Blind Listening Comparison

[microstrip]

I'm doubtful there is anyone on WBF who has ever conducted a blind test that would meet your criteria of "proper."

That, however, in my opinion, does not invalidate the use of less rigorous unsighted listening tests as a likely, or at least potentially, more useful evaluation tool than a similar evaluation done sighted.

Manufacturers use unsighted evaluations in making decisions as well. I've read here of Emile at Taiko doing so. Lukas at Lampizator discussed how they used unsighted listening to decide upon different resistors for the Horizon. And, Mike Moffit of Schitt when evaluating different DAC circuits.

I'm sure none of them followed a procedure that would meet the standards of a peer reviewed scientific journal, but yet they still find it useful.

You are addressing professionals, that carry proper tests in professional teams with adequate documentation and analysis. It is their life and source of income, not their hobby in the free hours.

Please go on promoting the idea that these vague and undefined tests that no one wants to even describe are valuable. I am skeptical, YMMV.

 

[COF]

IMO it is confirmation bias to believe in the results of blind tests when we know that these tests are not relevant in the high end.

"we know?"

How can blind testing be irrelevant for High End audio? The only reason I could see for such a statement is if somehow high end audio existed in some special bubble, where listeners were immune to the well known influences of human bias, and that therefore bias controls are irrelevant. But since that isn't the case...what could that comment mean?

Could you please clarify? Thanks.

Please read for example the Shunyata articles on power cables and a good text book on grounding, such as the last edition of Ralph Morrison "Grounding and Shielding Techniques in Instrumentation" - you would be able to understand why in real world, using current equipment audiophile power cables can make a difference. We have been debating power cables for long, do a search in our past threads if you enjoy the subject.

The problem with such recommendations is that someone can say "go read all this stuff" and if you come to a different conclusion the reply can be "well, you've misunderstood it and wasted your time." That's why it makes more sense to give at least some argument in your own understanding, of what you believe those references can establish. And if it's compelling, that at least makes some case that one's time wouldn't be wasted chasing whatever intensive recommendations someone else is making.

For instance, Shunyata makes a show of producing actual measurements. (And people often point to "did you see how they measured differences when their product is used for medical equipment???)

Except, what they aren't doing is demonstrating their cables actually "work" to cause the sonic changes so often claimed for the cables - that is demonstrate either through measurements that the signal from an audio device has changed in ways we know to be audible, or that anyone has passed tests identifying this effect of their cables, when controlling for sighted bias.

Skeptics point out that the "noise" so many of these products claim to reduce is already well handled by most competently designed audio products, which EXPECT 'dirty power' and their design removes such distortion. That's why an expensive AC cable shouldn't make a difference in most such cases. In order to address this critique, Shunyata can't just show their cable reduces distortion when plugged in to an AC outlet or whatever. They should be able to show - with the type of evidence I mentioned - that their cables audibly improve the signal FROM an audio device.

I may certainly have missed this evidence and if anyone has it, could you please provide a link?

 

[Ron Resnick]

But would you acknowledge that it's at least reasonable for someone else to be skeptical of what you might believe regarding cables?

Of course! But I am not so arrogant as to think that just because I do not hear differences, there are no differences to be heard. I fully accept that other people may hear differences I simply do not hear. Different people are sensitive to different things.

Believe me, I wish I did not hear differences between power cords! I recently was very surprised at what a very expensive Kabala-Sosna power cord did to the sound of a CD player. I preferred the more neutral and much cheaper Iconoclast Belden BAV power cable.

It seems in so many audiophile forums "Everything Makes A Difference" is the default, so you have people claiming everything under the sun "changes the sound" but a skeptical opinion is often taken as some sort of intrusion or muckraking or indicative of a closed mind etc.

I come from an amateur radio background, so, vis-à-vis this hobby of audio, I am burdened with actually knowing a little bit about basic electronics, grounding and RF theory and practice. You might be surprised that I am pretty skeptical of a lot of the claims in our hobby as well.

 

[Gregadd]

Oh

You could certainly have been clearer. The only reason this conversation continuded is that you've been all over the place trying to find something I wrote deserving of your initial sarcasm and critique. But you haven't been able to find it, falling back on strawmen as needed.

I never claimed my own tests extrapolate to the general public; I've been explicit about that. So raising that complaint had no substance.

But then you asked if I would just accept your claim to hear differences (presumably between AC cables) and I answered why I wouldn't. You didn't really address my reasoning.

