Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw
markw gave you a simple yet effective blind testing methodology. I hate to reprint for the umpteenth time, but maybe you didn't read the last X times it's been written out for you.

So E-Stat, why don't you try the following exercise:

1. Select 2 sets of ICs.
2. Teach your wife how to plug the IC from your CDP to your amp.
3. Get her to swap or not swap cords at whatever interval you like. It can be every day, every week, every couple months - whatever you like.
4. Get her to write down which IC she used.
5. You listen to your heart's content and when you've finally determined which pair of ICs you've been listening to for whatever interval YOU choose, then write down your findings.
6. Compare notes at the end of the experiment.

You can do whatever number of trials that you like, but keep in mind that if you do say 25 trials, I think in order to be statistically significant, you'd need to get at least 18-19 correct.

As for the direct answer to your question, the direct relevance is that the mind can do mysterious things. Whether it's over a short 5 second thing or an extended period of time, if you have no reference base, then any findings that you may have are meaningless.

You haven't answered my question either: why do real researchers use blind testing only? There's never a study that uses sighted testing. NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE. That should tell you something in and of itself.