scientific double blinded cable test

Big deal. No one ever suggested there was a standard for directionality. Recall directionality is sound related only. Duh! There are no technical standards for Polarity, for soundstage, for realism, for room acoustics, for speaker placement, for vibration, for RFI/EMI, for Noise, for Distortion, frequency response, dynamic range. Yet somehow we are able to find our way. Well, sometimes...fortunately, directionality is often the easiest to get to the bottom of. All you have to do is reverse the cable or fuse, whatever. Fortunately some companies control directionality, even for power cords making it pretty much a no brainer. No comment.  I wouldn’t hold my breath for a MIL STD for directionality any time real soon. 😡

@nugat

It’s not a concern for their particular forms of use.


@Geoff

As for Randi’s lack of validity, that is easy to find on the interwebs. I cannot immediately find the web link for the ’scientific regimen’ test designing dude’s report on Randi’s test, but here’s quite the bit of damning evidence in just one article out of what is likely to be more than a few.

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/randis-million-dollar-challenge/

Sorry, that article you linked to is completely inaccurate. Randi’s education foundation is/was loaded to the gills with technical folks who helped Randi develop his test procedures. Randi had precious little to do with it. He did not get involved with discussions with potential challengers either. He had a committee that dealt with all that. Randi was neither technical nor an audiophile. He was a magician.

I was merely providing a research pathway, as there is no simple answer, only complex ones that take time to discern.

As well, as you might and probably do know, there is no way to communicate a complex long form answer to a question..to another..that those individuals will have to put the work in themselves.

The end game is that entrenched positions of individuals as compared to a group....simply do not bring about change en masse. The given entrenched position changes one person at a time, like grains of sand on a beach.

Which is why any $25k challenge will be a waste of time, for both parties and for anyone else outside of a few given potential attendees.

for example beyond all the complexities of the quality of the test, and so on....there  is something more problematic. Something a layer deeper in or down. Something that is most difficult to swallow, or deal with is that objectivity has been scientifically proven, through and by hundreds of vetted tests, to be a non existent thing. This is now coming at us, as a group, from multiple directions in finished works and cutting edge physics revelations.

Point being, that an ’objective test’ now has to be modified to deal with the new understandings of the fundamentals around the now falsified idea of objectivity. Otherwise the regimen as it stands ---is likely to be found as invalid.

Getting the people involved to understand that new emergent fundamental (objectivity being falsified), is going to be tough sledding at best. How does one get objectivity in science to reform itself? Fundamentally? It’s a human ego/emotions/hind-brain problem, not just a complex and deep question of logic and data. The problem has never been the logic or idea of logic, it has always been the human filter and carrier.

As usual, it is more complex than it looks.

Whoa! What the ding ding? What you takin’ about, Willis?