
Looking att he results as an audiophile, do they tell you anything at all, really?
Using the scores for the red wines...
Chateau Montrose was the favorite of five judges. Stags Leap, two.
Stags Leap was declared 'best' based on cumulative scores.
Does that mean the judges who preferred Montrose were wrong?
Does the tasting prove that you will prefer Stags Leap?
The correlation to audio reviewing is tenuous.
Yes, they tasted blind, but to what definitive conclusion?
They didn't even perform ABX testing. It was...taste...score...move on. It did not test tasting ability, only preference.
Convert those wine names to amplifier brands. Which would be the 'best' amplifier for you?
Did the 1976 tasting tell you what wine to buy?
Did the tasting cover what the wines would be like with different food courses?
What if people want to drink wine with dinner, or want different dishes? Do those results extrapolate to all conditions? How do you think those results might be discussed in the context of how we pursue Hi Fi?
The test was great for discussing how blind tasting helps remove expectation bias, but it does nothing to tell YOU what to drink.
Not at all. Virtually every audio publication rejects blind testing, yet blind testing of wines is nearly universally accepted as a way of eliminating bias. Further, this elimination of bias in wine testing has resulted in the successful challenge of assumptions we now know to be false. The elimination of the false assumptions has in turn led to new ways of looking at things. In the audio press, the false assumptions are held to be sacrosanct, and any test whose result contradicts those assumptions is declared to be invalid. That's the view that Stereophile takes, though the professional excuse-makers such as Atkinson will never admit that.
That French wines are not necessarily better than those from other countries as was previously assumed.
Exactly. However, if you were predisposed to assume French wines were inherently superior, the test will have removed that false assumption. By contrast, high-end audio is still suffering under the equivalent of the false "terroir, terroir, terroir" assumption. Except that in high-end audio it may be called "vinyl, vinyl, vinyl" or "tubes, tubes, tubes".
Well, four of the top five were French. If one operated by expectation bias alone, there would have been an 80% correlation with the results...without the need to even taste!
Five of the top seven were French, and the bottom four were all American.
Over-all, it seems a pro-French expectation bias was not that far off.
A shopper going to the store and buying only French would have a relatively high likelihood of having chosen 'correctly' by using that expectation bias alone.
Now, what if we were to consider two solid state amps with whom we are unfamiliar. Why would blind testing be necessary to establish 'preference' when there was no expectation bias to begin with?
Would you allow for a sighted comparison review?
Can there be a sighted review without bias? (No flame, I mean this as conversation.)
Statistically speaking, you're quite right. But there is a principle of formal logic at work here that I'm sure you're familiar with. That is, in order to disprove a logical assertion, all that's needed is to provide a single valid counterexample. In the case of the Paris tasting, the assertion was something like "The best wines in the world all come from France". In this case, the wine that was rated the best according to controlled experiments (blind tasting) was not from France. Thus the assertion was disproved by this single valid counterexample.
My purpose in mentioning this tasting event was to contrast how these two fields, high-end audio and wine tasting, deal with dogma. In the case of wine tasting, the dogma that "All the best wines in the world come from France" was presumably formed based on years of controlled experiments (blind tastings). Then later, another controlled experiment disproved this, and the dogma was rejected. By contrast, high-end audio has come up with lots of dogma, much of it based on completely uncontrolled experiments (sighted tests). When the results of controlled experiments contradict the dogma, instead of rejecting the dogma there are attempts to discredit the controlled experiments. This has been going on for about 30 years with no end in sight. So it's a very different way that these two fields deal with controlled experiments that contradict existing dogma. This lends credibility to wine tasting and, in my view, discredits high-end audio reviewing.
Right. We're talking about two different beasts here - the probability of a "successful" purchase versus the truth or falsehood of a logical assertion. One could modify the assertion to say that "At least X percent of the best wines in the world come from France". For some suitable choice of X, which hopefully for the purchaser is large, the assertion will be true. Then you'd have both a true assertion and useful information for the purchaser.
