DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?
| Post removed |
cleeds, You are simply ignoring the relevant details I supplied in my replies. You’re being silly. The purpose of a drug trial is to test the efficacy of a treatment. It’s not to test the patient. I’d put the word "fail" in context when talking of scientific testing - a short form, used advisedly, to indicate negative results in a study. And as I said, scientists will indeed use that term, advisedly, when talking about clinical studies. (My son is in a clinical study now, and the study doctors use that term "failed" for studies and test subjects all the time). And you can find this language used for many clinical trials. I’d said:
Perhaps you will claim the FDA is "silly" when, in their guidelines for medical research, they use just such language: FDA: Selection of subjects for an active control trial can affect outcome; the population studied should be carefully considered in evaluating what the trial has shown. IF MANY SUBJECTS IN A TRIAL HAVE PREVIOUSLY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE CONTROL TREATMENT, there would be a bias in favor of the new treatment. (My emphasis). https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm073139.pdf
But blind testing itself had come under fire, and you’d stated a more GENERALIZED claim about blind testing: "A listener can’t "fail" a listening test - that’s a common misnomer about scientific listening tests. A double-blind listening test doesn’t test the listener. It tests the devices under test." And I was just explaining how that is false, or at best misleading. Single and double-blind tests can and do test listeners - using "devices" to test the subjects. Alternatively, other types of tests can be oriented towards inferring conclusions about the devices themselves. So we need to be clear about what is being tested. Your reply muddied those waters. |
@ cd318 Wow a product that had 100x more profit than the rest put together eh. Most excellent point..... though I'm really at a loss to figure out which product in a stereo store would have that kind of profit margin. Maybe you could help me with that eh. And we are supposed to actually take you seriously after that most excellent point. Like did you actually give that statement some small scintilla of thought before you blew it out the door or is there a special on hyperbole somewhere that I'm not aware of and you bought too much and just had to use it up because its going to go rancid ( most people don't know this but hyperbole is like fish you leave the sun, after a while it becomes pretty stinky ). And if there is maybe you should get together with prof and make a bulk buy, I mean you guys put your minds to it you could probably go through a train load in a week. Bottom line conclusions....its a complex solution set that is very much system dependent. |
Comment on how this thread is going. What have we learned? 1. Naysayers continue to claim blind tests can prove the device tested doesn’t work as advertised. 2. Naysayer and pseudo scientists claim blind testing is part of the scientific method. 3. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics claim negative results for a blind test mean something. 4. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics claim blind tests can ferret out audiophiles who support Cable differences or who support controversial tweaks or ideas such as wire directionality. 5. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics continue to believe that because blind testing is used in pharma and wine industries or because violins were tested blind that means blind testing also works for audio. 6. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics follow in the footsteps of the Amazing Randi who was quick to realize the marketing potential of offering audiophiles a million bucks if they could pass his blind test. |
