douglas_schroeder
However, I disagree with the notion that a listener passes or fails an ABX test. Such tests are not designed to test a listener, but are designed to test devices, which are called the DUT, "device under test." A listener may be able to hear a distinction between the DUTs, or may not, but that doesn’t tell us anything objective about the listener himself, only whether, under the test protocol, he could distinguish a difference.
To test the listener, engage an audiologist or doctor of audiology. That should produce definitive results, and remove the unnecessary variables that an ABX test would introduce into a listening test.
... blind testing would be easy with the Schroeder Method cables compared to singles. When I did the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comprator review I was comparing, and passed repeatedly, comparisons with cables. Those were some tough judgments ...I think it’s great that you did some blind ABX testing and are sharing your results. I don’t think ABX is the gold standard for evaluating audio - indeed, I don’t think there is a gold standard - but it can be a useful tool.
However, I disagree with the notion that a listener passes or fails an ABX test. Such tests are not designed to test a listener, but are designed to test devices, which are called the DUT, "device under test." A listener may be able to hear a distinction between the DUTs, or may not, but that doesn’t tell us anything objective about the listener himself, only whether, under the test protocol, he could distinguish a difference.
To test the listener, engage an audiologist or doctor of audiology. That should produce definitive results, and remove the unnecessary variables that an ABX test would introduce into a listening test.