Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!hound!rfg From: rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Correct Double Blind Testing Message-ID: <1297@hound.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 21:50:36 EDT Article-I.D.: hound.1297 Posted: Fri Aug 9 21:50:36 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 00:53:13 EDT References: <3521@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 25 [] There is something in what you say - about comparing violins on A with violas on B - but not very much. In the first place, if you want to be really rigorous about it and play the same material, many composers have had you in mind when they wrote something called a "repeat"- the same passage repeated. Not all repeats are observed in performance, but enough to satisfy your demand. However, such a test would not be very good because of the incredibly poor audio memory most people have. After a few seconds, you can't reliably remember exactly what something sounded like. So a much better method is to switch rapidly in the middle of a phrase. You are then comparing violins with the same violins, violas with the same violas, etc. and doing so while you can still remember what the previous one sounded like. That is where the necessity for accurate synchronizing comes in. I find I must be real poor because I often have to switch back and forth many times to sense a difference. On the other hand, if you want to disguize a switch, don't do it in the middle of a phrase, do it between phrases because then the listenersbe comparing one thing with another and may miss the switch all together. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg