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 listeners
 be comparing one thing with another and may miss the switch all
together.

-- 

"It's the thought, if any, that counts!"  Dick Grantges  hound!rfg