The argument for such tests is that if there's an audible difference, it should be detectable easily enough, even without any indication as to what is what (elimination of all bias and placebo effect). Failing that (the argument goes), any difference that was heard, was in fact imagined, due to various factors. But what are the arguments against double blind tests? Why do some of the people who claim to hear differences refuse to submit to such tests? I found this one: That one is incompatible with claims of "night and day" differences though. Can you think of more like it? I ask, because I feel there are many extremists in both camps (subjectivists vs. objectivists), and I (perhaps naively) hope to find arguments that can mitigate their differences.