The use of blind and double-blind procedures presumes one is employing the logic of hypothesis testing. That is, that there is a null hypothesis (i.e., that there are no differences between two treatmentsin this case, two sets of interconnects) and an alternate hypothesis (there is indeed a difference). Experimenters are more than experimental custodians. Their biases and expectations can profoundly influence a study. To the extent that all people (including experimenters) have biases, one would double-blind the treatments to reduce among other things "experimenter effects." Its surprisingly easy for an experimenter to influence a study (e.g., Stanley Milgrams famous obedience studies). It is also easy for other participants (formerly known as subjects) to influence each other (e.g., Ashs line judgment experiments where participants tended to agree with Ashs confederates that clearly dissimilar lines were the same).
There is a famous researcher/psychologist/statistician by the name of Robert Rosenthal who once told his students that he had obtained two breeds of rats from another famous researcher. One type of rat was called maze smart and the other was maze dull. Dr. Rosenthal asked the students to teach these rats to run though mazes (ah, the power of cheese). After a few weeks or so the students were asked to show off their rats maze prowess (as it were). The maze smart rats performed significantly better than their dumb counterparts. The kicker here is that the rats were OF THE SAME SPECIES. One cannot infer that the students intentionally influenced the training, but it most certainly was measurable. Moreover, when the experimenter bias was measured it turned out that the smart" rats owners had "imparted" a greater positive measurement bias than did the dumb rats owners negative measurement bias.
There are probably much better examples than these, but Im in a hurry to go downstairs for dinner :-) so Ill wrap this up soon.
Something else to consider is that different does not mean better. Peoples ability to remember sounds and colors varies greatly but rarely is the memory accurate after a short decay period. With audio equipment evaluation, it tends to result in a bias for a certain sound regardless of whether or not that sound is authentic. When it comes to making a decision as to whether one component is better than another, it probably makes the most sense to have a reference. In the case of audio, Id say that reference should be THE REAL THING. Its not practical to have live orchestra tag along on equipment tests but it doesnt hurt to keep that in mind. Some people go on and on about how they prefer one cable to another because their favorite is warm or whatever. Real sounds from an orchestra or a band are not necessarily warm.
All that said, if one believes that a $6,000 set of interconnects sounds better (they just might sound *different*) than a $70 pair then let em. The more expensive cable might even sound closer to reality. One would hope that the more expensive cables arent just mostly cosmetics and markup.
--Paul
p.s. and yes, spending time with a set of cables or anything else in the system is a great way to know if one really likes the sound. On a marginally related note, a friend of mine once said Ive never owed a handheld device that I liked after having it for a week.
There is a famous researcher/psychologist/statistician by the name of Robert Rosenthal who once told his students that he had obtained two breeds of rats from another famous researcher. One type of rat was called maze smart and the other was maze dull. Dr. Rosenthal asked the students to teach these rats to run though mazes (ah, the power of cheese). After a few weeks or so the students were asked to show off their rats maze prowess (as it were). The maze smart rats performed significantly better than their dumb counterparts. The kicker here is that the rats were OF THE SAME SPECIES. One cannot infer that the students intentionally influenced the training, but it most certainly was measurable. Moreover, when the experimenter bias was measured it turned out that the smart" rats owners had "imparted" a greater positive measurement bias than did the dumb rats owners negative measurement bias.
There are probably much better examples than these, but Im in a hurry to go downstairs for dinner :-) so Ill wrap this up soon.
Something else to consider is that different does not mean better. Peoples ability to remember sounds and colors varies greatly but rarely is the memory accurate after a short decay period. With audio equipment evaluation, it tends to result in a bias for a certain sound regardless of whether or not that sound is authentic. When it comes to making a decision as to whether one component is better than another, it probably makes the most sense to have a reference. In the case of audio, Id say that reference should be THE REAL THING. Its not practical to have live orchestra tag along on equipment tests but it doesnt hurt to keep that in mind. Some people go on and on about how they prefer one cable to another because their favorite is warm or whatever. Real sounds from an orchestra or a band are not necessarily warm.
All that said, if one believes that a $6,000 set of interconnects sounds better (they just might sound *different*) than a $70 pair then let em. The more expensive cable might even sound closer to reality. One would hope that the more expensive cables arent just mostly cosmetics and markup.
--Paul
p.s. and yes, spending time with a set of cables or anything else in the system is a great way to know if one really likes the sound. On a marginally related note, a friend of mine once said Ive never owed a handheld device that I liked after having it for a week.