Golden Ears Fail Again

[musicoverall]

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

I don't read or post here much anymore (a grew weary of the high end terriers who love to hear themselves talk and the biased moderators), so I don't know if anyone has mentioned the test in the link above.

As I have tried to point out previously, the fact that these highenders failed is not particularly significant. (I mean, they are trying to hear differences in power cables after all--which doesn't verge on the ridiculous--it IS ridiculous.) The real significance is that they felt they could hear differences (even after the test). Thus, as has been seen in other blind tests, what highenders think they hear (or claim to hear) is worthless as any kind of evidence. The "claim to hear" result is significant beyond audible differences in power cables as it estalishes the unreliabilty of subjective reports of audio fans. As I said, this has happened before.

Note: I know their test is not ideal and even the simpliest satistical analysis seems beyond them, but most do realize that they did not demonstrate that they could hear any difference. Now if they could just redefine reality....

Thanks for the article. I learned that these particular audiophiles could not distinguish these particular power cords on this particular day. But I'm afraid I can't jump to the same conclusion that it's "evidence" of anything beyond that. OTOH, I can't say I've ever heard any differences in power cords - or CD transports - even in sighted auditions. That carries more weight to me than your link.

[RobotCzar]

But I'm afraid I can't jump to the same conclusion that it's "evidence" of anything beyond that. OTOH, I can't say I've ever heard any differences in power cords - or CD transports - even in sighted auditions. That carries more weight to me than your link.

You certainly are entitled to conclude what you want to conclude. The emphasis is on "want".

Your position is unscientific, and somewhat illogical. Science cannot test every case so it is stuck with sampling a population and drawing conclusions from the sample. What we CAN say, regardless of sampling, is that there is no credible evidence that someone has heard differences in power cords (or other specific audio stuff). Until someone does, why would we think anyone can? We go over this point repeatedly in this forum, but too many people are scientifically illiterate in the US general population (you know, the ones who say evolution is "just a theory"). (Note: there are also plenty of theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that people cannot hear differences in power cords.)

The assertion I tried to make in my post is that if we cannot trust some high enders' claims, why should be trust any? This test and others demonstrate that "some" audio buffs claim to hear differences, but can't really show that they do. So, I claim, audio buff claims are unreliable. That applies to ALL audio buffs, some being unreliable DOES result in making any particular sampling of them unreliable without other information of evidence. Sorry you can't see that, but it seems to make sense to me.

[RGA]

Science takes second fiddle to philosophy always - so in point of interest when you learn about what is true and what is the case - well that throws these pointless arguements out. DB testing is used incorrectly per usual. And sadly for some strange reason they actually think they can use DB testing to prove or disaprove a point of irrifutable fact - now that is the most abnoxiously arrogant of stances. Engineers - too funny.

[musicoverall]

Science takes second fiddle to philosophy always - so in point of interest when you learn about what is true and what is the case - well that throws these pointless arguements out. DB testing is used incorrectly per usual. And sadly for some strange reason they actually think they can use DB testing to prove or disaprove a point of irrifutable fact - now that is the most abnoxiously arrogant of stances. Engineers - too funny.

Can you explain this part of your post... "so in point of interest when you learn about what is true and what is the case - well that throws these pointless arguements out. "

I think the height of arrogance is someone telling me absolutely what I don't hear.

[magictooth]

Can you explain this part of your post... "so in point of interest when you learn about what is true and what is the case - well that throws these pointless arguements out. "

I think the height of arrogance is someone telling me absolutely what I don't hear.

The height of ignorance is someone telling another person that they absolutely can hear when they haven't even followed basic scientific theory (ie do a blind test).

[musicoverall]

The height of ignorance is someone telling another person that they absolutely can hear when they haven't even followed basic scientific theory (ie do a blind test).