You tried to put your sighted evaluations on the same level as my blind tests:

"That makes my sighted test as valid as your blind test."

I've given the argument as to why that wouldn't be the case. If you are not controlling for well known variables like sighted bias and I am (and you can't find a fault in my test procedure), then..no...your sighted test is not on the same footing as the method I used to reach my conclusion.

You also tried to poke holes in my blind test evaluation, and I answered that critique.

But now you've gone back to raising points that has already been established as something I never claimed, and so it doesn't point to anything wrong in what I posted.

Aren't we, then, in the end....actually in agreement?

I am not being clear. Then let me be trying

While double blind tests are the gold standard, that doesn't rule out single blind tests as informative.

We never have perfect knowledge, so all inferences are about scaling confidence to the level of evidence we have.

Remember that double-blind testing mostly arose for situations in which the experimenter was in a position to exchange or influence the information in the test (and visa versa). Some single blind tests can be set up so that variable is less likely.
(I've managed a few such single-blind tests, I believe).

I raise a glass in cheer to you, for attempting a blind test. That at least shows a willingness to truly test your hearing...rather than always doing so under conditions in which you are "peeking."

Yes it does rule out single blind.

 

[microstrip]

"we know?"

How can blind testing be irrelevant for High End audio? The only reason I could see for such a statement is if somehow high end audio existed in some special bubble, where listeners were immune to the well known influences of human bias, and that therefore bias controls are irrelevant. But since that isn't the case...what could that comment mean?

Could you please clarify? Thanks.

They are not relevant for high-end consumers because to be carried with validity they need a lot of resources and time and audiophiles can't afford them. Also the diversity of equipment and type of sound is so great that unless people have the support of sighted choice would be a very long never ending process.

I have written before - I have listened to many excellent sounding great systems assembled with choices of high end equipment in sighted conditions. I NEVER had the pleasure of listening to a decent system assembled with all the choices carried in blind conditions.

The problem with such recommendations is that someone can say "go read all this stuff" and if you come to a different conclusion the reply can be "well, you've misunderstood it and wasted your time." That's why it makes more sense to give at least some argument in your own understanding, of what you believe those references can establish. And if it's compelling, that at least makes some case that one's time wouldn't be wasted chasing whatever intensive recommendations someone else is making.

For instance, Shunyata makes a show of producing actual measurements. (And people often point to "did you see how they measured differences when their product is used for medical equipment???)

Except, what they aren't doing is demonstrating their cables actually "work" to cause the sonic changes so often claimed for the cables - that is demonstrate either through measurements that the signal from an audio device has changed in ways we know to be audible, or that anyone has passed tests identifying this effect of their cables, when controlling for sighted bias.

Skeptics point out that the "noise" so many of these products claim to reduce is already well handled by most competently designed audio products, which EXPECT 'dirty power' and their design removes such distortion. That's why an expensive AC cable shouldn't make a difference in most such cases. In order to address this critique, Shunyata can't just show their cable reduces distortion when plugged in to an AC outlet or whatever. They should be able to show - with the type of evidence I mentioned - that their cables audibly improve the signal FROM an audio device.

I may certainly have missed this evidence and if anyone has it, could you please provide a link?

Again the argument of "properly designed equipment" should be immune to power cables changes. Sorry, but most of us prefer the sound quality of equipment that does not fulfill your definitions of proper equipment and want to build systems with such equipment. It is my and many others preference, I respect yours but I have no interest in it. Apologies.

If you just read marketing literature looking for ammunition to attack the high-end you will write nice prose, but will never understand it. Look for the Shunyata fundamentals about power cables, not for sales literature.
Our objectives in stereo are stereo sound reproduction are very different, let us end at this point. Stereo sound reproduction for me is an hobby, not a crusade.

 

[COF]

Of course! But I am not so arrogant as to think that just because I do not hear differences, there are no differences to be heard. I fully accept that other people may hear differences I simply do not hear. Different people are sensitive to different things.

Ok, but that still smacks of a very common red herring response to skeptics, where a Golden Ear can always reply "just because YOU can't hear a difference doesn't mean someone else can't!"

(I've lost count the number of times that response has been lobbed at me or anyone else expressing skepticism about certain claims).