That's kind of a loaded question there. First, blind testing is not necessary to determine preference. Preference may involve other things beside sound quality. For example, the better-sounding amp may be class A. Class A amps produce lots of heat which may be completely unacceptable for people who live in hot climates or wish to conserve energy. Second, your statement presumes no expectation bias, which is a tall order. I don't think "unfamiliarity" is equivalent to "lack of expectation bias". For example, one amp might look like a work of art, while the other looks like a garage DIY job. This plays to expectation bias despite prior unfamiliarity. This gets to your question below, so I'll hold that thought for a moment.
In addition, there are parts of the DBT debate which become conflated. There is the issue of how individuals should make purchases, and the separate issue of how the press should review equipment. In the case of individuals, there is almost no alternative but to perform sighted tests, because of the complexity of blind tests. But when one speaks of the audio press, the situation gets rather murky. Let's take an example. If I walk down to my local Starbucks, and some guy outside starts ranting that the Rapture will be tomorrow, I'll likely just chuckle and ignore him. But if this same statement appears on the front page of the New York Times, I'll at the very least be incredibly annoyed that they would allow such garbage to be published. The reason of course it that we hold the press to a much higher standard than we hold the nutty guy who hangs out in front of Starbucks. The press purports to be factual (op-ed pieces excepted). People such as myself on the objectivist side of things feel that the audio press should do much more in terms of controlled experiments to ensure that the information presented about sound quality has some factual basis. This isn't going to happen though. But the individual has little choice in the matter because of the complexity of blind tests.
Of course I would, for the reason listed above. I'm assuming you're talking about an individual here, but your use of the word "review" makes this somewhat unclear.
I would allow for a very slim and random chance of this. But part of the nature of bias itself is that we are usually not aware of our biases and are generally unable to control them. I've seen the claim made that people can overcome their biases by sheer force of will. I don't buy that for a moment.
I'm not sure "bias" is the right word. Humans are very, very good at integrating the input from all of their senses, and rather a lot of testing has shown that they do so even when trying not to.
So sighted tests are going to have a "bias" in the sense that it's the way the human organism works. It's not deliberate or intentional, or at least does not have to be, and furthermore there is no evidence on the table that anyone can suppress the integration of their senses.
And, of course, this kind of bias only matters when one is trying to understand the results of sound alone, and wants to ignore appearance, price, reliability, spousal approval, etc.
For purchasing decisions, much more than the sound is generally important.
This is a different issue, in that knowing which is which, if (and only if) we are concerned with ONLY sound, can allow one to focus one's attention and memory different on the two items, and so have actual different memories. In fact, this will usually happen.
Remember, there are 3 stages of memory. Beyond the first (for auditory systems partial loudness memory) you can focus on how you "analyze" them, to extract different features by paying attention to different facets of the sound,and they to different auditory objects by continuing to focus on different aspects.
This does not say that the devices are different or are not different, only that you have focused differently.
Perception is tricky.
It's an old argument. It is also reasonable to assume that you have bias in your position in seeming to state that you feel that no-one can remove enough of the integrational aspects of their sensory inputs to come up with a valid opinion on sound alone.
That, in a nutshell, is the hidden part, the unconscious part of your argument that seems to be the real sticking point in all these threads that you are involved in.
A friend of mine sent off a piece of gear to a government testing lab once for approval and to have lab level research grade (think MIT, etc) sheets and names to back up his gear when selling it.
the gear came up as violating the laws of physics with regard to theoretical efficiencies. Approximately 1.5 COP.
No matter how it was tested in a lab that was run by some of the people who had created and devised the standards themselves..they could not figure out how it worked.
The scientist refused to put his name to the papered results, as he could not figure out how it was done, or how it worked. It was not the job of the friend to explain that - Nor should he.
There is an echo of that here, it seems. When we come across things we do not understand, we should investigate, not simply paste all old experience and learnings on top of the situation and -reject all that does not fit.
