I hate to say this, but the protocol for Phase II is not scientific. "Seven
in a row" is not a significance test, and the criteria for having to be "in
a row" has no meaning in such a test which allows for the probability of
occasional error even when differences exist.
In addition, at least in the English version there is no discussion of how
the blinding was done, or how long / what type of musical excerpts were
heard. Moreover, the switching seems to be in the hands of somebody other
than the listeners (although this can only be implied).
Please don't interpret this to mean I believe the cables sounded different.
I am not a big believer in that ... in fact have always been pretty
conservative when it comes to cables. But it does illustrate the
difference between "publishing" a test for scrutiny and acceptance, and
simply alluding to "years of evidence" or "xxx ran seven tests which
That is why I recently have begun asking for specific references to the
tests alluded by some here supporting the use of quick-switch, comparative
DBT's for open-ended evaluation of audio components. Anything other than
specific tests that can be analyzed before acceptance is simply not adequate
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
Harry Lavo wrote:
> In addition, at least in the English version there is no discussion
> the blinding was done
Maybe this was in the French version: the photo of the guy inside a
giant paper bag seemed pretty self-explanatory.