I would never based my general skepticism ONLY on some test where I couldn't hear a difference. Of course if I "fail" a test it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't pass it. Like most people I've seen who are skeptical about high end AC cables (or similar controversial stuff), it's taken from a much wider view: it's the controversial nature of the claims in the first place.
And that it seems the evidence anyone else is passing controlled tests for hearing difference is scant to non-existent! If these differences were as obvious as so many claim, including the manufacturers, this should be a cinch. And yet it's mostly cactus blowing through a desert. As I said: the manufacturers make claims about technical problems they have solved, but when it comes to demonstrating this it's mostly booted to marketing and sent out for audiophiles to evaluate in the usual sighted fashion (which will guarantee some will "hear" differences).

The other thing one can learn from PERSONALLY experiencing blind tests is how it re-enforces the power of sighted bias. When you have experienced hearing "obvious differences" under the normal sighted conditions we use to evaluate gear - just the type of differences many audiophiles describe - and those differences just vanish when you can't "peek" or know what you are listening to...that's a powerful lesson. It's a lesson that can be applied to the claims made by other audiophiles. It doesn't automatically entail any other audiophile is "wrong" about hearing a difference. Rather, it's that one has been educated through experience to be more wary of claims based just on someone thinking they hear a difference.
I can understand what that is like, but also know how it isn't as reliable as it feels.

So if someone raises the point that "some people are sensitive to different things" that is against the background of whether the "things" we are talking about are plausible in the first place.

Believe me, I wish I did not hear differences between power cords! I recently was very surprised at what a very expensive Kabala-Sosna power cord did to the sound of a CD player. I preferred the more neutral and much cheaper Iconoclast Belden BAV power cable.

Yup. I've been surprised to hear things I didn't expect as well. It was quite powerful. But, in some cases, it turned out it was most likely an error in my perception. "Surprisingness" unfortunately adds very little to the validity of a perception, in terms of ruling out perceptual bias.

I come from an amateur radio background, so, vis-à-vis this hobby of audio, I am burdened with actually knowing a little bit about basic electronics, grounding and RF theory and practice. You might be surprised that I am pretty skeptical of a lot of the claims in our hobby as well.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Most audiophiles are opinionated, and are skeptical about some things, less about others.
We tend to be selective in our skepticism, though. Sort of like how many religious people manage to be quite skeptical of other religious claims...not so much of their own experiences

*(And you are already ahead of me, then, in your knowledge about RF theory and practice!)

 

[Al M.]

We tend to be selective in our skepticism, though. Sort of like how many religious people manage to be quite skeptical of other religious claims...not so much of their own experiences

I would have a few things to say about this topic, but the discussion of religion and politics is not allowed on this forum, see the forum rules.

 

[Gregadd]

What happened to NC Lee's test? I was intrigued!

FWIW: I've done this test myself.

I once had a selection of Shunyata AC cables, from less expensive to more expensive. I was somewhat skeptical to begin with about the idea, and didn't hear a difference with two of them. But the third one...huh?...it seemed to make an obvious difference. Like the system sounded "darker" more lush, more sophisticated. I wasn't actually sure if I liked the change, but it certainly seemed there nonetheless.

BUT...knowing the technical controversies regarding AC cables and knowing very well our propensity for bias (which by it's very nature operates when we think it isn't doing so), I had my engineer father in law help me do a blind test between that Shunyata cable and the cheap off-the-shelf AC cable I'd been using.

I actually wore a sleeping mask. We did randomized switching determined by coin flips. We first did a randomized test to ensure I could not detect which cable he was switching in just by the sound of his doing so. Nope. On to the test:
Well...whaddya know? Absolutely random results. There was nothing of that "obviously darkened, richer" sonic signature to detect the Shunyata cable from the cheap cable. Zilch.

Yet another lesson in the power of sighted bias - even when you aren't expecting differences you can think you "hear" them.

A certain kind of audiophile will "fail" a test like this and look for ways to reject the test. I took it as a lesson - obviously not rigorous science, but a data point on the issue. Subsequently I have done a number of blind tests - video cables, music servers, DACs, pre-amps - with interesting results (positive tests for differences in some cases - e.g. DACs, pre-amps - not in others - cables, servers).

So, with this background, I was looking forward to seeing the result of NC Lee's test. I hope he does it and posts the result.

Ok here is the quote in its entirety. IfI I can't be clear let, me blunt. You clearly rely on non-science to come to a generalization. That is you performed a clearly non-scientific test in hopes that because it is done blind it it has some validity. it does not It only reports what one person heard regarding. You clearly have a predisposition that no difference exists.
. You fail to even realize such test are not pass/ fail. You make a generalization that is clearly unsupported by any science performed by you or cite to any authority.
That my friend is the basis of citing non -science to make a generalization.
As I said before you are free to evaluate equipment any way you like. But when you apply it to others there are standards to be met if you are to maintain any credibility.


Note if you find the cartoon offensive I will be happy to delete it at your request.

 

[Gregadd]

Double blind protocol
"A type of clinical trial in which neither the participants nor the researcher knows which treatment or intervention participants are receiving until the clinical trial is over."
Need I count he ways in which what you did does not comply?

 

[COF]

Ok here is the quote in its entirety. IfI I can't be clear let, me blunt. You clearly rely on non-science to come to a generalization. That is you performed a clearly non-scientific test in hopes that because it is done blind it it has some validity. it does not It only reports what one person heard regarding. You clearly have a predisposition that no difference exists.
. You fail to even realize such test are not pass/ fail. You make a generalization that is clearly unsupported by any science performed by you or cite to any authority.
That my friend is the basis of citing non -science to make a generalization.
As I said before you are free to evaluate equipment any way you like. But when you apply it to others there are standards to be met if you are to maintain any credibility.


Note if you find the cartoon offensive I will be happy to delete it at yourn request.

You are hallucinating. It's bizarre.

Literally none of the sloppy reasoning you just imputed to me is there. I've given all the proper caveats regarding my blind test experience.

Look at the claims in what I wrote:

1. I had some Shunyata cables and seemed to strongly perceive that one of them changed the sound of my system.

2. I was aware that sonic differences between AC cables is a controversial subject in audio. Some audiophiles/manufacturers will make claims for the technical plausibility, skeptics (also including those with technical expertise) have made counter arguments.

Are you going to deny either of those two claims? We all know that the cable debates have gone on for a long time!

3. I recognized that sighted bias is a variable.

You going to deny that? Is that an "unscientific generalization?"

4. I therefore tried to do a comparison in which I minimized the chances of sighted bias influencing my choice. I outlined my method. You did NOT point to any particular flaw in my test! You even followed up saying "I never said anyone's evaluation was invalid."

Therefore you did not give any reason why I couldn't (cautiously) accept the results of my test - that I couldn't hear differences when I didn't know which cable was used.

5. I took this as indicating I was likely operating under sighted bias before the blind test, hence it was useful to experience
hearing "obvious differences" when I could knowingly swap cables but "totally random guesses" when I didn't know which cable was used. What argument have you actually produced against this inference? None.

6. I did not extrapolate simply: "on the basis of my blind tests, all AC cables sound the same" or "because I couldn't hear a difference in my blind test: therefore all claims by audiophiles about AC cables etc are only sighted bias." I only took it as an example of the POWER of sighted bias - a variable to KEEP IN MIND when looking at other people's claims. And I also keep in mind the controversial nature of a claim as well.

7. I'd done further blind tests on other stuff, sometimes with results suggesting random guesses, others with very strong results suggesting audible differences. All taken with the appropriate level of caution, not making Big General Claims I've demonstrated anything to you or anyone else.

Everything I just wrote is in my first post, and in the elaborations I have made since explaining my position.

And you've yet again made the false claim "You make a generalization that is clearly unsupported by any science"

Which is NOWHERE to be found in what I wrote. You are making that up. Again.

Which, again, is very strange for someone who uses your tag-line, which in case you haven't looked for a while:

"Be civil to all, sociable to many, familiar with few, friendly to one, and enemy to none."

I'd think that "being civil" would include engaging with intellectual honesty, trying to understand someone's position, rather than making an initial wrong inference, and sticking to that misrepresentation over and over....

 

[COF]

Double blind protocol
"A type of clinical trial in which neither the participants nor the researcher knows which treatment or intervention participants are receiving until the clinical trial is over."
Need I count he ways in which what you did does not comply?

Already addressed.

Again: double blind protocol is the gold standard but it is not the ONLY standard. Single blind tests are also used in science.
Confidence levels in science - as in anywhere else empirically - are scaled NOT binary. A good single blind test can reasonably increase confidence levels over unblinded tests. Double blind tests increase the confidence levels higher, which is why they are the gold standard (even triple-blind tests). But the existence of Double Blind testing protocol does not invalidate the use of all single blind testing! That is a very simple-minded understanding of the epistemic project.

