Why"double blind"tests don't work:brain?

This idea strikes me as very interesting. As a soon-to-be neuropsychologist, I've read up on things like this. As it turns out, the sections of the brain responsible for musical perception, recognition, and possibly production(this is too diffuse to really comment on with the current level of brain-behavior knowledge) are generally lateralized to the right hemisphere. However, in musicians, it's generally in the left. Musicians may be using different styles of processing with regard to music than the rest of us (possibly the critical listening sections you refer to). I personally have avoided learning too much about the physics of sound reproduction, the history of music, and the vocabulary or orchestral terminology associated with symphonies, etc. The reason is that I prefer NOT to be able to LABEL (a verbal task, associated with left hemisphere activity) what I am hearing all that precisely. I have always had a fear, perhaps paranoid, perhaps justified, that by doing so I will start enjoying it less, by switching to more left hemisphere type processing. I wish to stay with right-hemisphere type processing when it comes to music, as it is more emotional vs. analytical and more perceptive vs. descriptive or judgmental. Have you ever noticed that the words we have to describe high end equipment sonic characteristics (analytical, warm, dry, airy, etc.) don't quite cut it? That may be because what we're trying to describe are characteristics that really are non-verbal. I, for one, intend to keep it that way...

Double blind testing can work if the listener keeps the criteria for comparison simple, such as "is there a differnce." If you start looking for subjective thoughts such as warm, analytical, too many variables are being injected.
I had an interesting experience a few years ago. I was auditioning a CD player that had upgraded parts. (The usual audio jive, eg. Massive power supplies, increased insulation, transparent resistors). After comparing the Players, I thought the new player had better base weight, clarity etc. Since both players were in the same rack, and had the same remote, there were no clues to which player was operating. It was only after I was returning the demo that I realized by clever wife had swithched the cables, and my preferred player was the unmodified one.

Hi Elizabeth; good thread. I believe the typical aupiophile becomes intimately familiar with their own systems, in their own rooms, and with their own music. And in that environment they can easily detect pretty small changes/differences. I know that's the case with me. But if taken away from my own system or out of the environment that I created-- well, all bets are off.

Of course gross differences can be detected--but subtleties, no, IMHO. And as Elizabeth suggests, stresses can easily negatively influence the subject's test responses.

An in-store audition is not of much use to me for this reason-- the possible exception being speakers. But even with speakers, you can only get a general idea of their "character"-- they WILL sound different in your room. Cheers. Craig.

i'm skeptical of the left brain-right brain explanation for abx failure. eruliaf xba rof noitanalpxe niarb thgir-niarb tfel eht fo lacitpeks m'i.

The stress theory combined with the "it's not my system so I don't really know it" reality is a dangerous combination. Add the nuances that come with simply shifting cables, as reported in earlier threads, and it's not surprising that the double blind tests don't consistently reveal anything. Image and advertising aside, I wonder how many of the Coke drinkers who picked Pepsi in a blind taste test really switched drinks afterward? The two really are different. Under stress and in a strange environment, it's not easy to pick the one you love (at least not with regards to what we're talking about here). Cheers.