I won't bother posting the link where people were tested at Harman sighted and then blind as you obviously will ignore it. Nor how it shows sight scrambled the order of preference while unsighted preferences were stable. Nor where their measurements are 86% effective at predictions of which speaker will be preferred. Or how the choices hold up with varied kinds of music. Some people get much satisfaction from how very special they are.

me x3 said:

 

castleofargh said:

 
is long term listening a factor in audio? the only way to verify is to test for it. empty conjectures are just that.
is abx stressful to people, that too can be tested. the first time you do an abx, you may not perform as well as you would after you've done it 50 times. so what's the answer to that questions? to try a given test and do 20 or 50 series over a few weeks. then look at the results and see if there is a pattern showing improvement. if there is, then you'd know that you need time to do a more significant abx test. but if you've done 3 and keep whining that abx is stressful, you're nothing but an annoying kid. not all question can be answered with a lazy method. if I reject abx because I need to learn how to do it effectively with minimum stress, then do I give up painting because the first 3 times I tried I made garbage? do I run away from sex because of how the first time was a lot of stress?
all I see are lame excuses and fallacies to justify being lazy and stick to comfy ignorance of sighted evaluations instead of actually sicking the truth.

Click to expand...

1/Preferring loudspeaker A over loudspeakers B, C and D on a blind test at a given moment in time, in a given room, with given recordings at given volume, doesn't objectively make A a better speaker than B, C and D.
 
2/Picking 1000 people and doing the same test on all of them then averaging the results to see what's the better speaker is of little use to the random individual in deterministic terms. You can be one of the minority who prefer speaker C for some reason.
 
3/You can train yourself for ABX and critical listening, but again I don't think that's the topic here. Stating preference is a subjective matter, and as such it could be labelled as being dishonest, sighted or blind. If Mr. reviewer state he prefers speaker A over speaker B in his room, with his music, his listening levels and his personal preferences, it doesn't matter much if he was blind or not when doing the test, his results are useful for him under those conditions that will eventually change.
4/Going blind doesn't make the test objective, it just makes it 1 variable less subjective.

Click to expand...

1/ and again, you get the result you're testing for.
if preference is being tested then preference you get. objective superiority will be answered way more accurately with measurements.
 
2/ if you test 1000people, you get some results for those 1000 people. not for you. if some statistical result can apply to you because you fit the profile of the group tested, so be it, but that might be very conditional.
 
3/  the dishonesty is not about someone sharing his opinion or explaining his taste. even the dumbest hardcore objectivist would respect that. everybody's entitled to have personal taste, personal opinions and to express them as such in a seemingly free country. you're clearly misunderstanding Olive and our intention here. I'm even more convinced of it because I so often agree with the way you think on the forum. 
the dishonesty we're talking about is when a guy uses a subjective experience and turns it into a play pretend objective review. "I feel therefore I know". describing how the device is, when all the guy actually knows is how he felt using the device without even bothering to try and shield himself a little from some of the most obvious and known biases. the dishonesty is how people treat everything audio related like it's art, unique, subjective, more than its components and objective qualities. but at the same time they can't stop defining everything in terms belonging to the lexical field of signal fidelity. which is purely objective and measurable. it is dishonest, it is nonsense, it is a paradox and it's dumb. they constantly run after both uniqueness and objectively identical sound at the same time pretending that there is no conflict at all and that taste is somehow a function of audio fidelity. it's a mentally hill hobby following antiquated methods and beliefs. the facts are that we can't judge objective data with feelings, we can't avoid biases by sheer willpower, we can't listen with our eyes and still say it's only a matter of sound. that is dishonesty.
 
 
4/ agreed. and as such removing any potential bias is a potential step toward truth. not absolute truth. 
  now when removing sight we actually deal with plenty of biases, some of which we may not even be aware of. so it seems to me like a logical requirement for any serious research.

me x3 said:

  Some people will always listen to heavy metal music while some people will always listen to opera.
 

Click to expand...

 
I like both.
 
Heavy metal and opera (especially Wagner) are incredibly similar.  

hotice said:

 

Click to expand...

 You cannot objectively assume the variables listed to be constant. It's not that far from assuming sight won't change your preference.

Click to expand...

 
Oh, no, it's far, and the whole point of these discussions.
Someone claiming "A is night and day better than B", then either failing miserably in pick apart A from B in an AB test, or, MUCH more commonly, vanishing like vampires at dawn, as soon as AB tests are mentioned.
 