Thank you for proving my point about the height of arrogance And calling me an ignorant idiot on top of it all! Wow! That's gotta be off the charts! But I'm sure one happy ignorant idiot! You, on the other hand, seem disconcerted to say the least. May I suggest a cable change? Perhaps you're listening to too much distortion!

When you follow scientific theory and do blind tests to determine all your preferences, come back and we'll talk.

I recall reading someone post on this site once that it was the yeasayers that were the most rude and condescending. Guess they were wrong.

[magictooth]

Thank you for proving my point about the height of arrogance And calling me an ignorant idiot on top of it all! Wow! That's gotta be off the charts! But I'm sure one happy ignorant idiot! You, on the other hand, seem disconcerted to say the least. May I suggest a cable change? Perhaps you're listening to too much distortion!

When you follow scientific theory and do blind tests to determine all your preferences, come back and we'll talk.

I recall reading someone post on this site once that it was the yeasayers that were the most rude and condescending. Guess they were wrong.

Ignorance can generally be defined as a state of being uninformed, unaware, and/or uneducated. I feel that it is extremely ignorant to pass off as real knowledge anecdotal comparisons between cables when there hasn't been any type of meaningful testing done. I feel that some people are ignorant when they insist on misleading innocent newbies. This is probably my biggest beef. I was led down the garden path by people making statements such as I've seen by all the yeasayers here. I still have and use a set of speaker cables that cost about $18/ft. I still have and use a single pair of 3' ICs that cost about $150. At the store where I bought the cabling, you're for damn sure I could hear a difference in their sighted tests. And you could be for damn sure that for at least 2 years, I could tell a difference in sighted testing at my home. Some time ago, I compared these ICs in blind tests to several different types of ICs and couldn't hear a difference. you can only imagine my surprise.

You're right about one thing. I probably listen to too much distortion. I like my tube amp a lot.

As for being rude and condescending, I'm doing like Simon on American Idol does it: I'm only telling it like it is.

[musicoverall]

You certainly are entitled to conclude what you want to conclude. The emphasis is on "want"..

Ditto.

The answer to if you should trust any "high-enders" claims is, of course, no you shouldn't. There's no reason for you to, just as there's no reason the high-enders should care if you do or don't. It's all a matter of what you and they "want" to conclude, as you pointed out. I don't necessarily trust anyone's claims, either. I find empirical evidence to have more teeth i.e I try things for myself if it's something I think is important enough to try. In the area of audio gear... amps, cables, CD players, etc... someone's claim that one sounds better than another would certainly have to be tested. You and I just disagree on what tests yield the most valid results.

Sorry if I come off rude - I actually appreciated the read.

[theaudiohobby]

The assertion I tried to make in my post is that if we cannot trust some high enders' claims, why should be trust any? This test and others demonstrate that "some" audio buffs claim to hear differences, but can't really show that they do. So, I claim, audio buff claims are unreliable. That applies to ALL audio buffs, some being unreliable DOES result in making any particular sampling of them unreliable without other information of evidence. Sorry you can't see that, but it seems to make sense to me.

I am sorry your position is as unscientific as the position you are attempting to rebuff, claims are rebuffed on a case by case basis, that is what is scientific. Hearing differences between CDPs is a totally different claim from hearing differences upon the use of shakti stones and to lump both together as per your comments is about as unscientific as you can get.

[RGA]

musicoverall

If someone is sayng there is a difference between whatever that is one thing - if they're trying to out that upon you then that is I agree problematic.

Truth has many variables. I can park my car in lot B and go to class and when asked where my car is - I can truthfully answer that my car is in lot B. The statement or truth however depends on one thing whether or not in fact my car is in Lot B - it may have been stolen. The scientific method itself is observtional - NO matter what they try and claim the element is still there. To their credit the definition when using DBTs are very carefully constructed to not actually prove or disprove the given issue - this is exactly why there are continual arguments over it. It appears to hold that if we take sight bias out that we would then TRULY be testing one's hearing and this of course is a good thing. That does not however alleviate the obvious psychological ramifications related to what the brain is doing under duress or a test of this nature - one of which is that the brain A) utilizes a multi-modality approach to processing information including listening. The brain is partitioned in two hemispheres - 1) is an analytical side which would be to PICK either or b in a test 2) is an artistic side which would deal with the emotional response from listening to music and the way one normally listens to music. These two sides don't get the whole picture which has been shown when the brain has been surgically cut from each other - there is testing moreso on sight but it's exactly the same thing.

