I've been under the impression that 'blind tests' are truly That....one goes into the routine with minimal knowledge of what items are being compared, with the exception of one 'given' item.
In this purposed scenario: an amp, the 'common element'....
One can 'get obsessive', and argue "Well, what's 'upstream of said amp?", but since the object is speakers...define the 'norm' and move on...
NO list of speakers. Screw that. That skews the responses from Sample One. Stunts like an unknown used on multiple 'unknowns' R. Gray apparently pulled are flawed....'Carney tricks', pulled on the 'marks'....
Everything should be 'known', except for 'X', to test for 'X'.
Even then, 'X' needs to be 'rated' over the variables sought...for speakers, define what's being sought to prove, illuminate, define....etc.
A pointless exercise, otherwise...
Millers' movie clip demonstrates such....a stupid movie, overall, but apt...
In this purposed scenario: an amp, the 'common element'....
One can 'get obsessive', and argue "Well, what's 'upstream of said amp?", but since the object is speakers...define the 'norm' and move on...
NO list of speakers. Screw that. That skews the responses from Sample One. Stunts like an unknown used on multiple 'unknowns' R. Gray apparently pulled are flawed....'Carney tricks', pulled on the 'marks'....
Everything should be 'known', except for 'X', to test for 'X'.
Even then, 'X' needs to be 'rated' over the variables sought...for speakers, define what's being sought to prove, illuminate, define....etc.
A pointless exercise, otherwise...
Millers' movie clip demonstrates such....a stupid movie, overall, but apt...