scientific double blinded cable test

gdha

There is no difference without a blind test, so there is no need for me to try it blind

You’re not making any sense. Blind test advocates such as yourself claim that sighted tests are unreliable. Yet you now seek special exception from being subjected to the rigors of blind/scientific testing, based upon your special privileged use of the same methodology you claim is unreliable when cited by others. That is an extreme example of expectation bias and illogic.

Also, my challenge (undefined but can be worked out) is open to you too

I have a passing interest in double-blind testing, even though I think it has little value to audiophiles and is mostly a waste of my time. But I’m not interested in gambling, and your efforts to turn your challenge into wagering is what I suspect led the moderators to delete your posts.

Scientific.  Double blind. Sounds best.  Im keen to know how to conduct and quantify scientifically what sounds best to my ears and ears/ brain of other subjects in this double blind test.  Am I to insert electrodes in the brain or cerebral circulation to measure an electrical or neurotransmitter response ?   Assuming the brief is to ascertain what sounds best using what sounds best to the subjects ears/brains is no problem. Provided you trust my findings.  I have tried the latter and found beyond doubt that cables do impart a different sound coming out the speakers into human ears to the brain of subjects familiar with our hobby.  All conditions in the experiment were the same. Only cables were changed.  Also can confirm that cables have direction bias.  

Blind test advocates such as yourself claim that sighted tests are unreliable.

I'm not advocating for anything. So please, lets clear the air.

Cleeds, I think there is some confusion or misunderstanding in general (i.e. not just you) throughout the thread with regard to my posts herein the thread.


What I'm stating (and by extension offering in the way of a challenge), is that in cases where a person claims to be able to audibly hear a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed, the person who is making that claim would NOT reliably audibly hear a difference if said speaker wire were reversed WITHOUT his/her prior knowledge to whether or not the wire was actually reversed.

As an EXAMPLE ONLY, the person making such claim that he/she can RELIABLY audibly hear a difference when/if reversing a cable should receive a passing grade when subjected to the following EXAMPLE PROCEDURE.

(1) The person subject to the test cannot see the equipment, but can hear (unobstructed) sound from it.

(2) A musical passage is played. In our example, lets play the Grateful Dead "Deal" (but we just as well could play the star spangled banner) from start to finish (or a few seconds or a few minutes, whatever).

(3) When Deal finishes, the person subject to the test waits approximately two minutes. The person is waiting for Deal (or the star spangled banner) to resume (play again from the beginning).

(4) During the wait, "another person or persons" would reverse, OR NOT reverse, the wire. In this context, reversing the wire means removing the wire (each channel of a two channel system, one channel at a time) from the speaker and the amplifier. Then, taking the ends of the cable that were on the speaker and attaching the ends to the amplifier, maintaining correct polarity, and repeating for the other channel. The speaker wire ends that were on the amplifier are connected to the speaker.

(5) The other person or persons in this EXAMPLE ONY is a known trusted source, who is/are the only person or persons to record whether or not the wire WAS OR WAS NOT reversed.

(6) The music resumes. The person subjected to the test listens until he/she is comfortable (upon completion or during the playback) in stating, "yes, the speaker wire has been reversed" or "no, the speaker wire has not been reversed". The person subjected to the test must make one or the other declaration within a specified amount of time.

(7) The person or persons other than the one subjected to the test records the response and compares the response to WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID OR DID NOT DO with the speaker wire. Their recording indicates a "pass" or "fail" grade, attributed to the person subjected to the test.

(8) The aformentioned EXAMPLE ONLY procedure is repeated a number of times so that there is a VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE level that the person subjected to the test, passes or fails. For EXAMPLE, the test might be conducted 30 times, in which case Deal (or the star spangled banner) would have played 60 times. So the person subjected to the test (and who purportedly can audible hear a difference as to whether or not the wire has been reversed), would be expected to make the correct response (items 6 and 7) the overwhelming majority of the time (25?).

(9) Of the 30 EXAMPLE ONLY tests, the person or persons who have subjected the person who has listened compares the reponses to the agreed upon majority (25) and on that basis declares "yes, you can reliably detect whether or not ordinary speaker wire is reversed" or "no, you cannot reliably detect whether or not ordinary speaker wire is reversed".


Simple really, for those who purportedly can hear the difference.

gdhal
“What I’m stating (and by extension offering in the way of a challenge), is that in cases where a person claims to be able to audibly hear a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed, the person who is making that claim would NOT reliably audibly hear a difference if said speaker wire were reversed WITHOUT his/her prior knowledge to whether or not the wire was actually reversed.”

>>>>That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all day, which is saying something. I imagine that theory of yours should be filed under the heading, Wishful Thinking. It’s actually kind of the opposite situation. Folks who hear differences in sighted tests may often not (rpt not) hear them in blind tests because blind tests are inherently flawed - they are too complicated, too stressful, and are often run by extremely persistent skeptics, I.e., biased. You know, like The Amazing Randi. Not too mention there’s certainly reason to wonder about the listeners in many so called reliable blind tests. Where do they get them from - under a bridge somewhere?

I imagine that theory of yours should be filed under the heading, Wishful Thinking.

Theory or not, if I recall, you're not up for the challenge.