Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

gdhal

And this is why blind testing is very fair and extremely useful in these matters. It allows the listener who is subjected to the test to "guess" or otherwise "perceive" a difference

This shows a complete misunderstanding of scientific listening tests in particular and scientific testing in general. The listener is not "subjected to the test" any more than a patient is " subjected to the test" in a drug trial. Rather, in a listening test, it is the equipment that is under test. In a drug trial, it is the drug under test, not the patient. If the drug proves ineffective, scientists don’t say "the patient failed the test." They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.

The notion that a test is "fair" or not is also misguided. It is either conducted in a way that is scientific, or not. Simple.

They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.

Correct and I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants) to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar pill. 

jinjuku

... I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants) to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar pill.

What is it that you propose to test? Are you also seeking a wager, as you did last time, with 5-1 odds?
And remember, if you hope to develop some meaningful data, you'll need more than one listener to participate in the  test.

Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative. Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are subject to the laws of listening tests I described earlier today. If it were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a hoax. Lawyers don’t actually bring anything to the table, you know, knowing as little about listening tests and what’s involved as anyone in the world. Anyone not following my logic raise your hand. 

geoffkait

Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative.

Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.

Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are subject to the laws of listening tests ... If it were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a hoax

Agreed.
But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I've stated many times that I think the typical audiophile has little use for scientific listening tests - they're time consuming, cumbersome, sometimes frustrating and tedious - that doesn't mean they have no value whatsoever. But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening.