This doesn't answer the question of why we can hear a difference in our systems under non-double blind conditions but refuse, in some cases, to believe that a double blind test can be setup that accurately tests our ability to detect a difference.

Surely it is not against the wit of man to for example create a test over several weeks that is still double blind?

Michael said: In other words, compared to a science experiment in a lab, the "measuring equipment" (our ears and associated brain psychology etc) is simply too unreliable for DBT hifi tests to be valid.

There seems to be a lot of double standards here. People will claim that they can compare cables/amps/CDplayers for example all day and that the differences are clear and obvious but then refuse to believe that the test is valid if they can't see which cable/amp/CDplayer is in the system. Or am I missing something? Or are we really so fallible? btw I think the people claiming to detect differences when there are none is simply due to noise in the system. As you try to detect a difference that is smaller and smaller noise will give you more and more error. In the case of trying to detect a zero its all noise so the results tell you that you have noise in the system whoop-de-do, doesn't invalidate anything. If the people claimed huge differences that is a problem.

As I said before I have participated in several display double blind (bizarre idea, blind test of displays ;->) tests and they have given some rewarding and sometimes surprising results.

Cheers

Jason