It seems, to me, that a good chunk of your issues regarding testing audio gear in magazines is that you feel that sighed listening introduces bias that the reviewer is simply wholly incapable (in any way) of compensating for.
Experience in the real world says otherwise. Why you cannot see that is actually your issue and not ours.
What I am saying is like that scientist and standards lab.. you have come across something that you do not understand..and it is being rejected out of hand. That is not science..that is the undercurrent of emotion making up self lies to the conscious mind.
The same that you accuse us of. You accuse the world of marrying beautiful people/partners who are otherwise very nasty and being 100% incapable of figuring out that he/she is inherently nasty..and/or that no divorces between beautiful people ever can or ever will --happen.
Your position is inherently ludicrous.
I can understand your tone, at times, could be considered as simply trying to protect some aspect of the middle ground and at the same time putting forth some of your own findings and understandings. The point of you calling bias too strong of a word, for example. That's fine and very nicely moderate and non-inflammatory. Conciliatory, even. It is the statements that follow that have the dangerous components within.
It is that unspoken and potentially unrealized part that I communicate upon- that is the dangerous one, here.
Ethan indulges in the such behavior here, on this forum, on a regular basis.. he can seem reasonable to people who are looking to have their position forwarded or championed. In reality his position is not as in-depth, open, balanced, detailed or as fair as it needs be. The product of a myopic view, possibly.
It's the evidence, not the "bias". If you think you know somebody who can do that, bring them forward, and let's find out.
To date, the evidence does not exist. There is a history of tests wherein experimenters have tried to get people to isolate modalities, but the results are pretty much unanamous. This isn't bias, it's evidence.
I fail to see how the rest of the absurd emotional manipulation and covert professional accusations in your article relate to anything relevant.
As I said, you are biased and cannot see it.
Good luck to you.
Show me the evidence, that's all it takes. It is not "bias" to look at the evidence and understand what it says.
Now, about the WTC...
He can't show any evidence because he has none. So all he has left is to call you biased and pretend that proves his point.
--Ethan
Andy C, in lieu of wasting bandwidth with a quote of your popst, I will just say that we likely agree completely and I apprectaie all the points in your post.
Cheers.
Ethan, maybe you could post your DBT logs and data so we can get an idea of what exactly it is you can and cannot hear.
We already know 3dB or greater down above 10 KHz is Beethoven range hearing acuity for you.
What are your bonafides for DBT results?
Of greatest interest would be just how small the differences are that you have been able to demonstrate your prowess for.
Who cares what I can hear? All that matters is what you can hear.
--Ethan
Can you clarify what "COP" stands for? I can think of several meanings, but don't want to assume incorrectly, to understand what you wrote.
If those 'advanced' thinking people could not figure it out, then your friend is either extremely bright or pulling a fast one on someone. Either way it could mean that he is outside the three standard deviations (SD) from the mean (either end) compared to most people.
People at or graduated from such institutions like MIT or CIT are likely above the upper three SD in various measures of ability or accomplishments, and some of them are above 4 or 5 SD. If what your friend showed them violates what is well-established knowledge that these evaluating people have, it's not likely that it's so revolutionary that no-one else can figure it out.
On the other hand, Einstein's theory of relativity is still not entirely confirmed in all its aspects. Many of its teachings are verified, but there remains more to do.
Edit (append):
The reason that those evaluating scientists cannot put their name on a report is obvious. I suspect they cannot agree to things that don't make sense to them and likely most other people. So it would be incumbant on your friend to explain how it can do whatever his device does. What finally happened to his invention?
So? KBK? Nothing more about this friend of your's device that supposedly breaks established laws of physics (I presume one of the three laws of thermodynamics)?
C'mon, don't leave us hanging. This is important stuff. Laws of physics don't get overturned every day. Did he put this miracle on the market?
I think this is the first post of yours that I have seen on any forum that I can agree with!
Lin
Except that 'old argument' doesn't continue in science. Experimental controls are a fact of scientific life. Widespread 'bias' in perception is supported by experimental evidence, and thus it must be controlled for. Your argument is akin to claiming that it's just 'bias', rather than experimental observation, that leads scientists to believe the three laws of thermodynamics are true.