 You can prefer A at certain moment in time because you liked A bass more and you were testing for bass, then prefer B because it makes vocals stand out more, then prefer A because it has more natural tonal balance for the recording used, then prefer B for having more natural balance for a different recording. And that is far from A = B

Click to expand...

 
As I said, if varying time, you evaluation function changes its value, it means such function depends on time.
And if considering A vs. B as a +- function around zero, and the integral over time is close to zero, then it simply means that according to your evaluation function, A and B are indistinguishable.
That has nothing to do with AB tests being unreliable.
On the contrary, when the same subject in a sighted test claimed that "A is night and day better than B", totally proves the biasing effects of the sight.

Click to expand...

You cannot assume mood to be constant for instance, and even if constant during the test it will change latter. Same for the other variables.
 
Your model is mathematically correct but fail to represent the real problem. In other words, it's not a good model.
Imagine you have two daughters, one is 8 and she's named Carla, the other, Linda is 12 years old. You might like Carla's fun personality and Linda's love for music. You can't choose which one you prefer, and that's not because they are indistinguishable.
Then you have a volvo and a ferrari, you might prefer the ferrari for the track but the volvo to travel with your family. It's possible that over time you can't say which one you prefer, because they are different and your preference is conditional. As it normally happens with loudspeakers.
 
If someone on a sighted test claim "A is night and day better than B" I'll ask what does he/she mean?
If someone on a blind test claim "A is night and day better than B" I'll ask what does he/she mean?
He's stating preference, his preference could be in line with mine or not because preference is subjective.

castleofargh said:

 
1/ and again, you get the result you're testing for.
if preference is being tested then preference you get. objective superiority will be answered way more accurately with measurements.
 
2/ if you test 1000people, you get some results for those 1000 people. not for you. if some statistical result can apply to you because you fit the profile of the group tested, so be it, but that might be very conditional.
 
3/  the dishonesty is not about someone sharing his opinion or explaining his taste. even the dumbest hardcore objectivist would respect that. everybody's entitled to have personal taste, personal opinions and to express them as such in a seemingly free country. you're clearly misunderstanding Olive and our intention here. I'm even more convinced of it because I so often agree with the way you think on the forum. 
the dishonesty we're talking about is when a guy uses a subjective experience and turns it into a play pretend objective review. "I feel therefore I know". describing how the device is, when all the guy actually knows is how he felt using the device without even bothering to try and shield himself a little from some of the most obvious and known biases. the dishonesty is how people treat everything audio related like it's art, unique, subjective, more than its components and objective qualities. but at the same time they can't stop defining everything in terms belonging to the lexical field of signal fidelity. which is purely objective and measurable. it is dishonest, it is nonsense, it is a paradox and it's dumb. they constantly run after both uniqueness and objectively identical sound at the same time pretending that there is no conflict at all and that taste is somehow a function of audio fidelity. it's a mentally hill hobby following antiquated methods and beliefs. the facts are that we can't judge objective data with feelings, we can't avoid biases by sheer willpower, we can't listen with our eyes and still say it's only a matter of sound. that is dishonesty.
 
 
4/ agreed. and as such removing any potential bias is a potential step toward truth. not absolute truth. 
  now when removing sight we actually deal with plenty of biases, some of which we may not even be aware of. so it seems to me like a logical requirement for any serious research.

Click to expand...

With respect to 3/
Sean Olive says in the comments:
" The word “dishonest” was used to describe the sighted test methodology itself. It fails in measuring the true sound quality of the product due to the influence of listeners "
 
Those are his words, not mine, and that's the way I understand his arcticle.
I agree with him, but also note that going blind won't fix the thing. The test will still fail in measuring the true sound quality due to the influence of the listeners.
 
I don't think you can use listeners to seek for the true sound quality, less so when the true sound quality is objectively speaking a moving target.
Change the volume and the target moves, change the room, the target moves, change the mastering, the target moves.
 
I agree that going blind is a good way of getting one tricky variable out of the game, and thus it's a logical requirement for serious statistical research like Olive's.
On a side note, I even close my eyes when listening to music in front of the speakers, or turn all the lights off to avoid biasing myself looking at the speakers and disturbing the perceived soundstage. But as I've said before, when it comes to establishing preference, I don't care if the reviewer was blind or not when testing, the result will be purely subjective to me anyway.
 
