Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

jinjuku says:

Upfront payment wasn’t demanded. It was also loser pays expenses.

Then jinjuku says:

My offer, as it was for William, was to do this in the listeners setup. No money involved. Seems way more than fair to the claimant.

It looks like you've made all kinds of "offers." In any event, a scientific listening test doesn't include a "claimant" - you're compromising the validity of the test itself with that kind of notion. Remember, a listening test doesn't test the listener - it tests the equipment that is the subject of the test. Regardless of the result, it can only be strictly applied to that equipment, under those circumstances, and with that listener. That's why, if you want a scientifically valid test, you'll want a large number of samples, and that usually means a large number of listeners.

If the testing isn't scientific, it's of no value at all.

No, it tests the claim. 

And sighted evaluation, and anecdotal accounts are 100% rigorous. Gotcha.  

Guess what happens when you at 1+1 and do it 48 more times over the course of time? You increase the sample size. 

jinjuku

No, it tests the claim.

When it comes to scientifically valid double-blind listening tests, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even understand what it is that you’re testing.

In fact, the ideal listener involved in such a test has no "claim" and no preference whatsoever. Your notion that you’re testing the listener and his "claim" explains why you think the test will have a "loser" and why he should pay your "expenses."

Your extreme bias here is exactly why a valid test has to be double-blind. Your mere presence in the room would have the potential to taint any listening test.

Consider this: if a scientific test of a new drug has no effect on an individual, what "failed" the test? The human? Or the drug? If after two years the drug still has no effect on that individual, does it mean the drug is not effective? Or, does it mean it was not effective with that individual?

This is all very basic science.

I think you are confused.

If you state that you can jump 10’ straight up from a standstill and either I bring a 10’ high bar or we use your 10’ high bar.

What are we exactly testing, why isn’t the 10’ high bar valid, and why do we need 49 other people to attempt to jump over a 10’ high bar?

Behold everyone where simple questions somehow can't be answered. 

jinjuku194 posts04-26-2018 12:10pm

I think you are confused.

If you state that you can jump 10’ straight up from a standstill and either I bring a 10’ high bar or we use your 10’ high bar.

What are we exactly testing, why isn’t the 10’ high bar valid, and why do we need 49 other people to attempt to jump over a 10’ high bar?

Behold everyone where simple questions somehow can't be answered

There is a mountain of information about how to conduct scientifically valid listening tests, going back at least as far as Munson’s presentations to the AES in the late ’50s. (Yes, that Munson, the guy from Bell Labs who worked with Fletcher.) It's been followed by other work by Floyd Toole, Harman and many others. If you're serious about valid listening tests - and I suspect you aren't - you'll want to review some of their work. It will reveal that this matter is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. If you're not serious, or if you have some ulterior motives, you'll just continue arguing here with your nonsense.

Your latest argument here includes the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, so you might want to learn a bit about logic and reason, too.