Why is Double Blind Testing Controversial?

It's controversial mainly because most people don't understand the methodology of DB test or even how to interpret results.

First, DBTs are probably not very useful as a means of selecting components for most people. Not because they wouldn't reveal audible differences, but simply that there are many factors that drive preference in addition to sound. Even in cases where there are no *audible* difference between components (a lot more common that most A'goners will admit, clearly), that doesn't preclude differences in other attributes that lead to real, valid, non-questionable preferences for one component over the other.

Second, the claims that DBTs inherently obscure differences, or that you can't hear differences in a DBT format, just factually don't fly. DBTs have been shown to resolve differences down to the theoretical limits of hearing.

What's really hilarious, though, are the claims that those who support DBTs do so to avoid buying high-priced gear. That somehow they're all so confused by the vast array of components that they run and bury their heads in scientific sand. No, the real reason that DBTs exist is the well documented tendency for people to see things that aren't there (and the converse) and to hear things that don't exist (and the converse there as well). Humans seem to be wired this way - to "over detect" - and DBTs work to eliminate this effect, apparently to the discomfort of many.

Sean, Sean, Sean. DBTs exist to serve ". . . those that need an explanation for all things and don't believe in things they can't explain"?? Before explaining a phenomenon, perhaps it is a good idea to demonstrate that the phenomenon exists in the first place. DBTs are used for exactly that purpose.

To address Sean's and other's points about pulling random folks in off the street for DBTs, you are quite correct. You can't just grab someone off the street, put the music on and test away. In truly valid tests - and these are in the minority, I suspect - there is a training component. During this time, if I recall correctly, some screening is also done.

The best candidates for DBTs may be well-trained 10-year-olds!

Wellfed, in no way did I mean to imply that audiophiles are particularly susceptable to deception, either external or internal. It really does seem to be the case that humans - all of us - are wired for sensory "over detection"; nothing bad or good about it, that's just the way we are.

Don't underestimate the other attributes of audio components - things like build quality, reliability, corporate reputation, ergonomics, visual presentation/industrial design, price, etc. are all perfectly valid areas upon which to base and build preferences. Nothing bad about that, either. I strongly suspect that my Nordost ICs don't sound any better (or worse) than the overwhelming majority of alternatives (and haven't heard any differences, either), but enjoy the fact that they are technically one of best out there.

To answer the original question, DBT is controversial because there are widely divergent views of its accuracy and applicability. One group of people feels that DBTs as a test methodology are inherently incapable of demonstrating audible differences. Another group feels the opposite. A fertile topic for discussion, in my opinion.

The rancor comes, unfortunately, when fringes on one side or the other feel the need to characterize those with whom they disagree as either "meter readers with no hearing/bad systems/no experience/etc." or as "delusional and indulging in wastful fantasy". Neither is correct (well, not in most cases), nor productive to meaningful discussion of the subject at hand.

Why some feel that this particular topic - why the controversy over DBTs - is unsuitable for discussion mystifies me. Well, not really . . .