Blinded Tyll Hertsens won't be able to measure the true sound quality with his senses. So the test won't became "honest" in Olive's terms.

Oh dear, the same old tired and nonsensical objections based on the same old tired, nonsensical and flawed logic. For example:
 
1. Quote:

cupofwrathcom said:

  Its very hard to remove variables when dealing with something as complex as human perception.

Click to expand...

 
No it's not, it's trivially easy! You think for example that the simple act of closing your eyes is "very hard"? That's obviously a nonsensical thing to state.
 
2. Quote:

me x3 said:

  So yeah... sighted testing can lead to the wrong conclusions, but blind testing too.

Click to expand...

 
Falling out of bed can cause death, but so too can falling from the top of a skyscraper. Which would you rather do?
 
Again, a completely nonsensical, illogical argument. So nonsensical and illogical, that it can only be viewed as an extremely weak excuse or some form of severe mental deficiency. So let's look at those examples again but this time with a little common sense:
 
1. Although it's trivially easy to remove some variables, it's commonly extremely hard or even impossible to remove absolutely all the other variables, leaving what's being tested as the only variable. This means that the vast majority of blind testing and probably even the majority of laboratory controlled blind testing is flawed, which brings us directly to our second example:
 
2. We do the best we can. Extremely few tests are ever absolutely perfect but if truth/honesty is to figure in the conclusion at all, then logically we absolutely have to pick the test with the fewest flaws. Saying both blind and sighted tests have flaws and therefore what's the point of bothering with blind tests ignores the fact that blind tests are almost guaranteed to have fewer/less severe flaws than sighted tests and therefore the chances of an accurate conclusion increase dramatically. Just as the chances of dying from falling are dramatically increased if you fall off a skyscraper rather than out of bed!
 
Quote:

me x3 said:

  Then you have a volvo and a ferrari, you might prefer the ferrari for the track but the volvo to travel with your family. It's possible that over time you can't say which one you prefer, because they are different and your preference is conditional.

Click to expand...

 
You seem to be missing a basic point of logic here, as well as missing a main point of blind testing, both of which have nothing to do with subjectivity!
 
Before it's possible to have a preference for a Ferrari over a Volvo (or vice versa) there obviously has to be a detectable difference between them. Or, to invert the statement, what possible basis can there be for any preference if both cars were absolutely identical/indistinguishable? In audio terms, what preference can there be between say two different cables if they are audibly indistinguishable? The answer of course is; that preference must be based on something other than the cables' audio performance. This is where blind testing comes in, the logical step which is missing from your posts and analogy, because blind testing will objectively tell us whether or not there is any audible difference and therefore whether audio performance can play any part in any subsequent (or existing) subjective preference. This isn't rocket science, just basic logic/common sense!
 
G

spruce music said:

 
No CDs sent in the mail.  Sorry until six months ago it was on the web.  Mr. Nousaine passed away in March of this year so his web page of articles is gone.
 
He built a black box, that black box either did nothing, or added distortion to the signal.  A level known to be definitely audible in quick switching ABX testing.  People were allowed to take the box home, connect it up and listen.  Any way they chose to do so.  For as long a time as they chose to do so.  Of course they were told not to open the box or test the box with instrumentation.  Quite a number of these (don't remember the exact count) were sent out with audiophiles with good hearing.  Most returned them between 6 and 11 weeks.  A few kept them several months.  You were to choose when you felt you knew, whether the box was straight thru or one that altered the sound.   The number of correct responses was very nearly exactly the level of chance. 
 
He later had those same people come and do a short term ABX test where they get to listen and immediately switch.  The same box was being switched in or out.  I forget if it was 100% or just close to it that now scored better than a 95% confidence level.  He proceeded another couple of rounds where the amount of distortion was decreased.  I forget the exact amount, but with quick switch ABX these same people who didn't reliably hear the distortion as a group over weeks were able to hear it and reliably identify distortion at maybe 1/5 the level of the box they took home for long term audition.
 
Further tests have been done to see the effects of audition length and time switching.  Short segments and rapid switching give the most discriminating results.  Lengthening the audition and most especially lengthening the time required to switch reduce the acuity of the test procedure.  Audiophiles always feel much better about the long term listening.  They grow confident with time especially sighted testing.  That confidence doesn't seem to translate into better results in testing.  
 
Your ideas aren't new to anyone, I have read them dozens and dozens of times.  Results when you don't know what you are listening to don't support your ideas. 

Click to expand...

