Why is Double Blind Testing Controversial?

We've covered this before. As such, all i'll add to this thread is that Craig and Albert cracked me up. If DBT threads are going to be good for laughs like that, bring them on : ) Sean
>

Paulwp: Why specifically drag me into this ? I made no comment either way. I think everybody here that has read more than a few of my posts would know where i stand and i was willing to leave it at that. Having said that....

Jwrobinson: Why would listening levels change within a system if a cable was changed ? I am talking RCA vs RCA and XLR vs XLR ( apples to apples, no change in system gain, etc... ). So long as the cables are of reasonable design ( adequate gauge so as not to incur voltage drop due to series resistance ), there should be NO change. That is, IF "wire" really is "wire" and conductors are conductors.

The only reasonable explanation would be that the equipment is loading up differently. Since it is loading up differently, wouldn't it be logical that the response of said equipment has been altered to what is a measurable, and quite possibly, an audible extent ?

As far as your concerns regarding "cleaning the connections when cables are swapped" possibly altering our sonic perceptions, any type of "reasonable" connection that has recently been plugged / unplugged should measure less than a few hundred milli-ohms. If a few hundred milli-ohms can alter our sonic perception and is audible, why wouldn't something so large as what could be a drastic change in capacitance and / or inductance due to differences in cable design have the same effect ?

You are willing to apply specific arguments as to why specific changes are not audible, but when you are asked to apply that same logic as to why they "could" be audible, those variables and equations are no longer acceptable.

THIS is the main reason that most audiophiles and "music lovers" abhor these threads and this topic. Most DBT enthusiasts are simply hypocrites with closed minds. To be fair though, there are those that do perform such tests with open minds under very controlled and realistic conditions. They do this in order to further our understanding, knowing that there is much that we do not know and still need to learn. To those folks, i say "kudo's" and "keep up the good work".

To those that need an explanation for all things and don't believe in things they can't explain, i can only respond with the following passage: "Claiming themselves to be wise, they were made as fools". Just because we can't physically see moisture and condensation being wicked up into the atmosphere and collecting in clouds, that does not mean that it doesn't rain. Just because they believed the Earth to be flat, people did not fall off the edge when travelling "too far" in one direction. Just because they believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, the planets in our solar system did not stop revolving around the Sun. As such, just because we as humans don't understand or have the knowledge to explain does not mean "it is so". If some of you can't grasp the reality of that and think that mankind knows all that we need to know, i feel sorry for you. Sean
>

Wellfed: I think that Hearhear was saying that well conducted DBT's are supposed to be able to allow researchers to identify if there is a discernable difference, not that there aren't discernable differences. Once they can verify that differences are detectable on a repeated basis under comfortable conditons, they can then dig in and try to understand exactly what those differences are and why they exist.

Personally, i have no problem with this type of test so long as suitable subjects are used. I do have a problem with knuckleheads selected at random being forced to make decisions at the drop of a hat under less than ideal / uncomfortable conditons with products / materials that they are unfamiliar with and the results from those "tests" being force-fed to us as being "the truth". Sean
>

Wellfed: I was referring to people collected off the street as "knuckleheads". I should have said "average joe's", etc... I do agree with your point though : )

I can't understand why one would want to perform tests on subjects that have no idea as to what they are listening for or how to discern the differences. That is, unless one wanted to promote a certain ideology with the less than optimized test individuals and conditions. Most of the test results that are foisted upon us are those performed upon random individuals, not those that know how to listen and not just "hear". There is a BIG difference as far as i'm concerned.

Even within the ranks of "skilled listeners" you'll have variances as to what people can hear and what they listen for in terms of sonic cues and signatures. As such, if one wanted to make some type of "final statement" as to what was audible and what wasn't, you would have to assemble a very large group of individuals from all walks of life and go from there. At that point, one could start off with simple ( highly audible ) test differences and weed the crowd out from there. As the tests became harder, the "cream of the crop" would be left. At that point, we might be able to say that the average person off of the street will only make it from Point A up to point M in terms of audible discernment. Those that fell short of Point M would be considered to be below average in hearing and / or listening abilities. A select few might make it up to Point S, but anything beyond that would truly require excellent ears and trained listening skills. Beyond that point, it is possible to hear from point A to point Z under ideal conditions by a person with excellent hearing and listening skills. It would be these people that i would use as "guinea pigs" when trying to draw the line between what the human ear and brain is capable of detecting and processing in a linear manner. Does this make sense ?

This approach allows room for growth AND reduction based upon the individual. Obviously hearing and listening skills vary from person to person AND change over time. To me such testing would be logical and i might tend to believe the results a bit more.

If i had to pick and choose an individual to represent "audiophiles" as a group in terms of hearing acuity and listening skills, i would have gone with Enid Lumley circa the late 1970's and early 1980's. I have no doubt in my mind that she was a very skilled listener and had excellent hearing. I'm also 100% certain that she could hear things that i ( and probably most others ) can't. As such, her test results would give me a point of reference as to just how much one could hear and how much i was actually missing. Sean
>

Those that are administering the tests do not know what is being tested at the very specific time of the DBT, but that does not mean that there isn't some type of log or record that couldn't be taken of such an event by an outside source such as a computer, etc.. Sean
>