And it also begs the question, how could you know IN ADVANCE whether someone can 'remove' psychological bias of perception, when the lack of that ability is so very, very common? On what basis could you EVER assume that to be true, such that controls are unnecessary?
Apparently scientists themselves feel the answer is: none, since no paper will pass peer-review in a reputable journal without some evidence of controls in place.
Why do you think that's the case? Are scientists all merely 'biased' in this particular regard?
I'd say it means Coefficient of Performance, ie a ratio of energy in/energy out. That tends to back up the suspicion that it relates to the laws of thermodynamics.
some things CAN have a COP greater than one, such as a heat pump. nothing new there tho, so hardly controversial.
sounds like something in the 'free energy' field. an area which in many ways is very much like audiophilia. 'science does not know everything' (true), 'science actively suppresses these new breakthroughs' (doubt it), paranoia abounds (guess how many free energy inventions have been bought out and locked away for good, the inventers removed by the 'men in black')
appeals to 'unknown and hidden energies' see magic foils etc in audio. 'special properties of cables' yet NASA has nothing to do with them (which they should if only to increase the communication between earth and mars)
at least the free energy guys are kinda altruistic, they WOULD like to save the world. Why are all these breakthroughs in audio (new laws, successful taming of that pesky quantum etc) limited to lifting large amounts of money from the pockets of audiophiles?
surely we could save the children, feed the starving and unleash enormous amounts of clean energy by taming/harnessing the awesome power of the quantum?? Not to forget saving those cute dolphins
yet it remains in the rich mans hobbyland...don't get it meself.
Yes, of course. That would never ever happen, except in the wildest delusions of paranoid individuals.
No one has ever talked about "magic foils". You may be thinking of "magic mushrooms", which it appears you have more experience with than foils.
Good logic there. For this very reason, I will not buy a Furutech LP deMagnetizer. Because NASA did not buy one for the astronauts on the space shuttle. Since it would only increase their pleasure while in deep space, they should have, if it there was anything to it. But what you are missing here Terry, is that there's a reason why NASA does not get into the special cables: at $50 per m, it would simply be too prohibitive in cost to run a cable from the Earth to Mars.
I guess its because you wouldn't understand the concept behind the model of capitalism. You know, coming from Australia and all.
surely we could save the children, feed the starving and unleash enormous amounts of clean energy by taming/harnessing the awesome power of the quantum?? Not to forget saving those cute dolphins
Ahh... now I get where you're coming from. You also think that quantum physics is hokum. Have you met our member named "Ethan Winer"? You should. You two have a lot in common, and would have a lot to talk about.
If you don't get high end audio, here's a thought: maybe you wandered into the wrong place. Have you checked out www.hydrogenaudioforum.com yet?
reich, yeah a whole subset field of the free energy/supressed energy is the 'health' field for lack of a better term. Lahovsky oscillator, Rife microscope. All of these health breakthroughs suppressed by the medical establishment (again, a subset of suppression, science does it as does the vested interests). Funnily enough, I do buy more easily the suppression of the medical establishment, well maybe it appeals to my conspiracy tendencies.
In any case, it is a fun area, all of it. Just like high end audio
Ahh, mushrooms. those were the days!! No-one has ever talked of magic foils?? Are you sure?? hmm, coulda sworn I read about it somewhere, think it was called the advancing audiophile or something...prancing audiophile???
I did wonder you know, but that makes sense with all the budget cutbacks and all. Not to mention it would be a bugger to repair it if it ever broke.
well, we have heard about it!! on that newfangled thing called, what was it?? wireless maybe?
quantum physics hokum? not at all, what ever gave you THAT idea?? where do you pull these things from?
quantum pseudo physics, yeah that surely is hokum. At the very least these birds in audio on the cutting edge of quantum physics are just plain selfish ya know? I don't mind them expanding the boundaries of physics, but whilst making a good living helping out poor audiophiles (as they surely are an underpriveledged lot, look at the prices of some of this gear they need, so they need all the help they can get) they could at least do a bit of charity work on the side, you know help society and all, for example they could have picked up the phone and bingo! the LHC would have been up and running no sweat with just that extra bit of help for the poor scientists that obviously don't know as much as *we* do.
