Tonnesen, you are actually arguing against statistical significance but are right. If you get a very large random sample of people, there will be statistically significant differences heard between with and without the CLC. But you are wrong that 10 subjects should be enough to convince people that the device has no effect. If you had 10 non-randomly chosen individuals with "good ears'" you might well question whether their hearing a difference can be generalized to all listeners. Similarly, were you to have 10 who doubt the benefit, others might well legitimately question your findings. Even with 10 randomly chosen individuals much would depend on the strength of the treatment effect.
I am not arguing that one should not attempt such tests, but I am arguing that they may not necessitate others heeding them as proof that the CLC does nothing.
I am not arguing that one should not attempt such tests, but I am arguing that they may not necessitate others heeding them as proof that the CLC does nothing.