scientific double blinded cable test

gdhal"Would you say that wire is directional? And, if you answer yes, would you say you could *hear* a difference if connected one direction or another?If you answer yes to both, I have a business proposition - directly related to this thread - for you (or anyone who answers yes to both questions for that matter). Broadly, the proposition involves either a blind or double blind test where it is my position that you *cannot* reliably hear a difference, and it would be your position that you could reliably hear a difference. If interested, and if the amount is worthwhile (low five figures?) we can have our attorney’s draw up the contracts, establish an escrow account and so on."

Are we talking USD here when you reference "low five figures"" If so, would $25,000 USD be acceptable to you? I believe you are in the US so this would involve air travel to me you need to make this worthwhile I will probably donate my money to a good cause after I complete your test. We would each put this money as cash into escrow to insure payment!

Once again, people are glossing over some things here. On another thread, someone posted that Pink Floyd sound engineers built a recording studio and it details what they went through to get it right.
About 2/3s of the way down in the article, they tried reversing cables and all of them heard a different, and better direction. It was quite obvious. Then even heard a difference in the grounding cables direction.

Why is it that some here only rely on what can be measured and not heard? You're invoking a rather backward way of thinking. One analogy that comes to mind is with our justice system. Any judge will tell you that circumstantial evidence carries every bit of weight as direct evidence. 

Without circumstantial evidence (like actually hearing) there would be no progress. It leads us to figure out, to backward engineer something so as to fit and validate our observations. 

To someone thinking outside the box, it's painfully obvious that what is presently being measured isn't fully being measured. Most likely due to the limits of the test equipment. Naysayers should be wearing robes and hold fast to their manual, armed with switches to punish those who'd dare disagree. 

All the best,
Nonoise

@clearthink

Yes, I’m in the U.S. (Long Island specifically) and I am referring to U.S. dollars. $25K is acceptable, but my preference would be half that. Keep in mind you and I would incur attorneys fees as well, so I’d like to budget some funds for that. While I’m sure we could agree to terms, I’m not open to traveling abroad. Would you travel to my location?

Also, there is a lot of minutiae you and I would need to agree upon before we really go further. If you’re not in the U.S., we can skype first, etc. Tell you what, send a me a PM. I’ll respond with my skype ID and shall be available later today. Let’s get acquainted, shall we?

Parameters such as, but not limited to, wire brand and type used for test, number of attempts in total, number of attempts that must be passed (i.e. determined correctly by you), whom would witness, etc. need to be agreed to. Admittedly, the devil is in the details, and the contractual arrangements alone could take a while before you and I agree (assuming we do) to the terms.

I’ll await your PM.

EDIT:

By the way clearthink, for the record, when we refer to blind testing, we are speaking with reference to information in this article  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment

About 2/3s of the way down in the article, they tried reversing cables and all of them heard a different, and better direction. It was quite obvious.

@nonoise

I looked at the article. You’re referring to the statement "We listened to 20 different cables. We directionalized them all first, of course. Every cable sounds different in a different direction. It’s small, but it sounds different. ."

Thing is, no where in the article does it mention they were able to hear a difference via a blind test.

This is the reason for the blind test; to take any bias out of the equation and draw a distinction between what one believes/thinks and what can be demonstrated repeatedly.

@gdhal 

When a group of people all hear the same thing, at the same time, in the same setting, and under the same circumstances, double blind testing would be entirely redundant.

The only testing needed would be to determine why it happened, if they felt compelled to do so, and not at the behest of others.

Double blind testing would only serve to dumb down an event which is in it's very nature. I think no one could argue that almost any event can be double blinded down to pure chance. It's like I've said before: a cheap parlor trick. 

All the best,
Nonoise