It seems to me if you were to define "audible difference," it would be what could be heard in a well-run DBT in an acoustically dead room. Of course, this oversimplifies the problem of directionality of speakers. You might have to take sampling points in different parts of the room.

I think that "if people had trouble telling apart even speakers, cartridges and preamps using blind testing, this would help prove the point of view that" there were no audible differences between the things being measured.

Let us start with cables. Put on Romex, 16ga speaker wire, and $100/foot silver cable.

First, do you hear an audible difference??? In not, then the issue of quality is irrelevant!! If you DO hear a difference, then the rest is subjective as you point out.

But, if you do NOT hear a difference, you can save a lot of money!

(Of course, older people like myself may not hear a difference, while younger people may. This kind of factor along with statisitcal variation and room environment have to be taken into account in a well-run DBT.)

To say that DBT's are "useless," is, wellll, is just silly.

I said...

"If the above tests show that people can consistently hear differences between speakers, cartridges and even amps and preamp, then this would be a mark for the double blind testers."

I am only suggesting that if people couldn't hear a difference between speakers in a double blind test then maybe the tests are not accurate for this kind of thing. That's all I said. I have no idea how a DBT would come out using speakers. Don't be so combative and try understanding the post before you jump to conclusions.

You say...

"I think that "if people had trouble telling apart even speakers, cartridges and preamps using blind testing, this would help prove the point of view that" there were no audible differences between the things being measured."

So the test must be accurate no matter what the circumstances? So if in a double blind test people could not tell the difference between water and wine then there must be no difference?

Makes sense to me.

No. Absolutely not.This is a binary choice. 1=There is a difference, 0=There is not a difference. The choices are not A=It sounds good, B=It sounds bad, C=There is a difference but I like both systems, D=..... Quality is not an issue with DBT, only a detectable difference.

"If I gave the impresssion that I personally required expected results I have mis-lead readers of the post."

Well, you said: "You get results that make your hair stand on end. Solid State amps suddenly sound best; CD's beat vinyl etc." Perhaps I misread this, but it sure sounds like you expect tubes to sound better than SS and vinyl better than CD's. This was the waving red flag that caused my perhaps impolite response. What sounds best is a highly individualistic, very subjective concept and each and every serious audiophile will have a different answer.

"Since there would have to be a certified difference between components to make the test of any use...."

Again, no. If the difference was so large that there is general agreement upon casual listening, there is no need for a test. You are again making the mistake that a DBT is to determine which is best. It is not. The value of a DBT is to determine if a difference exists at all.

"Shootouts; well I can see some value because after all; there you are truth be told, I mean at some point you have to race the horse."

This is pure opinion and my opinion differs. My speakers are designed for a very specific niche. When I demo them, I choose conditions that present the speakers in their best light. I choose amps, program material, SPL levels, etc. In any valid shootout, the conditions for all speakers have to be the same. This gives the real potential for all the speakers to sound crappy. No, it's best to listen to good audio equipment it a proper environment, then move on to the next room with a properly optimized environment.

Bob

First, blind testing is useful because it can eliminate the inputs from the senses not in question.

Your example of not being able to tell any difference between water and wine is a good one. In this case one is talking about what you can “taste” as opposed to “hear”.

So lets look at that, lets say by blind testing, you gradually diluted real red wine with tap water and you do this progressively until the people say there is no difference between it and water half of the time.
Now, at this dilution, the question is since there is no statistical correlation one way or the other, does this mean it is the same as tap water?
Also, what if your one of the people who can still tell there is wine present even though most can’t?

Statistically speaking, in the first question, it means that in that group, there was no actual correlation and so for that group (not individuals), there is statistically no “taste” difference.

Allowing the subjects to “see” the shade of the liquid would certainly produce a vastly higher positive because they could also “see” that the water is slightly “pink”, giving them another mental data point for the subjective judgement.
Going further, if they watched the dispensing process they would “know” even more about what they were tasting and only those daydreaming would get it wrong.

This part is what’s wrong about “not” blind testing, you include many other inputs other than just “what you hear” and one cannot remove that subconscious bias, one can only test “blind” where you cut off from those other inputs.

So what if your one of the people in that group that could reliably tell which was wine or water?
You have (statistically) a greater sensitivity than the group had, but if one continued to dilute it further, you would reach a dilution where you could not tell which was which.
At that point, even for you, there would then be no taste difference even though there were still X molecules of wine in the water.
On the other hand, if you were allowed to see the water’s color or you watched it being diluted and distributed, you could still “taste” which was wine.

Also, in medicine were big money is at stake, it is well known that “doing anything” can produce a placebo reaction. Taking a “sugar pill” that is thought to be helpful medicine causes a positive outcome between ¼ and 1/3 of the time. It is the act of “doing something” thought to have a specific outcome, that causes a false positive.
In the case of drug testing, progress was VERY slow until blind testing was used to compare the result of the test drug against the placebo while no one knew which was which.

In audio, big money or life and death is not the issue and in some ways getting to the bottom of things would not improve sales figures, so it is popular to cite the approach as flawed. I suppose it really is flawed too if sales is the measure of success and you make costly hifi trinkets

I would put it more like this.
IF you can’t hear any difference between X and Y with your ears alone, when not knowing which was which ahead of time (blind), what are you really “hearing” when the differences are then audible “with” prior knowledge (not blind)?

Your looking at the wine and watching it being dispensed that’s all..

Tom Danley