The concept of language in learning is huge as well which is primarily centered on socialization - somehting that tests generally fail horribly on not just some listening tests but in any academic field. So it is not surprising that when Hi-Fi Choice magazine who level matches all componants in a completely blind environment has some very different results than the "typical" and old out of date models used in various fields like engineering. The point of the thing is to remove sight bias and audible cues bias- Hi fi choice does that it is not a test environment - but then of course it should NEVER be anything resembling a testing environment.

This is a very very simplistic overview at what is happening and has been researched now for the last 5 years or so and it is pervasive in fields of education and psychology. I like Philosophy because it is a check on the arrogance of science claiming to know what in fact they don't know - with DBT's relying on statistical models it is doubly as bad. Few want to look at issues outside the box. It takes a bit of looking and thinking and a muti-disciplinary approach. I don;t claim to know it all - but I do claim to know what something isn't telling me.

That is why you will never hear some folks admit any sort of fallacy in DBT's(which does not mean they're not useful) - If they can't see ANY of the problems using basic logic even without the research on it - then why bother. One reason I don't argue it - if you want to believe in DBT's then it will save you money. If people are deluding themselves with fancy cables then their level of happiness rises so who cares. Either way it's a non issue in the big scheme of things.

Of course any designer can DELIBERATELY make a cable sound different - a DBT if it were any good SHOULD detect those differences - the fact that they do not says more about the test than the participants. Hifi News did some sot of cable test - I didn't read the thing as I was in a hurry and I don;t buy rags - but they seemed to get differring results. If we're going to use substandard tests to show "they all sound the same" then it's also ok to use substandard tests to "show they all sounded different" It's interesting the supposed scientific group is so hypocritical on this - see mrty posting the sensible sound - not a credible test by scientific standards - so why post it - and then claim some other hackneyed test in some other mag is the spawn of simple minded. Some see only the results they want to see it would seem.

[theaudiohobby]

The concept of language in learning is huge as well which is primarily centered on socialization - somehting that tests generally fail horribly on not just some listening tests but in any academic field. So it is not surprising that when Hi-Fi Choice magazine who level matches all componants in a completely blind environment has some very different results than the "typical" and old out of date models used in various fields like engineering.
...I like Philosophy because it is a check on the arrogance of science claiming to know what in fact they don't know - with DBT's relying on statistical models it is doubly as bad.

ROTLMAO , out of date models! which ones exactly? I missed the article where the engineering societies announced the perfect modelling methodology. Arrogance of science more like the arrogance of a few self deluded audio enthusiasts who make controversial claims and after so many years have yet to provide any credible evidence, thereby opening the industry and the hobby to public ridicule.

[musicoverall]

Some see only the results they want to see it would seem.

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

[RGA]

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me.

It is silly to remotely even consider that cables sound the same based off of DBT's - A=B cannot even be postulized let alone proven in a DBT and that is what is alluded to. What you have is some statistics. And event he statistics are used BADLY by these CONES who conduct the tests. Consider that to achieve the .05 statistical significance to claim that one did not arrive at the results due to chance a score of 9/10 would be required. This low number of trials however has problems with reliability - it has none and neither does 16(this is simply an arbuitrary number some hack dreamt up for zero reason except that he/she was lazy). Why would i say that - well because A) this kind of testing is unreliable 2)becuase we're dealing with the brain and psychology - arguably a softer science so MANY trials are usually required to be SURE of what it is you're attempting to resolve is indeed remotely reliable valid and credible. Statistical significance none of the DBT supporters will EVER tell you also means that you should not chuck out the guy who socres 6/10. Indeed, if you score 6/10 or better ten times in a row with one misfire for a total of 59/100 correct calls on which is a and which is b then you get the same .05 statistical significance (ie; the same as scoring 9/10) - the difference of course with 100 trials is that you have a far greater number of trials and are more credible. Expecially with music - something in which is difficult to assess out of a blind test let alone in one.

