Seemingly trivial things that you give absolutely no f's about, but others go apeshít over.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

bompington

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

rick_chasey

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting#Professional_tasting_judges

There are hundreds of them.

Basically, the pros are about as good as equity analysts in predicting what way a stock is going to end up (basically as good as flipping coins or randomly generating results)

rjsterry

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

Blind testing of any kind of bicycle doesn't sound like a great idea, except maybe a tandem.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting#Professional_tasting_judges

There are hundreds of them.

Basically, the pros are about as good as equity analysts in predicting what way a stock is going to end up (basically as good as flipping coins or randomly generating results)

Would be interesting if you could aggregate the results using the wisdom of crowds principle.

kingstongraham

shortfall said:

Alcohol free beer tastes like sh-it though. Becks Blue is tolerable I suppose but so is a root canal, and is there anything better at quenching your thirst than a cold one straight out of the fridge? It's not like you have to have another 6 for the effects in order to enjoy it, although obviously that has it's merits sometimes.

I quite like Erdinger as a refreshing drink, if you don't think of it as a beer replacement.

First.Aspect

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

If it looks more aero, then it will be faster, particularly if its expensive. Didn't you know?

bompington

First.Aspect said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

If it looks more aero, then it will be faster, particularly if its expensive. Didn't you know?

Obviously some sort of colour-filtered glasses would be essential, so you couldn't tell if t was red or not.

pblakeney

nickice said:

Ben6899 said:

nickice said:

Ben6899 said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

I'm in the 'can't be too fussed about coffee' camp. Have a cup it two of instant with milk every day. .

Oh mate.

Appalling behaviour.

There's not being fussed about coffee and there's outing yourself as someone with appalling taste.

Coffee tastes bad. The world has deluded itself.

As does alcohol. I don't think anyone ever thought their first coffee or pint of lager tasted amazing. Much is done to actually disguise the taste (especially with alcohol)

Ahaha you softie.

Booze changes the flavour make up of drinks to highlight different flavours over others. It acts like a solvent for smells and flavours.

It still amazes me that people think they're drinking alcohol for the taste and not the effect. Yes you can enjoy certain drinks but without the effect people would only ever drink the ones where you can't taste the alcohol.

I completely disagree with this. If non-alcoholic beer tasted the same as the proper stuff, then I'd drink it as a preference. But the alcohol gives beer a kind of thickness, and really rounds the flavour (if you're not drinking some sh1te like Budweiser).

That's the alcohol and the endorphins (NB not a neuroscientist) that are released when you drink.

It's not just the neurological effect of alcohol and endorphins; the process of getting a certain weight of alcohol into a drink affects the taste of the drink itself. In a way which appeals to me and others.

I actually really enjoyed my first drink of alcohol, which was a can of lager camping on a family holiday.

You don't think that the endorphins trick you into thinking this..

If you enjoy something who cares why?
Endorphins also help you enjoy cycling.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting#Professional_tasting_judges

There are hundreds of them.

Basically, the pros are about as good as equity analysts in predicting what way a stock is going to end up (basically as good as flipping coins or randomly generating results)

So your taste buds are sufficiently refined to be able to tell the difference between the quality of whatever previous x pages has been about, but you accept this isn't true for the population as a whole? Or you think it is only wine that people spend ages blathering on about and it is not true for spirits?

This is another one of the seemingly trivial things that annoys me - people who are snobby about things that they have no idea about.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

Blind testing of any kind of bicycle doesn't sound like a great idea, except maybe a tandem.

Should I put this down as a joke rather than a lack of knowledge about blind testing?

webboo

Back in the day in France you got cheap wine in bottles with stars embossed in the glasses. So you could return the empties. It came in red or white, blindfolded no one could tell the difference.
I think it cost 2 Francs a bottle but you got 3 back when you returned the empty.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting#Professional_tasting_judges

There are hundreds of them.

Basically, the pros are about as good as equity analysts in predicting what way a stock is going to end up (basically as good as flipping coins or randomly generating results)

So your taste buds are sufficiently refined to be able to tell the difference between the quality of whatever previous x pages has been about, but you accept this isn't true for the population as a whole? Or you think it is only wine that people spend ages blathering on about and it is not true for spirits?

This is another one of the seemingly trivial things that annoys me - people who are snobby about things that they have no idea about.

I generally think snobbishness for things like food or drink misses the point. Stuff doesn't need to be expensive to be nice, good, enjoyable, whatever.

I *do* however think there is a floor for a certain level of quality, below which the cost-cutting eats away at what made the drink or food popular in the first place.

So, I'm not going to sit here and start saying that £60 or £100 bottles of bourbon are better than £30 bottles and you're a mug for not thinking so (au contraire, they're often just an indication of scarcity and how long they've been aged, the latter of which is just a certain style, which you may or may not like), but I recon your £12 bottle of Jim Beam has probably cut too many corners to be enjoyable or be representative of what people like about bourbons.

And anyway, no-one is blind tasting their drinks - we all drink them in context, so as long as we enjoy them I can't really see the problem.

blazing_saddles

nickice said:

blazing_saddles said:

nickice said:

briantrumpet said:

nickice said:

briantrumpet said:

nickice said:

Ben6899 said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

I'm in the 'can't be too fussed about coffee' camp. Have a cup it two of instant with milk every day. .