So, if you are critiquing a single blind experiment, you can't just wave "But...Double Blind experiments!" You have to give an actual critique of the experiment.

Again, double blind experiments arose for specific reasons - mostly to control for experimenter bias - verbal or non-verbal communication of expectations between experimenter and participants. (Often used in medical studies, though certainly not exclusively).

If someone does a medical study - for instance my son was involved in a large double-blinded/placebo-controlled study for a new allergy treatment - then one can articulate WHY a double blind study is preferable to pointing to how the experimenters/participants knowledge can influence the results. Why didn't the study allow my son to know if he was receiving a placebo or the active ingredient? Because the belief he was receiving the active ingredient can cause the placebo effect where he imagines "feeling better" because he knows he took something that is supposed to have this effect. That's why you use a placebo control in those conditions - the patient is always taking something that looks the same, so that takes away a variable. Why were the researchers blinded as well during the trial? They too were unaware as to whether they were giving subjects a placebo or the active ingredient. Because researchers, without being aware of it, can give various subtle cues to the participant as to what they are getting, influencing the psychology of the patient and in that way introducing a possible placebo effect. And also the researchers might be biased in interpreting the results they are getting in.

You see: when saying 'This needs to be double blinded or the results are invalid" you have to be able to articulate WHY, in any particular experiment, this is the case. But if a single blind experiment is such that this experimenter/subject issue is much less likely, then it's not so obvious the experiment is invalid or useless.

That's why I gave you the details of my actual blind test - giving you a chance to point out: "Well, here's a likely way communication between you and your helper biased the results." You didn't do that. You therefore have failed to actually articulate why being only single-blinded invalidates the results. You can't just keep repeating "but..but...Double Blind tests...best." That's a given, but doesn't address the nuances of my argument.

Did my blind test fit a gold standard of double blind protocol?

No.

Does that mean that it was useless for my being able to draw (provisional) inferences, as if it were no better than my sighted test? You have not demonstrated any particular flaw suggesting this, and the fact the results were random also suggest I wasn't receiving any reliable cues from my helper.

So..look...just waving around "Double Blind Protocol" as if it were a response won't do. You either show with actual details how my inference from my test was unreasonable....the acutal inferences I drew, not your made up ones...or..you can't.

 

[Gregadd]

Just not going to let it go are you/. Please just cite one recognized authority accepting a single blind study as a recognized standard. Even if you could it would open the door to the many other things you did wrong or not at all.
I'm done here. Would you like me to delete the cartoon or not?
If you want anecdotes from family members my niece analyzes confidence studies for big pharma. So what?

 

[wil]

You are addressing professionals, that carry proper tests in professional teams with adequate documentation and analysis. It is their life and source of income, not their hobby in the free hours.

Please go on promoting the idea that these vague and undefined tests that no one wants to even describe are valuable. I am skeptical, YMMV.

How do you know they conducted their tests in any more or less casual method than a hobbyist? From reading Lampi or Schitts description it sounds about how I would conduct it.

 

[Tuckers]

They should be able to show - with the type of evidence I mentioned - that their cables audibly improve the signal FROM an audio device.

How can graphs or measurement show what is audibly improved? Graphs don't have human ears.

 

[Gregm]

Very interesting. Thanks Gregm.



Could you tell us how you determined that the difference was "easily discernable" in blind test conditions? If you did a blind test, how did you perform the test? Thanks.

There was a sense of better clarity between instruments - usually we refer to this as "transparency". Frankly, I wasn't expecting anything, so the surprise factor may be exacerbating my description of these differences. The blind case: listening to a specific piece of music for a while, pause for a change (or not) of cable, then listen to the same piece of music again. The amp had its own attenuator. Just for the sake of it, we did this a number of times (17-18, it was boring after a while)

Again, very interesting.

When measurements are included in the evaluation, there are always at least to questions to address in testing such claims:

1. Is there a measurable difference?
2. IF there IS a measurable difference, is it audible?

Because, of course, we can measure things that aren't audible.

Did you determine that the measured differences were audible under controlled listening conditions?

The only measurement we took is F response using the B&K. We used pink noise and a piece of music. As I remember it, the visible difference was small but discernible.
Now, if your question is whether what we saw correlates to what we heard... your guess is as good as mine!
Please note that this case was exploratory rather than scientific Regards

 

[COF]

Just not going to let it go are you/.

