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

I guess I do not agree. Years ago when I first got into upgrading cables I started with an interconnect from my CD Player to integrated amp. I went to a dealer I trusted who who could duplicate my system (and they did). I was totally blind; the salesperson (an electrical engineer by training) switched cables around for me to listen to without telling me what cables he was using or how much they cost. I found out later they ranged in price from $70 a pair to $400. I would respond with: "I like" or "do not like" these cables compared to the ones that came before. I had him switch back to the other cable to confirm I liked it better. He did a lot of switching around and would eliminate the ones I did not like. I eventually settled on a cable which he revealed to be a Nordost Blue Heaven; about in the middle based on price. There was one cable I hated that smeared the sound of that setup which I later found out was a Kimber cable that is very popular seller. So blind testing worked for me.

Secondly this is how HiFi Choice Magazine basically does their panel reviews, which for me are the best I have found for getting a feel for budget audiophile gear before going for a listen.

DBWL-

Thanks for your comments. What I mean by hardware is the physical parameters of your brain/nervous system, like the product specs for a computer. The software part is the information processing routines inside your head. It is my understanding that we filter the information provided by our senses to add meaning, prioritize information, etc. so that what I perceive is not what you perceive, what I perceive is not what I perceived when I was a child, etc. I guess my point would be that we use different filters in different situations, and the filters we use are selectable and can be modified.

As an example when I was young I used to hunt out in the vast wastes of West Texas. There was a rancher out there who could see a deer totally hidden inside a bush at about a thousand yards. He didn't have better vision, in fact his vision sucked.He told me he could see the deer because he wasn't looking for a deer he was looking for a piece of a deer; the tip of an antler, an ear, a patch of hair. I practiced this and got to where I could almost find all the deer he could find. I had developed a new piece of software/searchtool/filter. It still wasn't my default software as it required conscious action to use it, but my perception had been radically altered without a change in the physical structure of my processor (brain) or the input (sense info)

I think similar things happen when we listen to music for enjoyment vs. listening to equipment that happens to be producing music. In the first we are looking at a landscape and in the second for deer. I hope this has been coherent.

Thanks Ignatz. Good example. Now that you explain it again, it does remind me of certain cognitive models, although there are many models that blend the "software" and "hardware" components such that they're not really separate. I wonder if we'll ever know...

Anyway, the real reason I'm resposting is that I wanted to comment that I actually agree with Sugarbrie. I've done A-B testing (and other variants: a-b-a-b, etc.), and it's worked pretty well for me. My wife and I use it to select components, and we've found good test-retest reliability doing it. It does make me curious about why so many of us have this experience and so many experts (Dunlavy, Kurt from Velodyne, etc.) report the opposite, which is I guess why Elizabeth started the post! And I do enjoy theorizing about our brains...

I've read the John Dunlavy article on his website. Despite all the statements and claims he makes, there is one thing missing. He offers no proof or backup what-so-ever to any one of his statements. It is just a bunch of Clinton-speak. He claims to have fooled people who have golden ears, but does not name them, or offer them as a reference or endorsement, or even tell us how he knows that these people even have golden ears in the first place. He fools people by never switching cables, but telling them he has. This to him is proof that people cannot tell the difference between cables, however, never switching cables does not prove people cannot tell the difference between two different cables; you would have to actually switch cables and not tell them you switched to prove that.
The Dunlavy article comes across to me as only a marketing ploy to impress the reader and sell his gear.

Read the white papers Mike Vansever wrote on his website. www.vansevers.com -- Mike is a pro-audio electrical engineer, the kind of person who ususally claims there is no difference. Mike not only sais there is a difference, he explains why, including diagrams, and lots of explanations, and scientific stuff that is a little over my head. I think one white paper is titled something like: "Why do things that should not have a sound, actually do."