That's exactly what i've been saying!?
but furthermore,
both sighted and un-sighted tests are not just (or even mostly) about what you can hear?
You're trying to make uniform that which is entirely in flux? However strict a listening test maybe, the listener is always subject to infinite variability? If we start taking this to its logical conclusion, we would of course be discussing whether or not the cable actually exists. But redundant issues such as this are of no interest. I am primarily a feeling individual, and if something feels better, i will make no attempt to try and deconstruct the contributing factors other than for curiositys sake. To me it is wholly irrelevent and impossible. You're trying to prove something which is unprovable to me. And whether it is or isn't i have no interest in it whatsoever. Which draws me to the conclusion that a blind test serves no other purpose other than the actual pleasure derived in the pursuit of the method itself (which is as legitimate as any other method of passing the time), with a sideways glance out of the corner of ones eye, at the ultimate truth and the proof of objective reality. Its completely meaningless to me. Hence if something sounds, looks, smells, feels, tastes better, or is better due to operations at work within my organic structure which are truly incomprehensible, then the sum effect is still the same - it IS better? I have no desire to question the method nor the enumeration of the contributing factors and their constituent ingredients.