 
You're asking me to trust your explanation of a test that supposedly happened the way you say and was supposedly done in a scientfic way. For example, the short term listening equipment and environment might have been much higher quality and superior to peoples home systems. How did the experiment control for this? Also what sort of distortion was added to the signal and for how long? Some people can develop preferences for certain types of distortion over time (like tubes).
 
I agree that sighted tests are nonsense. I also believe that a lot of high end stuff is like rolex watches in that it provides no better accuracy over less expensive stuff.
 
My point is simply that a lot of these blind tests are unscientific in that they fail to fully account for the complexities of how we listen to music. Sound like vision can be fooled, but it can also be very acute, and we can have preferences and familiarity over time.
 
People develop preferences for things over time. Its just like which pair of pants is more comforable, a or b. Quickly trying something on isn't as accurate as the preference over time. Its because one pair of pants feels better more consistently than the other. That's not to say there isn't an emotional part to our preferences, but saying its all in our heads is pretty ridiculous.
 
People make adjustments to their audio systems and settings over time. They move stuff around and change equalizer settings until it feels right. This is common sense. The fact that things are NOT always noticeable right away or short term doesn't prove that adjustments over time are all psychological. We gravitate towards certain preferences, and sometimes its not objectivly higher fidelity, which is another issue in itself. The variability of music has a lot to do with this.
 
OBVIOUSLY there are levels of distortion and differences of sound that no one can tell the difference. A lot of companies probably have good data on this. 
 
One last point, there is anti loitering  device that emits a high pitch sound that is unpleasant to teenagers because they can hear higher frequencies than adults. However its not loud enough that they know its there. It just makes them unpleasant. We can be influenced by things that we can't necessarily pick out as obvious.

me x3 said:

  With respect to 3/
Sean Olive says in the comments:
" The word “dishonest” was used to describe the sighted test methodology itself. It fails in measuring the true sound quality of the product due to the influence of listeners "
 
Those are his words, not mine, and that's the way I understand his arcticle.
I agree with him, but also note that going blind won't fix the thing. The test will still fail in measuring the true sound quality due to the influence of the listeners.
 
I don't think you can use listeners to seek for the true sound quality, less so when the true sound quality is objectively speaking a moving target.
Change the volume and the target moves, change the room, the target moves, change the mastering, the target moves.
 
I agree that going blind is a good way of getting one tricky variable out of the game, and thus it's a logical requirement for serious statistical research like Olive's.
On a side note, I even close my eyes when listening to music in front of the speakers, or turn all the lights off to avoid biasing myself looking at the speakers and disturbing the perceived soundstage. But as I've said before, when it comes to establishing preference, I don't care if the reviewer was blind or not when testing, the result will be purely subjective to me anyway.
 
Blinded Tyll Hertsens won't be able to measure the true sound quality with his senses. So the test won't became "honest" in Olive's terms.

Click to expand...

 I close my eyes anytime I try a new device and people make fun of me at meets and audio shows.
 
Doc Olive's article was about sighted vs blind listening test. listening test!
he's not saying that blind test is the objective answer to life the universe and everything. he's just showing how sighted tests have way more flaws than blind tests and shouldn't be the audio standard of assessing audio qualities.
you've been moving that to argue that it's still a listening test and not a spectrometer. you're right of course, but I can only circle back to my point in previous posts: you set a test to answer a specific question! if the question is about human hearing or human preferences, there is no avoiding listening tests. if you want FR and disto values, all use a mic. the right tool for the right job.
 
the point is that sighted tests are not really listening tests. or at least very bad ones. almost everybody knows that and knows about the potential biases involved, yet most reviewers and most audiophiles keep answering every question that way, and somehow pretend to be justified in doing so.

Here we go, another person using words like "logic" and "scientific" to try to sound smart.
 
"Originally Posted by cupofwrathcom View Post
 
Its very hard to remove variables when dealing with something as complex as human perception.
 
No it's not, it's trivially easy! You think for example that the simple act of closing your eyes is "very hard"? That's obviously a nonsensical thing to state."
 
 
The context of this statement had nothing to do with sighted testing. No one here is even saying sighted testing is a good idea. Everyone knows that the senses can be affected by mood and and expectation fatigue attention span etc. If you think as your statement suggests, that human hearing is exactly like a sensor on a machine (being completely on or completely off) then you aren't a very smart person.
 