Oh mate.

Appalling behaviour.

There's not being fussed about coffee and there's outing yourself as someone with appalling taste.

Coffee tastes bad. The world has deluded itself.

As does alcohol. I don't think anyone ever thought their first coffee or pint of lager tasted amazing. Much is done to actually disguise the taste (especially with alcohol)

Ahaha you softie.

Booze changes the flavour make up of drinks to highlight different flavours over others. It acts like a solvent for smells and flavours.

It still amazes me that people think they're drinking alcohol for the taste and not the effect. Yes you can enjoy certain drinks but without the effect people would only ever drink the ones where you can't taste the alcohol.

I completely disagree with this. If non-alcoholic beer tasted the same as the proper stuff, then I'd drink it as a preference. But the alcohol gives beer a kind of thickness, and really rounds the flavour (if you're not drinking some sh1te like Budweiser).

That's the alcohol and the endorphins (NB not a neuroscientist) that are released when you drink.

It's not. If you've never tasted a complex vintage red wine that's like a symphony unfolding on your taste buds with each taste, then that's your loss.

I think I can deal with that. What do you think a person who's never drunk alcohol would think of that wine? Most likely that it tastes like fruit juice that's gone off (which, although, simplistic) is what alcohol is. I like wine and I like beer but I'm not deluded (not meant as a personal dig) enough to think it's not really about the effect. There are better or worse ways to deliver alcohol to your system, of course.

In my experience, often the things that appeal instantly are the things that are one-dimensional; the things that don't reveal themselves on first taste/hearing, often because they are complex, are the things that are the most satisfying in the long term.

If you just like the simple things, fine - but to discount the world of complex flavours in good wine as "fruit juice that's gone off" is rather like dismissing Bach as "Vivaldi that's gone off". I'm fine with people who enjoy Vivaldi and not Bach, but generally they tend not to claim that their limited palate has a scientific basis.

Music isn't, basically, a poison. I'm not disputing the fact that some wines taste better than others but what I am saying is that alcohol basically tastes horrible and the rest is just trying to make the alcohol palatable. I think the science behind what alcohol does is pretty clear.

Some wines tastes better than others because wine is made from grapes, which amazingly vary greatly in quality.
So, it's about fruit and nowt to do with making alcohol palatable.

Red wine in moderation is considered beneficial to health, rather than a poison.

Wine is made from fermented grapes and fruit can ferment on its own (basically it means the fruit is off). Yes, of course the quality of the grape can change how good the wine tastes IF you already have a taste for alcohol.

The wine in moderation thing is hotly disputed especially when you consider you can get all the benefits from non-alcoholic drinks and there were questions about funding of some of the studies.

Hotly disputed??

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/red-wine-good-or-bad

Studies have repeatedly shown that moderate red wine consumption seems to lower the risk of several diseases, including heart disease.
Small amounts of red wine are linked to more health benefits than any other alcoholic beverage. People who drink approximately 150 ml (5 oz) of red wine a day seem to be at about a 32% lower risk than non-drinkers.

And if it's a matter of choice, I'll stick to taking my medicine.

ballysmate

Has someone already mentioned The Beatles?

I would add Elvis to the mix and of course Pink Floyd. PF - Self indulgent pretentious rubbish.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting#Professional_tasting_judges

There are hundreds of them.

Basically, the pros are about as good as equity analysts in predicting what way a stock is going to end up (basically as good as flipping coins or randomly generating results)

So your taste buds are sufficiently refined to be able to tell the difference between the quality of whatever previous x pages has been about, but you accept this isn't true for the population as a whole? Or you think it is only wine that people spend ages blathering on about and it is not true for spirits?

This is another one of the seemingly trivial things that annoys me - people who are snobby about things that they have no idea about.

I generally think snobbishness for things like food or drink misses the point. Stuff doesn't need to be expensive to be nice, good, enjoyable, whatever.

I *do* however think there is a floor for a certain level of quality, below which the cost-cutting eats away at what made the drink or food popular in the first place.

So, I'm not going to sit here and start saying that £60 or £100 bottles of bourbon are better than £30 bottles and you're a mug for not thinking so (au contraire, they're often just an indication of scarcity and how long they've been aged, the latter of which is just a certain style, which you may or may not like), but I recon your £12 bottle of Jim Beam has probably cut too many corners to be enjoyable or be representative of what people like about bourbons.

And anyway, no-one is blind tasting their drinks - we all drink them in context, so as long as we enjoy them I can't really see the problem.

If someone sits at home wallowing in the glory of being able to taste the difference between their fancy drinks, then that is fine by me. Happy that they are happy. Just don't tell me about it.

If you tell me that your ears need CD+ music quality, then expect me to ask if you can see X-rays or infra-red.

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

Has someone already mentioned The Beatles?

I would add Elvis to the mix and of course Pink Floyd. PF - Self indulgent pretentious rubbish.

