@cleeds
Even though the test wasn’t scientific, you can’t accurately say that the cable "failed" the test.
Obviously I was speaking colloquially. But the point expressed is certainly correct: The cable "failed the test" in the sense that I could not distinguish it from a cheap cable, hence for the proposal "there is an audible difference between the expensive cable and the cheap cable" I was left with the null hypothesis.
That doesn’t sound like a double blind test, so the results aren’t scientifically valid.
1. Of course double-blind tests are the gold standard. But in case you are implying that single blind tests are not "scientific," that would be incorrect. Single blind tests are often used where double blinding is not feasible.
2. Double blind testing in my case was not feasible (at least for the power cables) so all I could do was attempt single blind, to at least control for some variables. A friend helped me by being the cable switcher. I wore a blindfold. Of course one of the variables are confounding cues - e.g. from the tester to the subject - that can influence or give "tells" for a false positive result. As I usually do if I’m single-blinding, we did some pre-tests to establish whether this was a factor. So we first did some testing for that variable. I was blindfolded and the switcher did not speak to me, only switched when I said "switch." The switcher did not speak to me even to say "ok" that he was finished switching - just my noting the activity involved with the switching, and waiting an appropriate amount of time, sufficed between switching.
We did some randomized testing (tester coin-flipped before-hand to establish pattern) in which no music signal was played. With blind-fold on, I would say "switch" and the tester would simply switch between the cables (or not switch but pretend to by still unplugging and plugging the same plug in). In this way we established that my guesses for which cable was being used, or even when one was switched, were random. Suggesting that I was not able to get cues from the switcher as to which cables were being swapped, or if a cable was being swapped.
Then we proceeded to the music trials, which were done in the same way, and the results for my trying to discern between the Shunyata and cheap AC cable were random.
In this way, not only was I blinded, but we tried to control for a type of experimenter bias (where the experimenter subtly influences the outcome) to the degree possible. Given during the trials, there was no verbal communication from the switcher to me to add that influencing variable, and our pre-trials suggested we had eliminated a confounding variable of whether I was getting some other extraneous cue via the sound of the cable switches themselves, then I think we did a pretty good job of controlling for variables given our resources.
3. The conclusions and claims I draw from my own blind testing such as the above are modest. Both in terms of the modest level at which I can blind test audio gear, and in terms of inferences from bind testing in general. I do not claim from my own attempts to blind test: "therefore there IS no audible difference between the power cables in question."
Only that I was not able to discern any when I attempted to control for other variables. Of course my own experience influences my purchases (if I’m not able to demonstrate to myself I heard a difference, I’m not going to buy the cable). And given the well-established problems of subjective bias, it makes more sense to put more emphasis on the trials where I attempted to control for such variables - as well as introduce faster switching - vs the causal sighted trials with no attempt whatsoever to control variables.
Nor do I claim from my own tests, of course, "therefore NO audible differences exist between AC cables, and every positive anecdote is due to subjective bias." That would be far too rash and unwarranted.
BUT....I put my own experience in the context of the bigger picture.For one thing, whatever the status of my blind tests, one thing is clear:In the sighted trials I perceived specific difference between the two cables. In the "blinded" trials, I simply did not perceive that difference any more. That in of itself is telling about the variable nature of perception.
And this fits well with all the scientific understanding on how variables can influence perception. And that this ought to be taken in to account especially when trying to discern if there are even differences existing in the first place.
Then I put that together with the fact that the claims about audible differences between AC cables in the audiophile world are pretty much all uncontrolled anecdote. I have yet to encounter blind testing data of any kind, validating the claim that a boutique audio cable produces audible differences from a cheaper (competent) ac cable.
And then I add in all the debates I’ve observed where qualified electrical engineers weigh in on the claim made by audiophiles and high end cable companies, in which the engineers seem to me to make the more convincing case against the high end cable claims.
Finally, one doesn’t even have to be a qualified electrical engineer to notice that the very nature of the claims made by high end AC cable manufacturers are extremely fishy in nature, in the ways I’ve detailed here many times before. They make much about technical measurable phenomena being a problem, but rarely provide objective measurements showing they have "fixed" the problem and, more important, do not provide evidence from the beginning that the phenomena in question was audible (in regular competently built AC cables/equipment), and that their component produces audibly detectable results (no controlled blind testing). Instead, it goes "here’s this technical problem with AC cabling that we address" and then it just punts straight to marketing hype and audiophile anecdote as vetting the claims.
These are reasons why I think my general skepticism regarding high end AC cable claims are warranted. That is entirely different from claiming "AC cables make no audible difference" - a claim I have never made.
Unfortunately, it seems some are so dogmatically wedded to confidence in their subjective results that they see any challenge, any skepticism raised about those results, as somehow being a dogmatic rejection of their claims. "Look, YOU may be fallible in your perception, but THERE’S NO WAY I’M WRONG!" It’s projecting their own dogmatism the other side, while, amazingly, holding themselves to be the "open minded" ones.
