<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>

<B>Editor's Note: </B><I>In 1985 and 1986, an argumentative thread ran through </I>Stereophile<I>'s pages, discussing the benefits or lack of double-blind testing methods in audio component reviewing, triggered by J. Gordon Holt's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/">review of the ABX Comparator</A>. As this debate is still raging nearly 15 years later, we present here the entire discussion that bounced back and forth between the magazine's "Letters" section and features articles. It was kicked off by a letter from C.J. Huss that appeared in Vol.8 No.5.</I>&mdash;<B>John Atkinson</B>