Why is Double Blind Testing Controversial?


I noticed that the concept of "double blind testing" of cables is a controversial topic. Why? A/B switching seems like the only definitive way of determining how one cable compares to another, or any other component such as speakers, for example. While A/B testing (and particularly double blind testing, where you don't know which cable is A or B) does not show the long term listenability of a cable or other component, it does show the specific and immediate differences between the two. It shows the differences, if at all, how slight they are, how important, etc. It seems obvious that without knowing which cable you are listening to, you eliminate bias and preconceived notions as well. So, why is this a controversial notion?
moto_man
Most people who claim to hear differences in cables, or whatever are doing something wrong in there methodology. Most likely, they are not level matching to within .1db.
This is essential for fairplay.

If there is a difference between cables, those differences can be explained by two things: The RCL characteristics and
the cleansing effects that you get when unplugging and replugging cables.

When you know what you are listening to you want very badly to hear a difference, especially if you just paid $100s or $1000s of dollars for a few feet of wire.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if listeners would quit using terms like 'jaw dropping' and such.

I've heard differences in noise levels and other such anomalies in phono sections, but I just don't hear the things some claim to hear.

Jim
I don't mind the double blind reviews. The ones that bother me are the ones that eventually prove to be the product of double deaf.
It was like that with me. Some of the things that I have purchased are expensive, to me that is, probably not to some of you. I would look at the new expensive thing and want to like. I've not just listened for a few minutes either. Try months. About the time I'm sure that I now have something better, I bring my wife into the game. She knows nothing about this stuff, could care less. Put simply: When I'm doing the switching I can tell the difference every time. When my wife does it I fail half the time.
Paulwp: Why specifically drag me into this ? I made no comment either way. I think everybody here that has read more than a few of my posts would know where i stand and i was willing to leave it at that. Having said that....

Jwrobinson: Why would listening levels change within a system if a cable was changed ? I am talking RCA vs RCA and XLR vs XLR ( apples to apples, no change in system gain, etc... ). So long as the cables are of reasonable design ( adequate gauge so as not to incur voltage drop due to series resistance ), there should be NO change. That is, IF "wire" really is "wire" and conductors are conductors.

The only reasonable explanation would be that the equipment is loading up differently. Since it is loading up differently, wouldn't it be logical that the response of said equipment has been altered to what is a measurable, and quite possibly, an audible extent ?

As far as your concerns regarding "cleaning the connections when cables are swapped" possibly altering our sonic perceptions, any type of "reasonable" connection that has recently been plugged / unplugged should measure less than a few hundred milli-ohms. If a few hundred milli-ohms can alter our sonic perception and is audible, why wouldn't something so large as what could be a drastic change in capacitance and / or inductance due to differences in cable design have the same effect ?

You are willing to apply specific arguments as to why specific changes are not audible, but when you are asked to apply that same logic as to why they "could" be audible, those variables and equations are no longer acceptable.

THIS is the main reason that most audiophiles and "music lovers" abhor these threads and this topic. Most DBT enthusiasts are simply hypocrites with closed minds. To be fair though, there are those that do perform such tests with open minds under very controlled and realistic conditions. They do this in order to further our understanding, knowing that there is much that we do not know and still need to learn. To those folks, i say "kudo's" and "keep up the good work".

To those that need an explanation for all things and don't believe in things they can't explain, i can only respond with the following passage: "Claiming themselves to be wise, they were made as fools". Just because we can't physically see moisture and condensation being wicked up into the atmosphere and collecting in clouds, that does not mean that it doesn't rain. Just because they believed the Earth to be flat, people did not fall off the edge when travelling "too far" in one direction. Just because they believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, the planets in our solar system did not stop revolving around the Sun. As such, just because we as humans don't understand or have the knowledge to explain does not mean "it is so". If some of you can't grasp the reality of that and think that mankind knows all that we need to know, i feel sorry for you. Sean
>