hermanv - regarding: "Speaker cable blind listening tests"

[mlsstl]

> How about a mostly-acoustically-transparent screen? It'd have to be right behind the speakers...

See, we're already getting into "buts" and "excepts". First people complain about neutral listening sites because they are not familiar with the equipment and set-up. Has to be in their home. Covered cables break all kind of "rules." So we're now talking about screens. They'd have to be acoustically transparent but not visually. (Do screens have a break-in period? Are they really, I mean really, transparent to sound?)

Of course, we'd also have to live with them in our residence for an extended period. Many of the cable-difference advocates talk about picking up subtle differences over a period of months. A short term evaluation would be another "out."

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. Of course, they'd tell themselves that would have no influence on what they were hearing.

My observation is that certain audiophiles would never accept any type of truly blind test situation. There will always a variety of special demands that will defeat the test, or "defects" in the test setup that will allow them to ignore the results to the extent needed to satisfy their ego. Regardless of the theoretical validity and advantages of DBT, I simply cannot envision ANY setup that would satisfy a certain segment of the audiophile community.

[musicoverall]

>

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. .

If someone peeks, what would be the point of the test? I had no problem NOT peeking -was not even remotely tempted. If I had, the whole thing would have been a waste of time. If someone is truly interested in answering the question (for themselves, if no one else) of cable sonics, they'd have to be honest.