Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

@geoffkait   My apologies 

gdhal

And this is why blind testing is very fair and extremely useful in these matters. It allows the listener who is subjected to the test to "guess" or otherwise "perceive" a difference

This shows a complete misunderstanding of scientific listening tests in particular and scientific testing in general. The listener is not "subjected to the test" any more than a patient is " subjected to the test" in a drug trial. Rather, in a listening test, it is the equipment that is under test. In a drug trial, it is the drug under test, not the patient. If the drug proves ineffective, scientists don’t say "the patient failed the test." They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.

The notion that a test is "fair" or not is also misguided. It is either conducted in a way that is scientific, or not. Simple.

They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.

Correct and I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants) to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar pill. 

jinjuku

... I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants) to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar pill.

What is it that you propose to test? Are you also seeking a wager, as you did last time, with 5-1 odds?
And remember, if you hope to develop some meaningful data, you'll need more than one listener to participate in the  test.

Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative. Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are subject to the laws of listening tests I described earlier today. If it were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a hoax. Lawyers don’t actually bring anything to the table, you know, knowing as little about listening tests and what’s involved as anyone in the world. Anyone not following my logic raise your hand.