The Truth About Power Cords and there "Real" Price to Performance

delkal

... it appears there is no way to set up a "scientific" test test that will make everyone happy ...

I don’t think that’s true. The protocols for a controlled, scientific, double-blind listening test have already been established. They can be cumbersome, so some seek a shortcut to the protocols, which is fine, of course. The only issue is when they also proclaim that their compromised test is as valid as a properly controlled test. That’s a truly odd claim, but there are only one or two people here asserting it.

What is subject to debate is the actual value of a proper controlled, scientific, double-blind listening test. That debate will continue as long as audiophiles inhabit the planet.

... what about doing something simpler? Just prove to yourself which cable is best for your system (blinded). Have a friend swap the cables for you and you listen and decide ... If you tend to like one over the other that is the cable to use.

I think that’s exactly what some audiophiles do. Some make it even simpler and omit the blind cable swap altogether.

Unfortunately delkal, people are arguing from a position lacking knowledge and I have to wonder what agenda they have?

Sighted Test: The subjective evaluator 100% knows that they are evaluating.

Single Blind Test: (This is a blind test). The subjective evaluator has no direct knowledge of what is being tested. The tester may accidentally or on purpose give clues to the subjective evaluator. This test method is used where the potential for bias is low, or the expectation of bias is low by those viewing the results. This is used day in / day out in scientific testing as most of the time, there is no desire to introduce bias and the results are not life/money critical. For that reason, having your friend administer the test for cables, would be suitable assuming they have no skin in the game for the outcome. Similarly, having a supplier administer it would be a no-no as the potential for bias is too high, and the results would be questioned due to that potential for bias.

Double Blind: Neither the subjective evaluator nor the person administering the test knows what is being tested, therefore there is no way for clues to be passed to the subjective evaluator. The almost gold standard of subjective evaluation.

Triple Blind: In addition to the double blind, all test data is coded so that results cannot be linked to a particular item under test during the data processing and analysis stage.

... and again, if you are only proving or disproving a single narrow claim, you don't need multiple subjects nor a complex protocol.

I hate to judge too harshly but it seems a lot easier to satisfy the Naysayers as to what constitutes a “scientifically controlled test.” The reason I say that is because, by their own words, naysayers almost always have the least firm grip on what all the variables are. Not to mention anyone with bad intent can make the test impossible to pass. Thus, Naysayers are LEAST able to control all the variables. Make sense?

Every time I come back to this thread I’m reminded of something primordial going on. It’s about dominance. Chest pounding, bush shaking dominance.

See me. Listen to me. Obey me. It’s all very authoritarian.

One can almost take the dialogue here and insert it as a closed caption on the first act of 2001, A Space Odyssey. The monolith can be the sound system and the proto-humans the debaters (too kind a word) as they fight over what they heard.

I hope you can at least enjoy the holidays.

All the best,
Nonoise

Truthful and spiritual description for me...But I  must admit sometimes to be more akin to some of the apes than to some others...My bad indeed... My best Nonoise...