People who understand scientific principles know that the conclusions that can drawn from any experiment(s) are limited by the design and implementation of the experiment. Human hearing is too complex to emulate with a machine. There needs to be better BLIND experiments that can account for long term perception before people can say at what level "it all sounds the same".
 
Saying it all "sounds the same" isn't a very scientific statement anyways.

gregorio said:

2. Quote:

me x3 said:

  So yeah... sighted testing can lead to the wrong conclusions, but blind testing too.

Click to expand...

 
Falling out of bed can cause death, but so too can falling from the top of a skyscraper. Which would you rather do?
Me x3: It seems you aren't good with analogies. To make that work you need two situations that actually cause death, then ask me which one I would choose. Stating preference, blinded or sighted is subjective, period.
 
Again, a completely nonsensical, illogical argument. So nonsensical and illogical, that it can only be viewed as an extremely weak excuse or some form of severe mental deficiency. So let's look at those examples again but this time with a little common sense:
Me x3: I guess you'll say that until you finally understand what I'm saying, it's ok. It normally works like that.
 
1. Although it's trivially easy to remove some variables, it's commonly extremely hard or even impossible to remove absolutely all the other variables, leaving what's being tested as the only variable. This means that the vast majority of blind testing and probably even the majority of laboratory controlled blind testing is flawed, which brings us directly to our second example:
 
2. We do the best we can. Extremely few tests are ever absolutely perfect but if truth/honesty is to figure in the conclusion at all, then logically we absolutely have to pick the test with the fewest flaws. Saying both blind and sighted tests have flaws and therefore what's the point of bothering with blind tests ignores the fact that blind tests are almost guaranteed to have fewer/less severe flaws than sighted tests and therefore the chances of an accurate conclusion increase dramatically. Just as the chances of dying from falling are dramatically increased if you fall off a skyscraper rather than out of bed!
 
Me x3: I'm one of those who think blind tests are more accurate because they are 1 variable less subjective. For some purposes they can be very useful, a must I would say, for other purposes they are pretty much the same as sighted tests. Think about it, it might take you 3 minutes, few weeks or some years, I can wait.
 
Quote:

me x3 said:

  Then you have a volvo and a ferrari, you might prefer the ferrari for the track but the volvo to travel with your family. It's possible that over time you can't say which one you prefer, because they are different and your preference is conditional.

Click to expand...

 
You seem to be missing a basic point of logic here, as well as missing a main point of blind testing, both of which have nothing to do with subjectivity!
 
Me x3: You miss the point my friend. Sean Olive proved people change their loudspeaker preferences when doing sighted and blind tests. As expected.
We all agree our eyes can trick us. The title is "The dishonesty of sighted listening tests"
We all agree, sighted tests are dishonest. Obvious stuff at this point, except maybe for those who still burn in things forever and clean cables with alcohol for cleaner sound.
 
Sean Olive says in the comments:
" The word “dishonest” was used to describe the sighted test methodology itself. It fails in measuring the true sound quality of the product due to the influence of listeners "
 
Based on Olive's words, I've said blind tests are dishonest as well, because they also fail in measuring the true sound quality of the product due to the influence of the listener. And we are talking about blind testing to establish preference, not blind testing to tell things apart since Olive's test here was about preference.
 
Before it's possible to have a preference for a Ferrari over a Volvo (or vice versa) there obviously has to be a detectable difference between them. Or, to invert the statement, what possible basis can there be for any preference if both cars were absolutely identical/indistinguishable? In audio terms, what preference can there be between say two different cables if they are audibly indistinguishable? The answer of course is; that preference must be based on something other than the cables' audio performance. This is where blind testing comes in, the logical step which is missing from your posts and analogy, because blind testing will objectively tell us whether or not there is any audible difference and therefore whether audio performance can play any part in any subsequent (or existing) subjective preference. This isn't rocket science, just basic logic/common sense!
 
G

Click to expand...

Your behaviour can be labelled as bot-like.
If a comment (that you don't necessarily understand) for some reason happens to trigger your anti-subjectivism shield, you start talking about indistinguishable stuff, cables and so on. In the exact same manner as the previous you-like who started talking about ABX. Try to reset your trigger and read again what I've said, maybe you'll understand this time.
 
I've studied physics at university, I've designed electronics, I've measured headphones, speakers, amplifiers and so on... You're not talking with a random cable guy.

castleofargh said:

   I close my eyes anytime I try a new device and people make fun of me at meets and audio shows.

