"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

You are so dim witted that you can't read my post properly. Blind testing is not the same as double blind testing. And I suggest you go see a shrink about that anger.

The "boxes" are not filters per-se... The inductors, caps, R's in the networks are, to my understanding, a Group Delay Equalizer. This accomplishes the time-alignment of various frequencies traveling down the cable, such that they arrive at the speaker's terminals simultaneously. MIT explains that this phase-correction may contribute to perceived louder-sounding (and quieter = less noisy) performance than with a non-aligned cable operating at the same power level. I only have their 3rd, or 4th-best cable down from the top. Still kinda pricey, but so worthwhile! GREAT product. Spectral even 'requires' the use of MIT with their gear. Certainly a respected manufacturer, not to mention their design guru Keith Johnson. Think he just might know something?

I think Jostler has made the most sense here so far. How can so many refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence in the annals of psychology? One note to "Joe-coherent"--before we have another Carl-Joe fight on our hands--when you made a distinction between "blind" and "double-blind" did you mean the distinction between blind and blind A-B testing? When you mentioned the example of the perfume shop wherein one could be confused by the propinquity of the stimuli I thought you might be referring to blind A-B testing rather than double-blind testing per se, which I believe means that the person administering the blind test to another is also unaware of the nature of the sample contents being tested. As versus the single-blind test where the person administering the test would know the nature of the contents. I would agree with you that listeners can be "dazzled" by types of A-B tests, especially when the differences are subtle. However I don't see why all audiophiles don't regularly test blind, like beer and wine testers do. If people knew ahead of time that it was Chateau d'Yqem they were tasting instead of a Mongolianian Sauterne...(not that I have anything against wines from Tuva). Professional beer tastings even insist on using the same glassware for all the beer to be tested as people's decisions are known to be affected by their aesthetic response to different glassware. Often beer is tested in opaque containers because the dark coloured beers "taste" more bitter when they can be seen to be dark by the taster than when they can't be seen. Surely audiophiles are not immune to analogous effects. Why not do everything we can to reduce these effects? I am disappointed that professional reviewers aren't naturally inclined to do this. I am not denying the validity of the claims of Dekay, Bob_bundus, Gthirteen, Carl_eber and Sugarbrie etc. They could be hearing things I'm not able to perceive. Carl especially, seems to have extensive experience in the pursuit of this hobby. I'm curious--what are the reasons for not doing blind testing?

What does it matter, what you suggest, Joe? It amounts to nothing at all. I suggest you double up on visits to YOUR shrink. It is you who is angry, not me.

To ICYR Anus: Blind testing introduces tension variables, such that even obvious differences become less obvious. Also, I firmly believe that you need visual stimuli and room orientation, for the "aural memory" to function properly. When you are in a blackened room, or wear a blindfold, all sorts of things can happen as your brain perceives the sound. YOU AREN'T USED TO DOING THIS SORT OF THING, UNLESS YOU ARE WITHOUT SIGHT TO BEGIN WITH. For instance, nobody denies that it enhances the enjoyment listening to do so in a darkened room. It's easier to "see" with your ears that way, and forget that you aren't at the concert hall. BUT WHAT IF YOUR HEAD SLOWLY SCEWS OFF IN ONE DIRECTION, AND YOU DON'T KNOW IT? SUDDENLY THE IMAGE CAN BE SLIGHTLY LOPSIDED, AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHY (or even consciously realize that it actually is lopsided)...since you cannot orient to the room/speakers. And there in lies the problem. Personally, I have not been able to listen with the lights off, without getting lulled into such a trance-like state, that it forces/compels me to CEASE ANALYTICAL THOUGHT COMPLETELY...and I just enjoy the music in a very "pure" way. My mind starts involuntarily imagining myself as floating, or even swimming around in the air, amongst the musicians/performers. The point is, I could still be hearing things like cable differences, but my aural memory forgets them, or else forgets to pay attention, and I don't even realize it. With the lights on, and myself changing the cables, I pay attention to every detail. Then I switch cables back and forth several times (I'm not a firm believer in settling times of cables, so long as they've all been up and running in the very recent past). I confess that if I (as many do here) forced myself to listen to a cable for months at a time, without changing it, I would get used to it's sound, and definitely could not remember how it's character affected music in a different way, from the previous one months before. I don't understand how anyone could make cable choices that way. In any case, if I can change cables back and forth, play the same piece of music, then move to a different piece of music...and I STILL hear the different signature as cables are changed, WHY SHOULD I QUESTION MY OWN HEARING, WHEN I JUST REPEATED THE TEST WITH DIFFERENT MUSIC, BUT HEARD THE SIGNATURE OF THE CABLE EXHIBIT EXACTLY THE SAME SORT OF EFFECT ON THE MUSIC? This has always been the case for me, when I compare any type of cable, and frankly, I have no reason to doubt what I am hearing...It isn't my fault that others might not trust their hearing, and want to take a "court of law" mentality, where everything MUST be controlled (so that the person who is listening is somehow out of control). WHY IS THAT MORE VALID THAN MY WAY? I guess it's like Parliamentary procedure, or something. Some people just can't make decisions for themselves, unless they get permission to do so from a group of people. I'm kind of a maverick individualist, I guess, and I like to do things my way...epsecially when I've never had a valid reason to doubt my own hearing. And yet, I DO have plenty of reason to doubt the hearing acuity of those a generation older than me...