Interconnects double-blind

[okiemax]

It's hard to find good double-blind studies on audible differences in interconnect cables on the web. The best I have seen so far is the TAG McLaren experiment which got null results comparing two expensive cables, the Nordost Solar Wind and the TAG Mclaren F3-10-ANA. The problems with this study and its conclusion have already been discussed on the Forum. Another study, which I don't recall being discussed, got null results comparing an inexpensive interconnect with 5 specialty models:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_wire.htm

Five interconnect from AudioQuest, MIT, Monster Cable, H.E.A.R., plus Belden cable with Vampire connectors were compared to a $2.50 blister pack RCA phono interconnect. The 7 listeners participating in the study used Etymotic Research ER4 in-ear phones driven by the headphone jack of a Bryston 2B power amplifier. There were 139 total trials, and the participants correctly identified interconnects 70 times. This is all the information that was given, and it is insufficient for a review of the study. However, I do have a few comments:

I could not verify that the Bryston 2B power amplifier has a headphone jack. Does anyone know about this?

The Etymotic Research ER4 in-ear phones probably are very good for portable use, such as in an airplane, but I doubt many audiophiles use them at home. Shouldn't interconnects be tested in a system with speakers rather than phones?

Aggregation can inadvertently conceal differences. We would not know from the total correct score(70 out of 139) if a few individuals identified a few interconnects correctly ever time they tried. It looks like each participant listened to each cable only 4 times(139/5/7= about 4). A few "4 correct out of 4 tested" scores on individual cables could be hidden in the total score. Whether this happened or not, I don't know, but it's certainly possible.

The possibilty that aggregation concealed differences, however, is not the only problem. If a listener only had 4 tries per interconnect, he would not have the opportunity to prove that his performance was not just random, since more tries would be necessary to dismiss that possibility. Therefore, the study may have had a bias against recognizing individual performances from the start.

Does anyone know of other double-blind studies of interconnects available on the web?