I think you're misunderstanding me. The fact that you do indeed say "there is something new in the system," means that they are much more likely to look for, and even subconsciously fabricate, perceptions.
Also, let's not forget that the test is still subjective because it's not double blind. You, as the administrator of the test, still have access to the equipment and thus can still inject subjectivity into the methodology. On top of that, the test isn't ABX, so it's impossible to tell whether or not they could reliably tell which is which during the test.
I'm not playing "every single card trying to deny that cable have any effect at all [sic]". I'm trying to show you how your methodology about determining whether or not cables do or do not have any effect at all is flawed. Sure I want to investigate the matter, but not in a haphazard, informal, and subjective manner. That's not gonna do anything other than obfuscate results.
Also, let's not forget that the test is still subjective because it's not double blind. You, as the administrator of the test, still have access to the equipment and thus can still inject subjectivity into the methodology. On top of that, the test isn't ABX, so it's impossible to tell whether or not they could reliably tell which is which during the test.
I'm not playing "every single card trying to deny that cable have any effect at all [sic]". I'm trying to show you how your methodology about determining whether or not cables do or do not have any effect at all is flawed. Sure I want to investigate the matter, but not in a haphazard, informal, and subjective manner. That's not gonna do anything other than obfuscate results.












