scientific double blinded cable test

@chrisoshea

And lets not forget the Rolling Stones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnqH7W4me9o

LOL

Plain English has no chance. Complex English does. Except it has to be pursued by the reader to the ends of their own psychological limits.... otherwise nothing comes through. Ie, one has to elevate themselves to the question and answer set. It is already as simplified as it can be and that is noted to be quite ineffective. Questions and answers equal one another.

@teo_audio, as you so deftly illustrated above, torturing syntax like Torquemada torturing an apostate doesn't result in "complex English".  Nice dodge, but no cigar.  Language can be used to communicate, or to obfuscate; I'll leave to readers to identify your usage for themselves.

I think it's clear that cables - whether speaker cables or interconnects - can indeed sound different.  Cables can be, and are in some cases, designed as blunt force tone controls, altering the signal to an audible level during transmission.  I don't, personally, find that to fulfill the basic purpose of a cable, that being to transfer the signal from component A to component B with as little change as possible.  If it measures like a choke, it's a choke, not a cable. It is also possible, and certainly not unknown, for components (Naim anyone?) to have somewhat pathological input/output sections that are not stable over the *normal* ranges of R/L/C encountered in cables. But IMO we're talking about pathology here, not good engineering design.

And yes, in years past I have participated in open (sighted) A/B testing of cables, and subsequent single blind and double blind tests of the same cables and found that differences were easily detected in open testing, yet vanished without a trace in both blinded tests.  None of the cables tested were of the 'pathological design' variety, or designed for a "specific sound" - they were a number of well constructed AQ cables (i.e. no batteries, no potted network boxes, no elevators, no...well, you get the idea).

And yes, in years past I have participated in open (sighted) A/B testing of cables, and subsequent single blind and double blind tests of the same cables and found that differences were easily detected in open testing, yet vanished without a trace in both blinded tests.

Thank you, @keithahughes

EDIT:

It also vanishes without a trace when dollars are involved.

gdhal"I appreciate your contacting me via PM. I believe it fair to write that you and I are at an impasse. Your refusal to skype first and foremost and insistence that we publicize here on the forum what in my view is personal means that we have “irreconcilable differences”. I thank you for your interest."

I made it clear from the beginning that this challenge should be conducted in public and that includes the design, terms, conditions, methodology and location of the test. You then not only insisted on first conducting discussions privately via skype but you also sought to engage me in a  private discussion as to the other terms of the test rendering whatever we would have decided to be dubious in value because it would have lacked input from the interested parties here which is who you initially engaged when first you proposed this challenge. You have also shown previously in this thread as has been pointed out by others that you do not know how to conduct a proper, reliable, repeatable test, or a double-blinded test at all meaning that it would have been impossible for me to satisfy your terms and conditions so I must say that I do not think you're challenge was ever intended to be taken seriously but rather was another effort to raise again the "it all sounds the same and if you believe otherwise you have to conduct a double-blinded test the onus is on you to conduct that test" argument which is patent nonsense.