I quite like the dark side of the moon. What I can't understand is they seem to have an ambition to create the perfect tone for the instruments, with the best recording and precise reproduction of the sound as played, then have a couple of wheezy blokes singing just because that's who is there.

kingstongraham

(But The Beatles are the most underrated band in history.)

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I sometimes wonder how many wine/food/beer/whatever experts would pass double blind tests. I know the results aren't good for audiophiles.

Famously badly.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

TBF that study appears to be more about how the appearance of wine dyed red interferes with the olfactory info - the point isn't that they couldn't tell the difference (I find it pretty hard to believe I couldn't, and I certainly wouldn't claim any great sensitivity of palate), but that the visual perception was stronger and faster.

It would be interesting to see (I wonder why it wasn't included in the study?) what would have happened if they had been blindfolded.

I've also wondered a lot what the results of a double blind trial of, say, expensive road bikes would be like.

Blind testing of any kind of bicycle doesn't sound like a great idea, except maybe a tandem.

Should I put this down as a joke rather than a lack of knowledge about blind testing?

Jeez. Yes it was an admittedly poor joke about blind testing. I'm well aware of what double blind testing really is.

Wheelspinner

TheBigBean said:

This is another one of the seemingly trivial things that annoys me - people who are snobby about things that they have no idea about.

If you tell me that your ears need CD+ music quality, then expect me to ask if you can see X-rays or infra-red.

This qualifies for the irony thread I think.

TheBigBean

Wheelspinner said:

TheBigBean said:

This is another one of the seemingly trivial things that annoys me - people who are snobby about things that they have no idea about.

If you tell me that your ears need CD+ music quality, then expect me to ask if you can see X-rays or infra-red.

This qualifies for the irony thread I think.

Er, you might need to explain that.

Edit something weird going on with the quoting

Wheelspinner

TheBigBean said:

Wheelspinner said:

TheBigBean said:

This is another one of the seemingly trivial things that annoys me - people who are snobby about things that they have no idea about.

If you tell me that your ears need CD+ music quality, then expect me to ask if you can see X-rays or infra-red.

This qualifies for the irony thread I think.

Er, you might need to explain that.

Edit something weird going on with the quoting
Very weird trying to quote selected things on an iPad. Sorry.

You would seem to be (reverse) snobby about the possibility of better than CD sound quality.

Do people actually *need* it? Perhaps not, but arguable.

Does it exist - better than the Red Book standard CD format? Yes. Whether you have heard or can hear the difference is entirely subjective, and for you to decide. Other opinions exist. None of them - yours included - are fact-based or measurable.

I just found it vaguely ironic in one post you were annoyed by snobby people, then shortly after posted something which (to me anyway) suggests exactly that behaviour.

But it's all opinions.

TheBigBean

Wheelspinner said:

Very weird trying to quote selected things on an iPad. Sorry.

You would seem to be (reverse) snobby about the possibility of better than CD sound quality.

Do people actually *need* it? Perhaps not, but arguable.

Does it exist - better than the Red Book standard CD format? Yes. Whether you have heard or can hear the difference is entirely subjective, and for you to decide. Other opinions exist. None of them - yours included - are fact-based or measurable.

I just found it vaguely ironic in one post you were annoyed by snobby people, then shortly after posted something which (to me anyway) suggests exactly that behaviour.

But it's all opinions.

Is being able to see x-rays with the human eye a subjective matter?

I did say I am more than happy for people to listen to it, just that it annoys me when they tell me they can hear the difference. They can't. The human ear is basically not capable of it. This is the reason that no one has passed a double blind test on high bitrate mp3 vs CD.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Wheelspinner said:

Very weird trying to quote selected things on an iPad. Sorry.

You would seem to be (reverse) snobby about the possibility of better than CD sound quality.

Do people actually *need* it? Perhaps not, but arguable.

Does it exist - better than the Red Book standard CD format? Yes. Whether you have heard or can hear the difference is entirely subjective, and for you to decide. Other opinions exist. None of them - yours included - are fact-based or measurable.

I just found it vaguely ironic in one post you were annoyed by snobby people, then shortly after posted something which (to me anyway) suggests exactly that behaviour.

But it's all opinions.

Is being able to see x-rays with the human eye a subjective matter?

I did say I am more than happy for people to listen to it, just that it annoys me when they tell me they can hear the difference. They can't. The human ear is basically not capable of it. This is the reason that no one has passed a double blind test on high bitrate mp3 vs CD.

It is an interesting one because there is no doubt that the frequency sampling window for CDs will chop off frequencies that are harmonics of those we can hear.... Oh, wait it's not interesting at all.

kingstongraham

Can I add to the thread whatever it is you're discussing now.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

Can I add to the thread whatever it is you're discussing now.

Can I add to the thread this.

singleton

Gardening.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Can I add to the thread whatever it is you're discussing now.

Can I add to the thread this.

No, sorry.

rick_chasey

Seemingly trivial things that you give absolutely no f's about, but others go apeshít over:


Me not using the bike path that is not designed for riders going at 30kph, and instead using the main road it is adjacent to.

rick_chasey

BB - what's your take on Equity Analysts who get paid vast sums of money to do something that they, collectively, cannot do better than someone flipping a coin can?