But of course they dismiss every issue because it requires more work - lazy science, relying on the DBT to actually PROVE somethig is laughable. But then there is no pont in really telling them - they ignore it - they can't argue it becuase it's in every first year psych text and most basic stats books I've seen. None of them even know what the concept of Validity is - they can show great reliability that people fail these tests - but reliability is no good without validity and they don't have that. Furthermore if you chuck out all the bad DBT's ie run by the likes of the sensible sound and all other hack attempts I don;t think they even have much relibility. DBT's were made for the drug industry. And they certainly have an interest value in audio because the nut job audiophile who claims he can hear the difference between copper cable a and b 100% of the time because he has the best ear in the world will be quickly shown that no he isn't that good after all - but then that is something slightly different than what the DBT supporter will then conclude. That there are no differences? If you're on the ball you'll see the subtle leaps and bounds from what was actually tested and what people conclude.

[musicoverall]

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me..

I had exactly the same experience with MIT. I can't recall which model but I remember thinking that they must have designed them to cope with the glare of digital music. I quickly decided that digital's glare was less offensive than the sound of those cables.

Thanks for the info on blind testing. It certainly seems to lend some credence to the theory that people can conclude whatever they like from testing and that tests can be designed so that the desired outcome is achieved.

[magictooth]

It is silly to remotely even consider that cables sound the same based off of DBT's - A=B cannot even be postulized let alone proven in a DBT and that is what is alluded to. What you have is some statistics. And event he statistics are used BADLY by these CONES who conduct the tests. Consider that to achieve the .05 statistical significance to claim that one did not arrive at the results due to chance a score of 9/10 would be required. This low number of trials however has problems with reliability - it has none and neither does 16(this is simply an arbuitrary number some hack dreamt up for zero reason except that he/she was lazy). Why would i say that - well because A) this kind of testing is unreliable 2)becuase we're dealing with the brain and psychology - arguably a softer science so MANY trials are usually required to be SURE of what it is you're attempting to resolve is indeed remotely reliable valid and credible. Statistical significance none of the DBT supporters will EVER tell you also means that you should not chuck out the guy who socres 6/10. Indeed, if you score 6/10 or better ten times in a row with one misfire for a total of 59/100 correct calls on which is a and which is b then you get the same .05 statistical significance (ie; the same as scoring 9/10) - the difference of course with 100 trials is that you have a far greater number of trials and are more credible. Expecially with music - something in which is difficult to assess out of a blind test let alone in one.

But of course they dismiss every issue because it requires more work - lazy science, relying on the DBT to actually PROVE somethig is laughable. But then there is no pont in really telling them - they ignore it - they can't argue it becuase it's in every first year psych text and most basic stats books I've seen. None of them even know what the concept of Validity is - they can show great reliability that people fail these tests - but reliability is no good without validity and they don't have that. Furthermore if you chuck out all the bad DBT's ie run by the likes of the sensible sound and all other hack attempts I don;t think they even have much relibility. DBT's were made for the drug industry. And they certainly have an interest value in audio because the nut job audiophile who claims he can hear the difference between copper cable a and b 100% of the time because he has the best ear1 in the world will be quickly shown that no he isn't that good after all - but then that is something slightly different than what the DBT supporter will then conclude. That there are no differences? If you're on the ball you'll see the subtle leaps and bounds from what was actually tested and what people conclude.

