Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

"John Atkinson" <stereoeditor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message
news:2ba6634e-9289-4fe4-86d5-08d8e61f3653@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> On May 9, 5:03 pm, Clyde Slick
>>> <Mr.clydesl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to
>>>>> believe his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
>>>>> he's gotta provide some proof.
>>>>
>>>> No he does not.
>>>
>>>  Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay
>>> him for it, he does.
>>
>> Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise,
>> you aren't paying him.
>
> The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
> and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
> 100 since my first in the spring of 1977.

Typically, there's always been some kind of shall I be gentle and say 
"distraction" in SP's published BTs.

> My rejection of them as a  general reviewing tool is based on that
> considerable experience.

I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or informal peer
review. 
There is this recurrent flaw - introduction of spurious elements that seem

to be designed to further the SP "Everthing sounds different" agenda.

> Remind me again how many blind
> tests ScottW  has taken part in?

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.