This is such a grossly inaccurate statement as to call it bubkiss. While ideally the test would be double blind, that is not always a viable thing to do. There are two biases, subject bias and observation bias. Single blind removes subject bias, which is usually the dominant bias. While double blind is the "gold standard", single bias is still used as it eliminate subject bias, and provides significantly more statistically relevant results. To suggest this is no more valuable than sighted tests shows a gross ignorance w.r.t. this type of testing.
cleeds2,587 posts11-25-2019 12:46pmOne just needs a friend that switches cables (or lies and tells you that he did), so you don’t know what you are listening to. No huge study design, no exhaustive testing procedures, and the perfect testing system and environment .. your system, your room.What you describe isn’t double-blind and has no control for the tester’s bias. So the results would be essentially useless, and certainly not scientific.Anyone who tells you there is no value in doing a test this way is lying to you.There’s no more value to the test you described than there is to the sort of fully sighted tests that you repeatedly assail so passionately.