'"How about this. We setup your DAC and Streamer into an ADC and we setup my $250 computer into your DAC and into an ADC. Capture 9 tracks with one system. 1 track with the other. You can then analyze however you would like for as long as you like (you won't know which is which) and let us know which track is different from the other 9 and if it's the track from the $250 system or your streamer. "
While I applaud this contributors' apparent sincere effort to objectively test and verify his theory that there is no audible difference between technically competent ethernet cables when used in a Music Reproduction System, this proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blind. There is no reason to attempt to invent a new scientifically valid listening test when the work towards that end has already been so expertly accomplished. A relatively simple ABX test can test this contributors' hypothesis with a high degree of scientific certainty that the outcome will be valid. I say "relatively simple" because of course you would need a proper ABX comparator and you would need to level-match the two signals to within a tight tolerance and you would need to provide a listening venue that would accommodate the listener but there is no need to do anything other than that and in fact any proposed alternative testing protocol would itself have to be established as scientifically valid which this proposed protocol would probably not be considered because it is so suspect on so many points. However this contributor is to be congratulated for at least trying to move this conversation towards a scenario that could yield a scientifically valid, repeatable test that would produce results that would carry a high level of certainty as to they're validity. While congratulations to him are indeed in order I must also caution that his strict enthusiasm for what he believes to be the obvious truth of his hypothesis strongly suggest that he suffers extreme bias in this instance and should be disqualified from formulating the test but could perhaps participate in the testing as an observer or contributor. There are experts in designing, planning, organizing, establishing, conducting, monitoring and evaluating blind testing protocols and that is who we should seek to be involved in this exploration the result of which cannot be established at this time with scientific certainty based on the facts now in evidence in this discussion.
While I applaud this contributors' apparent sincere effort to objectively test and verify his theory that there is no audible difference between technically competent ethernet cables when used in a Music Reproduction System, this proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blind. There is no reason to attempt to invent a new scientifically valid listening test when the work towards that end has already been so expertly accomplished. A relatively simple ABX test can test this contributors' hypothesis with a high degree of scientific certainty that the outcome will be valid. I say "relatively simple" because of course you would need a proper ABX comparator and you would need to level-match the two signals to within a tight tolerance and you would need to provide a listening venue that would accommodate the listener but there is no need to do anything other than that and in fact any proposed alternative testing protocol would itself have to be established as scientifically valid which this proposed protocol would probably not be considered because it is so suspect on so many points. However this contributor is to be congratulated for at least trying to move this conversation towards a scenario that could yield a scientifically valid, repeatable test that would produce results that would carry a high level of certainty as to they're validity. While congratulations to him are indeed in order I must also caution that his strict enthusiasm for what he believes to be the obvious truth of his hypothesis strongly suggest that he suffers extreme bias in this instance and should be disqualified from formulating the test but could perhaps participate in the testing as an observer or contributor. There are experts in designing, planning, organizing, establishing, conducting, monitoring and evaluating blind testing protocols and that is who we should seek to be involved in this exploration the result of which cannot be established at this time with scientific certainty based on the facts now in evidence in this discussion.