Why is Double Blind Testing Controversial?

Doesn't double blind mean that the experimenter also does not know which is A and which is B? That's harder to pull off. Simple blind testing should suffice.

I agree with you. It should be used more.

I do not know why it is so controversial, but I can tell you it is irritating. Many who preach this methodology are so dogmatic about issues such as placebo effect, being deceived by snake oil salesmen, and the physical science behind a given product that many are insistent that audiophiles that don't apply this methodology are deceived.

Subjective audio enthusiasts know from personal experience whether one product sounds better than another to them and whether the cost to benefit ratio is satisfactory or not, albeit a personal matter for sure.

So I guess the rub is in their insistence that their scientific method is the only valid approach opposed to making a decision based on simple listening tests alone. I personally would not make a decision any other way. Why not just let each other make our own judgments with whatever method of comparison chosen.

I am certainly not opposed to folks voicing their opinions and findings (I am sure this is the reason most of us read Audiogon posts), but to insist that others are deceived, misspending their money, and acting irrationally is just plain unbecoming behavior in my estimation.

One reason blind (or double blind) testing is controversial is simply some folks won't admit that the $500 (or more, sometimes much more) cable they just bought doesn't sound any different from the cheaper brand.

Let's face it, the guy who says his jaw dropped when he installed his newest (and more expensive) piece of equipment, and then can't id that same piece when he can't see it is the reason blind testing has never been accepted.

I believe there are differences between some components, but not to the degree some people claim.

Although I have nice components, including all tube electronics, planar speakers, and listen more to vinyl than digital, I have never cared for spending hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of $$$ on cables, power conditioners, or power cables.

From all I've read, not one double blind test has ever given credibility to audible differences in cables.

What really gets on my nerves is someone who starts describing the differences he hears with components auditioned weeks or months apart. Sorry, our auditory memory usually doesn't last more than a few moments.

Jim

I think that double blind testing was invented to confuse people, and put them in a state of mind that is too over-stressed to "perform under pressure". This virtually ensures the confused outcome which is interpreted as a "scientific proof" that he can't tell the difference between products. It is mainly used to justify the psychological and financial need to not spend money on gear, but still be convinced that you have the best, without having to pay for it. The cover story is that the audiophiles who can hear something are "deluding themselves" psychologically about hearing the differences. I maintain that the ones who don't want to spend money are "deluding themselves" into not hearing differences. So who's right?