Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonmb
Ok, somebody needs to be the naysayer: blind tests have their value when conducted professionally by people who have done their research and are experts in the field, and are set up properly to allow the products to perform at their best. In the wine tasting shown, did anyone notice the glasses that were too small and not shaped properly to allow the tasters to get their noses in the glass and for the wine's aroma to develop? Since the "nose" of a wine is a critical part of the taste experience, the test is inherently flawed, and skewed to favor the cheaper wine. And were those people wine connoisseurs or just taken at random? Also were the wines allowed to breathe? Were they at the right temperature? Would any of them have benefited from decanting?
I certainly agree that knowing what you're drinking (or listening to) can impact how much you like it, but this pseudo-scientific test sure doesn't confirm that. If you use three people who know nothing about audio and blind test a McIntosh amp against a Bose amp but test them both using cheap computer speakers poorly set up, they might well prefer the Bose amp. Would that make it the better amp?
|
Those are all excellent points. As someone who has previously had many hundreds (if not thousands) of pages of tasting notes - I'd simply say (and the EXACT same goes to stereo components): everyone has certain aspects (of taste or sound) that matter most to them. Sample a LOT, and you may just well find that you can be greatly satisfied at a very low cost. As an example? There is a certain creamy mouth feel that I like with my Cabernets. Most times, I have to spend $40 to $80/bottle to achieve it. I can get exactly that mouth feel for under $15 with McManis Cabs - and they still manage to do all the other bits right to a reasonable level. No, not PERFECT, but quite satisfying - and after the first glass or two, I'm sure I couldn't even properly calibrate my palate with a nez du vin.