Most Important, Unloved Cable...

jinjuku0

It’s not a double blind test.

As I noted here pages and pages back, that’s exactly why the results of your test would not really be valid.

I don’t think there’s much value for most audiophiles to conduct proper blind testing. But a test that doesn’t control bias has no value at all to anyone other than the actual listener himself.

In any event, it's clear from the many recent deletions in this thread that if you seek to promote your test challenge, you'll have to find another place to do it.

The point behind the offer, and it's an honest offer, is to simply show that people don't have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe. 

I'm ok with that outcome. It's a data point in and of itself and that data is certainly valid. Out of a count of 52 people that I've seen directly state large delta in Ethernet cabling SQ I have 0 takers. That forms a picture that any reasonable and prudent person can form for themselves.

On the typical response of scientifically invalid. My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ differences. If their opinion is good in that case then it will hold water with the same people when done with my proposed setup.

jinjuku
The point behind the offer, and it’s an honest offer, is to simply show that people don’t have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe.

>>>>>>We we also know that people’s hearing is frequently not as good as they think it is or claim it to be. We also know that people’s systems are frequently not as good as they think it is or as good they claim them to be. So what else is new?

I’m ok with that outcome. It’s a data point in and of itself and that data is certainly valid. Out of a count of 52 people that I’ve seen directly state large delta in Ethernet cabling SQ I have 0 takers. That forms a picture that any reasonable and prudent person can form for themselves.

>>>>>The data point is, however, not (rpt not) valid IF the person is unable to hear differences that are actually there OR if the test system is either not (rpt not) resolving enough or has errors in it. That’s kind of the whole point why negative results should be thrown out. If negative results meant anything every pseudo skeptic in town would be crowing that this or that controversial tweak failed his little controlled blind test. Follow?

On the typical response of scientifically invalid. My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ differences. If their opinion is good in that case then it will hold water with the same people when done with my proposed setup.

>>>>I suppose you never got the memo that skeptics and pseudo skeptics never actually get positive results for these sorts of things. Something to do with the reverse expectation bias or some other psychological issue. Besides if they did get positive results how could they face their friends? 😫

jinjuku

The point behind the offer, and it's an honest offer, is to simply show that people don't have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe. 

Your offer was no offer at all, which is why the moderators have deleted every reference to it. The offer has proven nothing.

My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ

No, your proposal wasn't even close to a proper evaluation, because it didn't account for expectation bias by the listener, or the person conducting the "test." That is why it didn't represent a valid listening test.