There are some huge holes in your argument here. First you say that people haven't been able to score very well on blind testing of cables. Later you say that the sample size is too small for reliability. However, if you do the math, if NOBODY has ever done well on a blind test, that says something. If you sum up all the blind tests that were performed in the past, then you get a more accurate picture of the situation.

I wrote before, that for human studies, it is the large scale studies (say 50,000+ people/trials) that will give you the most meaningful interpretations. Sure if you look at isolated cases of 25 trials here, or 16 there, there isn't much reliability. You add up all those cases done over time, and you'll get a more accurate picture. How many have been done over time? 1,000,000 individual trials? More? I wouldn't be surprised if it were more. What are the results then? We have a convergence to 50% over time. This is the point of blind testing. This is why sighted testing is not meaningful.

[Woochifer]

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me.

Amazing, all this verbiage that you devote to attacking the concept of blind testing and you've yet to participate in such a test yourself! So, I guess that your ONE sighted listening is more valid than any other test out there that has come up with inconclusive results. Rolled off highs and flabbed up bass just from a cable? If it's that obvious, it should be easy enough to measure the effect ... well, unless you don't believe in those either.

I would really suggest that you try a blind test sometime. It might actually lend some much needed perspective to these exaggerations and nonsensical off-topic speculation about tubes and "dimwits" who convert SS amps. Or does the prospect of shaking your ironclad belief that your ears alone are enough to prove everything related to audio scare you enough to avoid blind tests altogether?

[RobotCzar]

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

You know, all opinions are not of equal weight. The usual noisemakers, who, I speculate, have a hard time getting people to listen to what they have to say, keep swawking in this forum. They can be safely ignored. But, you are showing some signs of reason. You need to go further.

First, science almost always generalizes findings from samples because not every case can be tested. Practically all information about humans is done via sampling and not testing every case. We don't, for example, tests drugs on everybody to see if they work or if they are dangerous.

Second, science cannot waste time "proving negatives" such as proving there are no ghosts, or that people cannot hear differences in cables. Science takes the postion that someone must show they CAN or there is no reason to think anyone can. If golden ears simply show (somewhere, somehow) that just ONE of them can hear differences, then we who doubt they can will, I assure you, be quiet and admit we were wrong and we have tin ears. In over 20 years, not ONE has (that I have heard about). I am aware of many trying and failing---and many claim they could. The evidence is there, is it saying humans cannot hear such differences.

Third, scientists have been studying people's sensory perception for years, we have a pretty good idea of what people can hear and we also have a good idea of the standard deviation from the norm. We also know how much subtle electrical signal differences related to sound differences generated from those signals. It is all just math (AND they can be measured). The calculations and measurements indicated that people should not be able to hear things like differences in typical cables. The point is that theory and measurement indicates that people cannot hear such differences, not just the direct tests.

While it may be true that YOU haven't "seen" any evidence--it is quite another matter to say that no evidence exists. The evidence couldn't be clearer--people can't hear differences in typical cables in typical home audio applications. All the whining and wishing in the world isn't going to change that fact.

Is it arrogant to claim people cannot do things they cannot demonstrate? Am I arrogant in claiming you cannot jump to the moon? Moreover, even though we haven't tested everybody, I assert that NOBODY CAN. I can simply measure human muscle output and the energy required and I will have "proof" that nobody can.

[musicoverall]

In over 20 years, not ONE has (that I have heard about). I am aware of many trying and failing---and many claim they could. The evidence is there, is it saying humans cannot hear such differences..

So far, so good with respect to your post and my understanding. I do have a couple of questions and one statement. The latter is all of what you say is fine IF you're basing cable sonics strictly on the basis of LCR parameters. The contention of yeasayers is that there is more to it than that. Even so, would it not be true that a high capacitance cable might very easily be heard as different from a low capacitance cable in a phono application? But onto the questions.

