Users familiar with Stereophile magazine recognize this debate from that publication. There was in fact an earnest attempt made by Stereo Review magazine, some 25 years ago (when it was good), to confirm/refute audible differences in cables. They used extremes of lamp cord and esoteric mega-buck cables. A-B-X blind format as I recall. All participants, from professional reviewers to neophytes, essentially agreed, prior to the tests, that the conditions were very well established and should produce reliable results. Result- only a single participant (out of 30+) could differentiate on any of the comparisons in any way that was even slightly statistically significant. And that result was likely itself a simple chance event.

What did the "believers" respond with? Attacked the test and testers, of course. Reminds me of a certain government administration that believes gut instinct over substantial objective evidence. But I digress...

Some editors at Stereophile, generally a quality publication IMHO, are now attacking the entire premise of double-blind tests. They use a very clever little approach that in any subjective matter the test necessarily measures the participant only and not the matter at hand. This is both specious and intellectually dishonest coming from some very bright people.

How, do you suppose, is the effectiveness of pain medication determined for various ailments? It is necessarily an entirely subjective test. Stereophile would say that you can only measure the tolerance and perception of the patient, and not the efficacy of any drug, which is absurd on its face. Individual variation among test subjects in both contexts are managed through SAMPLING SIZE. Repeat the same test under controlled conditions enought times and the personal differences wash-out.

If the believers were honest in their approach, and truly believed in the differences, they would be demanding the initiation of a large and rigorous double-blind study to prove themselves right. But, beware what you wish for. The French wine industry took-on the up-start Califorinians in the early 70's with such a test and the results caused many of their own heads to roll.

Sadly, I would bet the beleivers will stick to their mantra and continue to grope for rationalizations for their prejudices. The problem is that so much of their ego is now vested in that position ("I was not duped by marketing, I was not duped by marketing, I was not...") that they are unable to approach the question objectively.