Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
The cable proponents have not even demonstrated that there is statistically significant evidence that there are audible differences when the testers are prescreened to include only individuals of high auditory accuity. The small sample in this case is not significant and if that is the best they can come up with, they still haven't done anything IMO.

I'm not going to relate the story again about the NY Audio Labs demo at the WQXR auditorium in 1983, but IMO, most audiophiles and audio engineers have far less auditory accuity than they would like to think. This is especially true for those who have been exposed to very loud sound for any period at sometime in their lives. Like loud rock music played at deafening levels.
Two thoughts:

It has been my opinion that differences in human audio perception are not so much due to differences in auditory acuity as it is to the less well understood processes that take place between the ears. Its kind of like saying that one's visual acuity determines how one interprets poetry or reacts to paintings. Your eyesight only has to be good enough to read the text or see the painting. Much happens after that initial process take place.

Instead of prescreening listeners to include only individuals of high auditory accuity, or only cable believers, it would be interesting to test all kinds of listeners, both golden- and tin-eared, identify them in a questionaire, and compare the results of the listening tests to see if being a believer or non-believer or a golden- or tin-ear makes any difference.