But what is also a no brainer is that this is an entertainment industry and that the equipment tested is purchased just as much for its aesthetic value as for its performance. People buy what they like, and sound quality is obviously important but so is looks. I guess that doesn't really address the psychology of the test and whether there is validity in it or not. Still, it just doesn't matter to me. If you want an unbiased answer, do a blind test. To me, the people that argue about this are wasting their time.

Being a student with debt, why spend more If it isnt better.

I think the best argument for the validity of ABX is a test done some 20+ years ago (I remember the article but unfortunately don't have the reference).

A bunch of golden ears participated in an amplifier comparison and, no surprise, null results. They couldn't distinguish their ass from their elbows, with one exception.

The exception was J Gordon Holt - he hit like 19 out of 20 or something reasonably similar. That told me something - that a guy who was never accused of being full of shit as far as I know showed he could walk the walk, unlike his contemporaries who just talk the talk.

Now he's a crafty old bastard, and he may have found a reflection in a window someplace that allowed him to see the signal input lights on the amp front plates or something like that. But assuming it was on the up-and-up I would claim that it's a clear demonstration that ABX does not obsecure the details as claimed by its detractors - you just have to be as good as you claim to be when somebody is watching (as opposed to all the crazy claims they make in reviews of stuff they hear when nobody is watching).

The double blind test is a way to put a reasonably objective metric on a subjective human evaluation. It is a way to ask things about percieved quality without exposing any details that might affect the outcome of the test. The idea is so obviously simple, I don't see anyone objecting to it. Maybe some of the mechanics of the test procedure can be flawed, like the switching device or whatever. But the basic concept of blind testing is good. The information it provides is useful.

Then again, if a person chooses a product because he digs it, that's cool too. I don't give a rat's tail if he can hear the quality difference or if it's partly aesthetics or maybe he's just keeping up with the Joneses. The choice may be purely psychological. Imagine choosing a sex partner by blind testing; It's a rather risque example, but I think you get my point. Maybe that isn't the way most people would prefer to choose their mate.

As for reviewers and "golden ears," I can't be sure about their tastes or their motives, so that's a different story. We talked about that in the thread called "Reviewers - Is it possible for them to be unbiased?."

But as for the simple question of whether blind tests are useful, I'd have to say they obviously are, because they're a way of introducing a degree of objectivity. It's additional information, that's all.

I don't see it as a competition and there I think is the issue. I see it as a design tool; and that is why it needs to be addressed.
Processing sensory input to the CC is so little understood and lacking in a firm basis for making predictions that I am sure in the future the whole concept of ABX testing will be revamped. The best at this research cannot even agree on threshold limits. These tests are rudimentary at best and those who accuse skeptics of the methodology of being reactionists are themselves reactionists.
The sad part is depending on this type of testing to make design descisions will once again; like perfect sound forever set us back on the road to great and natural music reproduction.

Now, they will be other factors such as how it looks, the manufacturer's name, what your friends like, etc. that can change how something sounds to you. MEasurement tools can't capture those. thsoe would be the psychological factors. AS Wayne said, it really doesnlt matter why yu like something. Just have fun with it.
thanks
-akhilesh