Interconnects and non-believers

jssmith
Thank you, prof. As a past participant in some eye-opening blind tests, when it comes to anything except speakers I always ignore subjective views and my viewpoint is "if you didn’t hear it blind, you didn’t hear it." Your last sentence is the logic I’ve always tried to express, but not as concisely. I hope you don’t mind if I steal it.

(... if you think tests in which efforts to really control and account for known variables are unreliable...what in the world make you think tests with fewer controls, which allow for all sort of known bias effects, are MORE reliable????)

>>>>I don’t think anyone actually made that particular argument. Which would make it a Strawman argument. The general argument against blind tests is pretty much the same as for any test - If a test results are negative no conclusions can be drawn. In other words, a test of a device or a comparison of two cables or whatever by someone in a given system is only One Data Point. As other tests are performed then other data points will appear, perhaps conclusions can be drawn then, with more data points.

Cables tests are particularly prone to error due to directionality of the cables, using new cables for the test, not allowing the cables to “settle”after changing them. For example. A clever cable manufacturer - if he was aware of cable directionality and break-in - could easily rig the test by using a brand new OEM cable or whatever connected in the wrong direction for the comparison. Follow?

jssmith

I always ignore subjective views and my viewpoint is "if you didn't hear it blind, you didn't hear it."

That's absurd. Most of us hear things all of time, yet we're not living our lives blinded. That doesn't mean that everything we've heard is illusion.

Re the Nordost demo:

One can google some....*ahem*....”interesting” reports on such demos.

If we really wanted to test the claims,  a wise consumer would not want the Manufacturer/Advertiser to be in control of the demo and all the variables.  ;-)

Cleeds:  "That doesn't mean that everything we've heard is illusion."

Couldn't pass this up! Maybe it is! We have all thought that at sometime in our life. 
Seriously though the role of day-to day-variation in our "internal" and "external" environments, placebo effect etc. etc. seems so profound an influence to those of us who study such things. Acknowledging the contributions of such things might go along way in bridging the gap with the "I just trust my ears" (and) "we don't really know enough science to justify the physics arguments" folks.
Double Blind Studies: flawed, really hard to do right. But potential for validity in the science sense.
Trusting Your Ears:  Fun, self re-enforcing, sense of agency. No validity in the reproducible science sense. But that doesn't make it stupid or bad, or better or worse. For a hobby.  
I know it is not an original idea but sometimes the $10 glass of really good Zin is the most cost effective tweak of all.

ganainm

Cleeds:  "That doesn't mean that everything we've heard is illusion."

Couldn't pass this up! Maybe it is!

You're certainly free to believe that unless you are blindfolded everything you hear, see and feel is an illusion. I think that's a nonsensical way to go through life.