I'm just not clear what the thrust of the thread is aimed at. Is it about saying that "clones" are as good as the stuff they copied...or is it about the comparing of same production items to pick the best one...or...what?
I'm saying that I don't think a blind listening test --- or even a less scientific one --- in which we try to make
every other variable (besides the thing being tested) in the chain equal and play the same riff or sample, etc. is a good way to judge whether a clone is doing its job.
This makes it too easy to hear any tiny little difference, which may or may not be the fault of the clone. The flaw with this test is that you're actively looking/listening for a difference. And when you are looking for a difference, you're more likely to find something, even when it's not there.
Consider this: You set up a test where you tell someone you're comparing a Dumble amp with some modeling amp that costs $150. You use a re-amped guitar track so the performances are identical each time. You play a series of 5 phrases, each from the Dumble and then the modeling amp. Of course, you just label them Amp 1 and Amp 2, and you let them know that the order of the licks will not be the same every time. (In other words, Amp 1 won't always be the first of each pair of licks.)
Then you ask them to tell you what the think for each lick: A) Amp 1 is better, B) Amp 2 is better, or C) They sound too close to tell them apart.
However, when you perform the actual test, you actually don't use a Dumble at all. You actually play the modeling amp every single time for Amp 1 and Amp 2.
Now ... honestly, given these parameters---i.e., the fact that they're supposedly comparing a
Dumble to a $150 modeling amp---how many people do you think would answer C even a majority of the time, much less 100%?
I say this to illustrate that when people are listening for something, they probably will hear something. This is a proven scientific fact. It's the way our brains operate.
So when you compare something that's so close --- i.e., the sound of a clone to an original when every other variable is the same --- and you're looking for a difference, you probably will hear one. And if you're a purist or a gear snob, then you'll probably immediately jump to the conclusion that the difference automatically means the clone is "absolute crap" and "worthless."
But again, this has practically
no parallel in the real musical world. You never hear music this way at all.
IMO, a true test for those with golden ears is to have them try to discern the clone from the original when
all the variables are different --- i.e., the rest of the signal chain could be different, and they're playing totally different things. If someone can reliably and consistently tell the difference between a clone and an original in
that scenario --- which is, of course, the way we actually
do hear these instruments --- then I would actually listen to what they have to say, because clearly the clone is not able to do its job at that point. In other words, it's not able to convince someone that they could be hearing the original.
For example, I think every person on the planet would likely be able to tell the difference between a Martin acoustic guitar and a Fender Strat on any track.
I think the vast majority of people would be able to tell the difference between a Strat and a Les Paul with clean tones no matter the circumstances. (Those less-informed might not know which is which, but they would likely be able to tell the difference.) The more distortion you add, the more you may be able to fool the lay person. (Indeed, if you went full triple rectifier, you may be able to fool some guitar players.)
However, how many guitarists do you think will be able to reliably tell a Fender Strat from an ESP Strat copy --- or even a $300 Squire --- when they're playing different things but with similar tones? I would think not nearly as many.
By the way, when I say "tell a Strat from a Squire," I don't just mean be able to tell a difference. I mean reliably be able to say "that's the Fender, and that's the Squire."
And these are really crude examples. These are different instruments, with different woods, pickups, etc. And yet I still think you can see the point I'm making.
And if most people can't reliably name the right one even 50% of the time, much less 100% of the time, in an
actual musical situation, then doesn't that mean the clone is clearly doing its job?
Of course, there are several disclaimers in all this.
1) I know that the intent of a "clone" is not always to convince someone they could be hearing the original. (The later examples with guitars obviously aren't dealing with clones at all.) But it often is.
2) I know not everyone is a purist or gear snob, and so many people wouldn't behave in the way I describe in the Dumble test. But I think there are many who would.