Since you are forthright in admitting that no one has heard differences in blind tests that you are aware of, let's deal with what you are aware of. How many (roughly) failures have you heard of? Of that number, how many of them used equipment other than, for example, a plastic Kenwood receiver and Cerwin-Vega speakers? Are there any where the system was high performance? Oops... I mean, high cost? I forgot for a second that I was talking to what appears to be a total naysayer! LOL. Oh, and no power cords. So far I haven't heard any differences in them but I haven't experimented much, either. But my point is that a test using mass market gear won't really sway me. Lots of detail is lost in such gear.

Finally, I get the impression that your... er... disdain for those who claim differences in audio equipment doesn't begin and end with cabling. True?

[kexodusc]

The scientific method itself is observtional - NO matter what they try and claim the element is still there. To their credit the definition when using DBTs are very carefully constructed to not actually prove or disprove the given issue - this is exactly why there are continual arguments over it. It appears to hold that if we take sight bias out that we would then TRULY be testing one's hearing and this of course is a good thing. That does not however alleviate the obvious psychological ramifications related to what the brain is doing under duress or a test of this nature - one of which is that the brain A) utilizes a multi-modality approach to processing information including listening. The brain is partitioned in two hemispheres - 1) is an analytical side which would be to PICK either or b in a test 2) is an artistic side which would deal with the emotional response from listening to music and the way one normally listens to music. These two sides don't get the whole picture which has been shown when the brain has been surgically cut from each other - there is testing moreso on sight but it's exactly the same thing.

Your post is really good, and a flashback to some Psych courses in my University days...the only problem I have with this argument is that the brain is also under similar distresses when doing "sighted tests" in the comfort of your own home when undertaking any test of a sensory nature...not to mention the impact mood, fatigue, etc have on your senses and perception. There exists the fact that much of this mental behaviour the brain undertakes is a constant in blind and sighted testings, and therefore can be discarded as irrelevant to the results.

But your arguments of "what is truth" hold. I think it's safe to say that we are not necessarily testing just for truth in DBT's though...and that we can learn more than "truth" from the results. We are also testing the consistency in observations...if we don't even have that consistency (as DBT's immaculately suggest), we can't begin to use logic, science, philosophy, or even testament to speculate what a truth might be about a cable, CD player, or anything else...if nothing else, this raises considerable doubt about claims of sonic differences, and sways the debate in that direction.
This puts the onus on the manufacturers ( a cop out argument too often, but in this case relevant I think) to provide us with some sort of argument to support their claims. What research do they have? Do they have consistent results? If not should we buy something that might work some of time?

I suspect (but can't prove) that cables do in fact contribute at least something to the sound quality...it may not be detectable by the human ear, or possible to prove, but it would be premature to write-off a possibility simply because the testing methods to date haven't confirmed this. But until something comes along to end the debate definitively I'll continue to invest money into more tangible and cost-effective methods of improving my system.

OT: How do legally blind people fair in these DBT's??

[RGA]

Your post is really good, and a flashback to some Psych courses in my University days...the only problem I have with this argument is that the brain is also under similar distresses when doing "sighted tests" in the comfort of your own home when undertaking any test of a sensory nature...not to mention the impact mood, fatigue, etc have on your senses and perception. There exists the fact that much of this mental behaviour the brain undertakes is a constant in blind and sighted testings, and therefore can be discarded as irrelevant to the results.

But your arguments of "what is truth" hold. I think it's safe to say that we are not necessarily testing just for truth in DBT's though...and that we can learn more than "truth" from the results. We are also testing the consistency in observations...if we don't even have that consistency (as DBT's immaculately suggest), we can't begin to use logic, science, philosophy, or even testament to speculate what a truth might be about a cable, CD player, or anything else...if nothing else, this raises considerable doubt about claims of sonic differences, and sways the debate in that direction.
This puts the onus on the manufacturers ( a cop out argument too often, but in this case relevant I think) to provide us with some sort of argument to support their claims. What research do they have? Do they have consistent results? If not should we buy something that might work some of time?

