DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

Comment on how this thread is going. What have we learned?

1. Naysayers continue to claim blind tests can prove the device tested doesn’t work as advertised.
2. Naysayer and pseudo scientists claim blind testing is part of the scientific method.
3. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics claim negative results for a blind test mean something.
4. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics claim blind tests can ferret out audiophiles who support Cable differences or who support controversial tweaks or ideas such as wire directionality.
5. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics continue to believe that because blind testing is used in pharma and wine industries or because violins were tested blind that means blind testing also works for audio.
6. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics follow in the footsteps of the Amazing Randi who was quick to realize the marketing potential of offering audiophiles a million bucks if they could pass his blind test.

Don’t forget to add that when professional designers of testing regimens and studies... for drug approvals, big pharma and so on..when those people looked at Randi’s proposed testing regimen..they said it was not valid. Not valid at all.

That, if Randi’s proposed methodology was ever used in scientific circles, drug tests and so on..that not one drug would ever be approved for human use. Zero would ever pass if Randi’s proposed regimen was used.

You read that right. So off center and unfair and slated toward Randi’s desires, that the testing regimen was and is entirely invalid for any sort of real testing.

It’s not just about Randi’s claims, it’s about looking close enough at what Randi was trying to push.... to see that it was all a smoke show built out of an invalid model.

Uh, Teo, I will let you in on a little secret. Just between you and me. There is no such thing as a valid test or valid test procedure. Not for audio. Haven’t you been paying attention? Besides Randi is not about to give away a million bucks to some audiophile or reviewer. Randi is not an audiophile. He has absolutely no freaking idea if an audiophile or reviewer can hear any of this stuff. He did it to get attention. Hel-loo! I think I should know as I was his most frequent target back then. Although I confess I like seeing my name in print S much as the next fella.

prof

... My son is in a clinical study now, and the study doctors use that term "failed" for studies and test subjects all the time ...

You’re playing word games, or perhaps you are just profoundly confused. A clinical drug trial tests the efficacy of a drug. It does not test the patient. (The patient has already been tested -  to establish whether he suffers a condition that the experimental drug may help treat. He will be tested again, at the conclusion of the trial, to establish the effects of the drug.)

If you are conducting a scientific listening test to evaluate potential differences between cables, then you are testing the cables themselves, which are known as the "device(s) under test," or "DUT." You are not testing the listener.

If you want to test the listener himself, that’s a task for an audiologist. There’s no need to "muddy the water" by introducing various cables into that test.

You seem intent on exposing the frailty of listeners, which is fine. But that’s a separate mission than studying the possible differences between cables.

@geoffkait
I see where you’re going with that, yes. But..one step at a time...

First, get people to understand the actual reality of what Randi was doing in the whole test scenario....