A blind listening test is not a test for bias.
It shows that listening under those conditions is mostly more difficult, but it does not explain WHY it is more difficult.
I’m unclear on what you are saying. On your account: What about "listening" is "more difficult" under blind test conditions?
Also, why would Amir not be biased himself? Maybe he does not want to hear (or accept) a difference?
Especially when it comes to vetting a controversial technical claim for audible differences, Amirm’s sighted impressions are no more reliable in of themselves than anyone else’s.
That’s why in principle anyone who BELIEVES he hears a difference could test themselves (using blind testing to help rule out sighted bias).
That said, Amirm’s sighted impressions are at least backed up pretty heavily by the objective evidence he presents. Unlike the usual audiophile anecdote or audiophile marketing.
Also, as we still not completely sure WHY we experience differences in cables, who is to say he is even measuring the right parameters? What if our brain can detect the differences? How will we measure that?
To be clear: I am not saying he is wrong, but I am suggesting that there are too many questions left unanswered to conclude that he is right.
By that measure you couldn’t establish any conclusion!
The best we ever have is what the evidence suggests.
First of all, we can test whether your "brain" can detect any differences via blind testing. If sighted bias and knowledge are ruled out, and you are ONLY able to use your hearing and you can not reliably detect a difference between A and B, then it’s reasonable to assume you aren’t detecting any difference.
This is how standard audiograms/audio tests work for hearing, right? If you can’t reliably detect tones over 12k, guess what? You can’t hear over 12k even if you CLAIM to or believe you can or not.
Similarly all sorts of tests have been done to establish the parameters of most of our senses, including hearing. Once you are down to a certain level of distortion, nobody has shown they can reliably detect it hence no reason to think we can hear it. It follows that if you measure a device and the distortion levels in various relevant parameters don’t rise above the known audible threshholds, then the reasonable conclusion is "that distortion is not audible."
We aren’t beholden to any person’s claim to have Super Human Hearing..unless they can demonstrate it in similar controlled tests.
The engineering involved, the principles on which USB cables are designed, tells us that any competently designed USB cable will transmit the 1s and 0s just fine, especially when used with a competently designed DAC. And that heroic measures beyond that are rarely needed (and in any case, would be unlikely to be responsible for the sonic claims made on behalf of those cables).
Amirm tested for ANY way the Nordost cable altered the signal, looking for any relevant distortions, and there was nothing relevant to distinguish it’s performance from a cheap amazon cable. Before someone says "But we can HEAR the difference so maybe he’s measuring the wrong thing" you should be able to DEMONSTRATE you can hear the difference to take that claim seriously. And that would be under conditions controlling for your knowledge of which USB cable is being used. Otherwise it’s just begging the question.