I suspect (but can't prove) that cables do in fact contribute at least something to the sound quality...it may not be detectable by the human ear, or possible to prove, but it would be premature to write-off a possibility simply because the testing methods to date haven't confirmed this. But until something comes along to end the debate definitively I'll continue to invest money into more tangible and cost-effective methods of improving my system.

OT: How do legally blind people fair in these DBT's??

Kex you forget though that when sighted you are not in a test environment - there is a fundamental shift when we put the testing hat on as to when we are simply listening to two sets of amps and or speakers etc. BTW I'm not supporting the existance of differences either - this is a common attack I get from DBT supporters. I am not saying DBT's are useless or that they should not be used or thatI'm going to buy every sighted audition because it is obvious that there exists a sight bias - but to think DBT's are the sole answer is a HUGE error - and in some ways has it's own ADDED problems that sighted listening does no have which is a testing environment. (In several fields tests can get people to do things they NEER would normally do which 1st year psych courses also show when situational variables are brought in. There are expectations biases in blind tests - "You will be given two sets of cd players to listen to chose either A or B to select which is best" if you play the EXACT same cd player and selection of song the person WILL make a selection - we are creatures of solving problems - even when they do not exist - just as one forms an image when stairing at clouds or attempting to solve optical illusions. Hearing is no different. Amazingly this kind of "trick" is used by some to support DBTs that we can't tell the difference.

The simple truth is that anything can be deliberately made to sound different - it is A) in the best interest of the manufacturer to do this B) not difficult.
There was a tst several years back where a cheapie Pioneer receiver was indistinguishable from very expensive separates. Pioneer, if DBT's were worth anything in this industry, could have come out with HUGE ad campaigns on the back ogf that test and said:

"Here at Pioneer we have a rvolutionary amplifier that for a mere $199.00 sounds in scientific testing no different than the best separates in the world - yes that is right we have a revolutionary amplifier and managed to do what Bryston and Krell err Tanberg do but at 5 figure prices. Plus you get a tuner and surround sound in our unit PLUS remote control. All you need is a speaker that doesn;t dip under 3 ohms and is 87db or better and there is no difference."

Of course Pioneer would not do this - not because they hoped to sell their expensive stuff - they had none - and this kind of advertising would have been bigger gold - the reason is that the so called tests would never stand up to real scrutiny because a DBT cannot EVER prove that componant A sounds the same as componant B. What people can do well that is something else - and too many variables to get at real truth - just some statistical evidence of low trial numbers in a testing environment and nothing at all like a normal listening sessions. It don't take a degree in psych or anyhting else to see the problems here.

Now if one wants to make the case that a DBT is BETTER than a sighted test - well now that is something else and I don't have any problem in the world if someone wants to make that case - becuase there is good reason to make the case - just don't blindly(as it were) ignore the problems with that which you support.

[kexodusc]

RGA, I guess I didn't make myself a bit more clear...I agree with just about everything you say with the exception of what you qualify as a test. Quite simply ANY time you compare items you are testing...formally or informally, the brain undertakes similar functions, if not the exact same...there are added stresses, processes, etc, in a DBT to be sure, I'm just holding the position that so much of this becomes a constant between home evaluation (where the original claim of differences is made) and a DBT (where prove is sought)...the rest becomes extremeties. In a small sample, sure they could be significant, but over the huge sample of DBT's over the last 30 years, you have to wonder WHY this small difference in environment absolutely always skews results...this is where consistency becomes important.
I can safely say that even if cables DO make a difference, it is small, subtle, and incredibly inconsistent on WHEN it is heard at best.
That hasn't stopped me from buying better electronics yet...but I tend to look for more "middle-of-the-road" stuff than Cadillac gear.

That being said, DBT's to verify results based on the 2nd sloppiest of human senses, are not the answer by themselves.