Ethan Winer, would love to meet him. I'd imagine we'd talk about sound, perception, effective room treatments et al. I agree, we'd have a lot in common, thanks for the suggestion.
Hey!! thanks for the link!!
had a quick look, oooh they're all very serious over there aren't they. Some of the 'romance' of high end audio seems missing.
There are a few dissenting voices at times, stereoeditor seems one. He should post here a bit, but I doubt he would fit in.
He is very polite and doesn't resort to swearing and crude putdowns.
wouldn't last a minute here.
You do realize stereoeditor is John Atkinson. I'm reasonably certain he fits in here.
thanks Joe, yeah it was tongue in cheek, I knew.
I was only pointing out the disparity in posting styles between John who, whilst holding his position is able to be polite yet firm, and the two most wordy here. They are also the rudest and crudest, and from what I have seen also cry the loudest and foulest when any of it is directed their way.
With my daughters grown up I thought I was over having to deal with spoilt childish behaviour.
didn't reckon on audio forums, duuuh stupid me
Guys, just listen to what makes you happy. If you think that something sounds better, for all intents and purposes it does, and it is your money. If you think it sounds bad, then turn up the volume, light a cigarrete, have a beer, and convince yourself that you're at a concert.
Aahh! A natural corollary to Teslacle's Deviant of Fudd's Law: "It goes in. It must come out."
Unfortunately there are those who won't let you do that without telling you you're deceiving yourself. Somehow they appointed themselves the "Audio Police". They keep telling everyone there's a new Sheriff In Town. They are neither wanted or needed, but they won't go away!
I don't know where you're getting your information from. The only thing that comes to mind is a dark legend in the audio community, known as "The Advanced Audiophile". Whatever he's into is wayyy over my head, but there was something about foils I recall. Not magic foils, though. So like I said, there are no such thing as "magic" foils. It's clear that you made that up.
You know. Same place you pull the idea of "magic foils" from, and the idea that if an audio tweak isn't used and approved by NASA, it's snake oil. Your banana hole. But I really don't know where you learned that there's no such thing as conspiracies in the health or energy industry, and you can casually dismiss everything you don't know about in both industries because, well, you obviously don't know anything about it. Welcome to the world of pseudoscientific belief systems. j_j, Ethan, Krabapple, Axon, Arny and a few others are waiting for you in the next room to hand you some pamphlets and kool aid.
Which reminds me, I've been meaning to ask you... what's with you calling everyone "birds"? Is this some weird Ringo Starr thing you have going? Far as I know, "birds" has always been British slang for females, in this context. Do you know a lot of female quantum physicists?
Yes, of course. As all pseudoscientific ideologues and "scientists-in-their-mind" from Hydrogen Audio are well aware of, "real scientists" (reg. tm.) only work for charity in the eternal servitude of mankind. (Cough. Monsanto! Cough. Pfizer! Ahem). In fact, when they're not doing something "scientific", they're usually working soup kitchens and lunch counters for the mentally handicapped.
Great, I finally found Ethan a friend. Just don't ask him to judge a blind test for you, and I'm sure you two will get along fine.
Yes. I believe it's the "high end audio" part. They're not as serious as you think, over at Hydrogen Audio. They're actually quite a bunch of silly clowns when viewed from the right angle, but not realizing this, they take themselves more seriously than anyone on earth.
That's because he's British. They're known to be polite. (Not to be confused with Aussies, who I assure you, are all quite mad). I hope you are not dismissing swearing and crude putdowns. When done right, it's an art form. And yes, you are correct. "Stereoeditor" wouldn't last a minute here. This place would eat him alive, I fear.
Pages