I see the issue with ABX blind testing

botrytis: Don’t fear it, embrace it. We learn through failures and mistakes. If you get taken- lesson learned. But to miss opportunities because you fear it could be a ruse is a real shame. Audio is to be enjoyed- it’s all about the music. Either you like the sound of something or you don’t. It’s just like a song- you either like it or you don’t. And even then a song I didn’t like before I like now and sometimes a song I liked before I no longer like now. The same thing might happen with your stereo. You like how it sounds today but one day in the future you might want a different sound. That doesn’t mean you failed to do proper ABX testing. It means tastes change.

I can’t imagine how you can enjoy anything if you have to analyze and ABX test everything. I’d hate to go grocery shopping with you.

As for eating in a restaurant blindfolded- kudos for your bravery.  I wouldn‘t do it.  Strangers feeding me food I can‘t see?  No way.  I‘ve been in some countries where I would definitely not want to do that.

When properly carried out I can't imagine why anyone would be against blind testing. 

I remember a while back when Kevin Deal performed a blind tests on, too lazy to look it up, either integrateds or power amps.  As memory serves, all attending thought the exercise was excellent.

I know that the only real way to get to know a component is to live with it, but if someone else is willing to go thought the effort of performing the test why not consider it one more pertinent data point?

It seems that most people on both sides of the cable debate accept the fact that the placebo effect is real... if someone is in pain & a doctor gives you a placebo & tells you that it will cure your pain, you may find pain relief. If a sighted test of cables produces a wonderous ability to hear differences in those cables, the way it did earlier on this thread with the YT video showing 4 different power cables, would you want to pay for the more expensive cable  if you knew that it was merely a placebo, and that your inability to see the cables made that difference recognition disappear? IMO I don't  want to pay for the  placebo, whether we're talking about medicine or audio gear. With medicine the underlying  problem causing the  pain still exists & hasn't been treated. With my audio system I  don't  want to stitch my audio equipment together with very, very expensive bits of magic that my brain has been fooled into believing make a difference. 

So these discussions happen & will continue to happen because there is real medicine that actually solves problems and those that believe in the underlying science of medicine are trying to convince people not to spend thousands of $$$ on the placebo. 

@jetter Because people DON'T want to know the truth about what they spend. It seems much of this hobby is about ego, more than just music reproduction. That is all these systems do. The Deal blind test was a flawed one because he never left the room and could see people switching equipment. Hence, why I put up the video I did. I applaud Kevin for trying, though. That is more than I can say for the naysayers.

I care little about how much people spend or what equipment they have, to be honest. It is their money, and they can do with it as they see fit. 

@jetter I’m not against blind testing at all and would welcome it given the opportunity and would incorporate the results into my decision making. It’s just that some here think it’s impossible to overcome our biases or make good or valid judgements on equipment without blind testing and that bias overrides all listening impressions that aren’t blind, and that I don’t agree with at all. Especially for experienced audiophiles serious and knowledgeable about sound, biases can influential but are not determinative. As usual the reality probably resides in the middle where both what we hear and our inherent biases are involved, but I’m not in the camp where biases are necessarily determinative although I’m sure it’s true in some cases but certainly not all as some would have you think.