scientific double blinded cable test

Lets not ignore the elephant in the room. The purpose of the double blind test, which geoff cannot help himself to react to other than by saying they are rigged, is to determine whether there is really a discernable difference in sound or its a case of people wanting to believe they are paying the dues to buy into an elite club.  

I am not saying there is not a difference in sound. I totally applaud the test performed by Kevin at Upscale Audio and I think a lot of others did too.  Wish I could have attended.

It's already been pointed out (right here in this thread) that those with experienced ears score reliably above average in double blind tests. Somehow, comments like that get glossed over. 

It's also been shown that listening takes time with a system one is familiar with and quick takes amount to nothing more than a parlor trick.
Being easy to fool someone doesn't equate to their being wrong. Not too hard a concept to wrap ones head around. 

There was someone who pointed out, on another thread, that the whole concept of expectation bias is inherent in those who refuse to believe there is a difference. It's very hard, if not outright impossible, to prove a negative. The naysayer will simply state he/she doesn't hear a difference no matter how obvious. Or eventually, that it's not of any significance.

One individual went so far as to say so on another, related thread. People he had invited over heard the difference, he did not, and yet he still said it was all B.S. I think the answer lies somewhere in there.

All the best,
Nonoise

jetter
Lets not ignore the elephant in the room. The purpose of the double blind test, which geoff cannot help himself to react to other than by saying they are rigged, is to determine whether there is really a discernable difference in sound or its a case of people wanting to believe they are paying the dues to buy into an elite club.

>>>>I never said they are rigged, well, perhaps in the case of The Amazing Randi, who made very unreasonable demands on those tested. For example, having the test performed at a location of Randi’s choosing. Having to use a system of his (Randi’s) choosing. Having to use unfamiliar discs in the test. And having to pass ten consecutive tests. I mean, come on, people!

As far as other blind tests go, at least in the general sense, what I actually said is that they don’t prove anything if results are inconclusive or negative due to the myriad reasons tests can be corrupted. Just like any type of test. Reasons include but are not limited to failure to follow instructions, lack of experience in listening tests or plain old hearing impairment, and mistakes in the system. The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry. 🐁

I have more experience than the average bear when it comes to testing, not only testing for sound but in testing of very large expensive communications systems. Know what I mean, jelly bean? 

There's an experiment where different stacks of playing cards have different pay/lose profiles. That is,some decks may reward/ punish in $5-$25 range, whereas other deck contains more big payout and punishment cards.

The test subjects hands are measured for voltaic conductance (sweaty palms) and it turns out the hands react differently when choosing which deck to play.  That is, if the big emotional punches come from deck 3, the hands "knows" the difference in decks long before the conscious mind is aware of any difference or can articulate  it.

So in some experiences, the "body" can discern before the mind.

It seems to me that those who are clamoring for blind tests should be the ones conducting the blind tests.

@cleeds

You are correct. However, that is a generalization. Within the context of this thread specifically the blind test I'm advocating for should be conducted by the party who has the most to gain or loose by the result of the test. Clearly that would be Geoff, as he is the one who professes that wire has directionality. I'd have to think *he* would be interested to learn if he could actually hear a difference.

That’s exactly right! Skeptics always demand that True Believers do the blind test. As if that will prove skeptics were right, after all. The skeptics never do the blind tests themselves. What are they afraid of?

@geoffkait

But it is posts from people like you that create skepticism in the first place! The burden of proof to your outlandish claims lies with you, not those that are skeptical of them. 

Why would I deny or discount what I clearly hear, just because it doesn’t fit into someone else’s worldview? I don't need a blind test to prove to myself what I hear.

@tommylion

You wouldn't deny or discount what you hear just because someone else disagrees, doesn't hear what you do, etc. And you're absolutely correct that you do not need a blind test to prove anything to yourself.

So please allow me to ask your opinion - within the context of audio - how would one prove a wire is directional (i.e. can hear a difference oriented one way or the other) *without* a blind test?

So in some experiences, the "body" can discern before the mind.

@electroslacker

I agree.