I need help to select a music streamer

@geoffkait

Well, for one thing blind tests are used for a number of reasons, including testing a single component or audio device or tweak. So don’t hand me a whole load of horseman knew her.

Heh, interesting spelling variation there. 

Well, right, but every test I've seen has either been a) can you tell a difference with or without the device or tweak, or between the options or b) rank order several options, with a) being more prevalent.

Let’s go to the definition of false positive: " a test result which incorrectly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is present."  Or if you like, the type 1 error, the rejection of a true null hypothesis (components sound the same).

Happy to end the discussion, but "you just don’t get it" is the run of the mill insult when you can’t prove or even adequately support your claims.

You’re not paying attention. If there is something wrong with the component you throw the whole test out. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s simply one of many things that can go wrong with kind tests or any tests. That is why tests have to be repeatable and transferable. One test doesn’t mean anything.

Geoff, I explicitly referred to the possibility that a problem exists *of which we are unaware*.

Once again, this semantic discussion has little bearing on the evidence at hand.

Evidence is not proof. That’s precisely why one test proves nothing. Preponderance of the evidence requires multiple tests as I be already said at least twice. To be strong evidence a test must be repeatable and transferable.

Evidence is not proof. That’s precisely why one test proves nothing. Preponderance of the evidence requires multiple tests as I be already said at least twice.

I agree with this statement entirely.   All we can say is that these tests have failed to reject the null hypothesis - listeners can't tell the difference between cables/amps/resolutions using only their ears.  The point here is that there have been lots of tests, and they all fail to reject the null hypothesis.  If there were a reasonable volume of tests that could, with reasonable confidence, reject the null hypothesis, I would be, in fact, pleased to accept that as (colloquially) 'proof' of strictly audible differences.

I'm working with the compilation I've linked.  I'd love to include others if readers can bring them to my attention.