Something For The Fuse Guys ...

roberttcan" in controlled testing, fast switching has resulted in a far higher likelihood of a difference being noted."

I am pleased to see you acknowledge that abx testing has resulted in revealing differences between audio components this is something you and many others seem to like to deny or refute.

There it is! It was only a matter of time before controlled double-blind testing reared it’s ugly head. By now you would have thought everybody and his brother knows the results of a double blind test don’t mean anything, anymore than any other kind of test. This is classic pseudo scientist behavior. 

geoffkait

It was only a matter of time before controlled double-blind testing reared it’s ugly head. By now you would have thought everybody and his brother knows the results of a double blind test don’t mean anything, anymore than any other kind of test.

It’s unfortunate that it’s virtually impossible to reasonably discuss controlled double-blind testing here. Its advocates seem to suffer from nearly religious fervor, which is an obstacle to conversation.

Such tests have very limited value to the typical audiophile. Those who profess the greatest interest in these tests often seem to have a very limited understanding of not only proper test protocols, but how to interpret the results of such tests. So the discussions lead nowhere.

What I’ve observed over the years is this: Those who most noisily proclaim the necessity and value of controlled double-blind testing very rarely conduct such tests themselves. Why is that? I suspect many references to such tests are just red herrings.

Eggs-ackley! Most likely scenario is a miscreant Wiki scientist’s full blown attack on audiophile tweaks. They are red herrings and they’re logical fallacies. So typical. Highly motivated (who knows why?) escapees from the James Randi Educational Foundation. 🤡

“It can’t pass a double-blind test.”

“Perform a double-blind test and you’ll get your answer.”

“None of those crazy tweaks can pass a properly performed controlled test.”

On another thread, Elizabeth brought up a subject, that is typically ignored in these conversations. ie: Familiarity(with the system being altered/used as a test platform). Hours spent in a car familiarize it’s owner with the overall sound of it’s operation. Slight perturbations/changes in those sounds, will usually go unnoticed by an infrequent passenger, but will(generally) be obvious to the owner. My system’s presentation has aspects, with which I’m intimately familiar, when reference material(call that a, "control") is played. When something(fuse, cable, outlet, vibration control, whatever) is replaced, and that changes an aspect of my system’s presentation; it’s going to be much more noticeable to my ears, than anyone else’s(again: usually, because- there are variables). Einstein theorized/realized(and it bugged him) what The Hubble Space Telescope confirmed, in the 90’s. ie: Around 95% of our universe, is comprised of stuff, no one understands or knows how to measure(but- to which unexplained phenomena point). (https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter) I have no problem, trusting my ears to tell me when/if things have improved in my system’s sound(unexplained phenomena/various controversial means), without knowing the precise mechanism. No one has ever proven(or- categorically disproven) anything, through endless theories, conjecture and rhetoric. Theories are proven through experimentation and measurement. But- you have to know WHAT and HOW to measure. In the case of expanding our musical enjoyment, it starts by listening to something new, if we care enough. Anyone’s having convinced themselves otherwise, through whatever process, should not dissuade another(that cares about sound) from experimentation.