Double blind test- over a month- could this be a reliable test for any equipment?

Blind tests are in reality almost never performed. I hate to judge these things too critically but it appears blind tests are primarily a ploy by naysayers and pseudo skeptics to try to argue their case that such and such cable or tweak must be bogus. “I bet it won’t pass a double blind test.”

cd318421
Yes, let’s make ourselves even more anachronistic by putting our heads down back into the sands of subjectivity. Down with blind listening tests! Not our reality.

On the other hand we can be grateful that aeronautics, automobiles, broadcasting, computing, engineering, healthcare, and satellite navigation don’t follow suit!

>>>>>Do you think Boeing used blind testing on the software for the 737s that crashed?

On the other hand if you are looking for truth, then the scientific method is a better way. One that has been adopted by the civilised world for centuries.

>>>>>Double blind testing is not inherently the scientific method any more than any other kind of testing. Nice try! Besides results of subjective listening is empirical data, also part of the scientific method. 🤗

The reason musicians can play an entire song or album or opera without a musical score in front of them is because humans inherently have good auditory memory. I don’t recall seeing Keith Richards or Jimmy Page using a musical score during a concert. 😬 same for movies. Humans can recall entire scenes from their favorite movies with ease, even after many years. Video, music, dialog, sequence of events, what have you.

The demand that double blind tests be repeated a number of times in a row, sometimes as many as ten times, greatly increases the probability the person tested will fail. This is why The Amazing Randi never had to pay out $1 million in his Million Dollar Challenge. Not only for psychics - Randi’s primary target, a target 🎯 that Johnny Carson subsidized in his will - but also audiophiles, e.g., Intelligent Chip and exotic high end cables. It’s because when differences are small or subtle, which they frequently are, the pressure of having to be correct ten times in a row is too great. But Randi is a nice guy and knows a good thing when he sees it - audiophile sacred cows. 🐄 🐄 🐄

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Looks like we might have a bromance in the offing. 

Speak for yourself. My auditory memory is hours, days, weeks, years.

Eat more fish. 🐟 🐟 🐠

divertiti22 posts03-19-2019 10:26amNo testing is 100% reliable when it comes to sensory perception, but blind tests are a hell of a lot more reliable than sighted tests. The human mind, perception and memory are all extremely fallible and vulnerable to influence. This is the reason why eye witness testimonies have proven over and over again to be the least reliable type of evidence.


>>>>>There are many fallibilities, including operator error, improper test procedure, misterpretation of test results, operator hearing issues, system mistakes. Besides one test means nothing. It’s the preponderance of the evidence that one should evaluate, not just one test. People oft have ulterior motives for saying something like, “I bet you can’t prove it/hear it in a double blind test!” Most of the double blind challenges are empty threats.

This has been discussed ad nauseam. There are many perfectly good reasons why any test is unreliable, including double blind tests. In addition, there are many perfectly good reasons why testing over periods of time is also unreliable. For one thing test results oft depend on whose ox is being gored, but also the system used for the test, external factors, and a whole bunch of other things. And the sound changes all by itself day to day, hour to hour, month to month. So, the question naturally arises, when you check on the sound a week later or whatever, what are you actually hearing?

Yeah, made the scene
Week to week
Day to day
Hour to hour
The gate is straight
Deep and wide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side