Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

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. 

geoffkait

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.

Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.

Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are subject to the laws of listening tests ... 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

Agreed.
But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I've stated many times that I think the typical audiophile has little use for scientific listening tests - they're time consuming, cumbersome, sometimes frustrating and tedious - that doesn't mean they have no value whatsoever. But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening.

But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening. 

Totally. The tests put forth are not in any way definitive. Nor are they the test to be conducted. As silly as it sounds, the A/B/X test would have to be tested since so far, it's only been a parlor trick. There would have to be short term tests and long term tests in order to eliminate faulty conceptual constructs in the design of the tests.

Looking at what the testers demand demonstrates a skirting of any actual test and instead, conditions guaranteed to scuttle any findings that would demonstrate that there are discernible differences.

All the best,
Nonoise