scientific double blinded cable test

I agree with cleeds that research has shown that audio memory is short, perhaps no more than a few seconds. That is also one of the most pertinent criticisms of uncontrolled listening tests.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.

I don't doubt that on a good quality system, different cables sound subtlely different.  Whether that subtle difference is worth 5, 10 or even 20K is another story.  However, it just stuns me that there is any dispute over the value of double blind testing to test outlandish claims made for any piece of equipment or cables.  Perception is reality.  People are programmed to like a 20K cable better than lamp cord, or some exotically expensive preamp over one less so.  What is wrong with removing the possibility of bias and just make judgments -- albeit subjective ones -- based solely on what one hears, without knowing the components?  It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.  Imagine if the FDA decided to permit sales of drugs based on whether someone "thought" that it made them better.  Why shouldn't the same apply to audio?

moto_man

I don't doubt that on a good quality system, different cables sound subtlely different.  Whether that subtle difference is worth 5, 10 or even 20K is another story.

Agreed! Whether the results are worth the cost is a completely subjective choice.

However, it just stuns me that there is any dispute over the value of double blind testing to test outlandish claims made for any piece of equipment or cables .. What is wrong with removing the possibility of bias and just make judgments ...

What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement ... based on his performance in the same kind of sighted test that he thinks is unreliable for everyone else. That, and his bogus $25,000 wager, make it clear he has some funny agenda.

I'm not at all convinced of the value of blind testing to the typical audiophile, by the way. But the efforts some go to insist that others submit to such testing, while they enjoy some special exemption, just doesn't make any sense.

moto_man
Perception is reality.

Actually, perception is not (rpt not) reality. Why? Because if test results of any test - including a double blind test - are negative you cannot assume there’s no difference between cables OR that device X doesn’t work as claimed OR that wire directionality is a hoax. The test just wasn’t capable of revealing the differences, that’s all. No biggie. Happens all the time. There are too many things that can go wrong with a particular test, including the test conductor is all thumbs, the person who put the system together is all thumbs, the test procedure is faulty, the test subject’s hearing is faulty or he’s inexperienced, the weather. Things of that nature. Now, if there were a number of tests conducted independently that gave negative results of some hypothesis or another then maybe you might have something. It’s the preponderance of the evidence that prevails.

pop quiz
Why doesn’t the military or the FAA or NASA any other procurer of technology conduct blind tests on competing devices such as aircraft, launch vehicles, communications radios, smartphones, computers, antennas, etc.?

Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?

Agreed. You don’t have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.

I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.

True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.

Now I don’t know but I’ve been told
It’s hard to run with the weight of gold
Other hand I heard it said
It’s just as hard with the weight of lead

Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.

Nope!

The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)

There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn’t required for a proper audio test. It’s a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.

You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don’t (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I’m not giving away the gold.

The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice

If you’re sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.

I’m sincere that it’s *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.

I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.

Thank you, @willemj

It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.

If the game is lost, then we’re all the same
No one left to place or take the blame

What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn’t know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .

This isn’t about proper etiquette. It’s about what truth is proof against all lies.