 
Doc Olive's article was about sighted vs blind listening test. listening test!
he's not saying that blind test is the objective answer to life the universe and everything. he's just showing how sighted tests have way more flaws than blind tests and shouldn't be the audio standard of assessing audio qualities.
you've been moving that to argue that it's still a listening test and not a spectrometer. you're right of course, but I can only circle back to my point in previous posts: you set a test to answer a specific question! if the question is about human hearing or human preferences, there is no avoiding listening tests. if you want FR and disto values, all use a mic. the right tool for the right job.
 
the point is that sighted tests are not really listening tests. or at least very bad ones. almost everybody knows that and knows about the potential biases involved, yet most reviewers and most audiophiles keep answering every question that way, and somehow pretend to be justified in doing so.

Click to expand...

I've pointed out that blind tests are dishonest according to Olive's use of the term. Which is trivial.
But it seems some people can't live with the fact of blind tests not being perfect for some purposes in the same way some people can't live with the fact of different cables sounding the same.
 
Sighted tests are listening tests, could be good or bad depending on the listener.
Blind tests are listening tests as well, and could be good or bad depending on the listener.
(when you plan to 'measure the true sound quality')
 
I wouldn't say very bad or very good, I would say blind testing is 1 variable less subjective.

Blind ABX testing of audio components isn't a bad idea but its not a proper scientific test. A lot of these tests are nothing more than demonstrations.
 
The issue is the audibility of different kinds of distortions. At what level is something transparent? Obviously that depends on the other equipment and the listener over time.
 
A proper experiment should use all reference grade stuff and test people's sensitivity to changes both short term and long term. It would also cost a fortune.
 
A short term test might be a black box that rapidly changes the signal to see if the listener notices it.
 
A long term test might be a black box where the listener can choose between different levels of distortion (higher medium and lower). THen this process repeats over time until it becomes clear  they can't hear a difference.
 
Then you still have to deal with the issue of different kinds of distortion.
 
My point is simply that these little magazine demonstrations of ABX product comparisons aren't really scientific. Some expensive gear could be junk anyways.
 
These people running around saying stuff like "its all the same" and "science proves it" aren't really as smart or logical as they think they are. They are trying to present their suspicions and loose statements as fact and then trolling people who disagree.

I think there should be a thread about the potential issues of blind testing and how blind testing can be done properly instead of this. It's easy to see why sighted listening tests can be dishonest or just simply inaccurate, it's no big news. It has been discussed to death here. But blind tests can be counter productive as well (which is not often mentioned here) and saying "just blind test it" is easier to be said than done. There are way less information about how you can mess up a blind test unintentionally. Discussing the limitations of blind tests would be more interesting than stating the (rather obvious) limitations of sighted testing again and again and again...

vnandor said:

  I think there should be a thread about the potential issues of blind testing and how blind testing can be done properly instead of this. It's easy to see why sighted listening tests can be dishonest or just simply inaccurate, it's no big news. It has been discussed to death here. But blind tests can be counter productive as well (which is not often mentioned here) and saying "just blind test it" is easier to be said than done. There are way less information about how you can mess up a blind test unintentionally. Discussing the limitations of blind tests would be more interesting than stating the (rather obvious) limitations of sighted testing again and again and again...

Click to expand...

Yea, maybe the OP was hoping someone would argue in favor of sighted testing, but sorry that's not going to happen. A lot of us are saying that blind testing doesn't automatically equal good science.

 "blind testing doesn't automatically equal good science"
sometimes sighted tests will return the right answer, measurements can fail, and statistical significance doesn't equal certainty. dunno if captain obvious or healthy skepticism? where are we going with this?
 
I have nothing against discussing the limitations of any given method and the ways to improve them. but let's be practical for a moment. how many audiophiles do you imagine have conducted more that 5 statistically significant series of blind tests on any subject? I'd be genuinely amazed if 0.1% of the people on headfi set up even minimalist blind tests to answer even one question anytime they get a new device. on the other hand, how many audiophiles do sighted evaluations of their devices and trust to some level reviews and feedbacks born from sighted tests? how about everybody? seems about the right proportion
so if you want to take each type of blind test and discuss the risks, limitations, and requirements, go ahead make one or several topics for that. I'll be one of the 4 people interested. but it's way more relevant for the hobby, to push awareness and skepticism on the matters of sighted tests. because it's a weak method and it's the one used everywhere and every day to pull the most ludicrous kinds of claims out of a hat.