scientific double blinded cable test

gdhal"You don’t have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold."
I am very pleased to see that you are again offering your $25,000 challenge to those who compete in  your test of audio cables. Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised $25,000 at stake!

Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised $25,000 at stake!

@clearthink

You did mention (privately) that you and I should refrain on posting any dollar amount, on account of forum moderation (i.e. our posts are likely to be removed).

Realistically, I’ve already posted more than enough in this thread.

You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters (general framework as outlined in the example procedure) and you and all others are very much aware how to contact me - privately - if you have a genuine interest about pursuing my challenge and demonstrating that you can do the impossible.

I’m done with this thread.

Nothing to tell now; let the words be yours, I’m done with mine.

Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?

Agreed. You don't have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.

I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.

True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.

Now I don't know but I've been told
It's hard to run with the weight of gold
Other hand I heard it said
It's just as hard with the weight of lead

Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.

Nope!

The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)

There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.

You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don't (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I'm not giving away the gold.

The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice

If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.

I'm sincere that it's *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.

I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.

Thank you, @willemj

It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.

If the game is lost, then we're all the same
No one left to place or take the blame

What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .

This isn't about proper etiquette. It's about what truth is proof against all lies.

geoffkait0

... if test results of any test - including a double blind test - are negative you cannot assume there’s no difference between cables OR that device X doesn’t work as claimed OR that wire directionality is a hoax. The test just wasn’t capable of revealing the differences ... There are too many things that can go wrong with a particular test, including the test conductor is all thumbs, the person who put the system together is all thumbs, the test procedure is faulty ... It’s the preponderance of the evidence that prevails.

That is quite true. That's why those who promote such tests should be using themselves first as subjects; if they are sincere, they'd want as large a body of test results as possible. They'd also want to ensure that each test be scientifically valid, which is most likely if it's consistent with established testing methodologies, such as quick switching. The poster who is  promoting this "challenge" is clearly a con, and I suspect that's why the moderators are removing his posts.

gdha

You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters (general framework as outlined in the example procedure)

There's a large body of scientific literature that shows your proposed testing protocol isn't scientific. I can only conclude that your effort here is a con.