DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

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....

Teo, don’t worry so much. I’ve been talking about Randi here for years. You work at whatever pace you’re comfortable with. 😛

I'm aware of that, but the imagery helps frame things, a refresher of sorts, for some.

You’re playing word games, or perhaps you are just profoundly confused.

No, cleeds, I’m being very specific about in what context in which the word "fail" can be, and is, used by researchers.

So the FDA is also "profoundly confused?" when they used the very same language in the way I suggested it is used?   You seem to be conveniently ignoring whatever undermines your claims.

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

.
Again...that’s confused.

No you don’t have to be an audiologist to test the listener himself.
If someone claims he can identify when cable A is playing vs cable B, you don’t need to be an "audiologist" to test that claim. You can set up a good blind test and see if you are stuck with the null hypothesis, or if the person indeed demonstrates that ability. (And this applies to any number of audio related claims that don’t require audiologists).


Such a test is just fine for testing an individual’s claim; it’s not fine for making more general inferences about the "audible difference between cable A and cable B."


But the point is, as I’d already reiterated, that you’d made an unclear, generalized claim about the nature of scientifically testing listeners, and blind testing, which allowed the false impression that double blind tests don’t test listeners, they test the DUT. It merited clarification that blind tests can and do indeed test listeners, so we just have to be really specific about what our blind test is testing.
Not that hard to admit, is it?