Please. I'm replying to you because you keep replying to me.

Please just cite one recognized authority accepting a single blind study as a recognized standard.

As I've said, science (like anywhere else) scales confidence levels, it's not binary. It's not 'Double Blind Tests are the ONLY acceptable standard.' It's "Double Blind tests CAN provide higher confidence levels (though are not always possible or advisable in some cases). Single Blind experiments are also used.

You should have been cognizant of your error from the very beginning. Why do you think we are even discussing the term "Single Blind" experiment? It's because it's part of the scientific lexicon. It's there for a reason: Science uses single blind experiments!

single-blind study

"single-blind study" published on by null.

www.oxfordreference.com

"A research design in which the research participants or subjects do not know until after the data have been collected, but the experimenter does know, which experimental treatment has been applied to which subjects. This type of design is often used in drug trials involving the comparison of a drug and a placebo (1), to avoid contamination of the results from biases and preconceptions on the part of the subjects. See also randomized controlled trial."

Sage Research Methods - Encyclopedia of Research Design

<p>Research design can be daunting for all types of researchers. At its heart it might be described as a formalized approach toward problem solving, thinking, a

methods.sagepub.com

A single-blind study occurs when the participants are deliberately kept ignorant of either the group to which they have been assigned or key information about the materials they are assessing, but the experimenter is in possession of this knowledge. Single-blind studies are typically conducted when the participants' knowledge of their group membership or the identity of the materials they are assessing might bias the results....

etc.

There are COUNTLESS examples of single blind experiments. Just google them:

Single-Blind Study of a Single Dose of Peginterferon Lambda-1a Compared With Placebo in Outpatients With Mild COVID-19 (COVID-Lambda)​

ClinicalTrials.gov

clinicaltrials.gov

More:

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in children aged 6–17 years: a preliminary report of COV006, a phase 2 single-blind, randomised, controlled trial

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is well tolerated and immunogenic in children aged 6–17 years, inducing concentrations of antibody that are similar to those associated with high efficacy in phase 3 studies in adults. No safety concerns were raised in this trial.

www.thelancet.com

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial

Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher...

www.thelancet.com

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.

www.thelancet.com

Immunogenicity, safety, and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 primary vaccination incorporating mRNA, viral-vector, and protein-adjuvant vaccines in the UK (Com-COV2): a single-blind, randomised, phase 2, non-inferiority trial

Heterologous second dosing with m1273, but not NVX, increased transient systemic reactogenicity compared with homologous schedules. Multiple vaccines are appropriate to complete primary immunisation following priming with BNT or ChAd, facilitating rapid vaccine deployment globally and supporting...

www.thelancet.com

Efficacy and safety of an inactivated whole-virion vaccine against COVID-19, QazCovid-in®, in healthy adults: A multicentre, randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up

Two immunisations with the inactivated QazCovid-in® vaccine achieved 82·0% (95% CI 71.1–88.5) protective efficacy against COVID-19 within a 180-day follow-up period.

www.thelancet.com

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making...

www.thelancet.com

Etc...

And how about this article, From The Lancet. Pay attention to the bolded part:

Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what

Blinding embodies a rich history spanning over two centuries. Most researchers worldwide understand blinding terminology, but confusion lurks beyond a general comprehension. Terms such as single blind, double blind, and triple blind mean different things to different people. Moreover, many...

www.thelancet.com

Blinding embodies a rich history spanning over two centuries. Most researchers worldwide understand blinding terminology, but confusion lurks beyond a general comprehension. Terms such as single blind, double blind, and triple blind mean different things to different people. Moreover, many medical researchers confuse blinding with allocation concealment. Such confusion indicates misunderstandings of both. The term blinding refers to keeping trial participants, investigators (usually health-care providers), or assessors (those collecting outcome data) unaware of the assigned intervention, so that they will not be influenced by that knowledge. Blinding usually reduces differential assessment of outcomes (information bias), but can also improve compliance and retention of trial participants while reducing biased supplemental care or treatment (sometimes called co-intervention). Many investigators and readers naively consider a randomised trial as high quality simply because it is double blind, as if double-blinding is the sine qua non of a randomised controlled trial. Although double blinding (blinding investigators, participants, and outcome assessors) indicates a strong design, trials that are not double blinded should not automatically be deemed inferior. Rather than solely relying on terminology like double blinding, researchers should explicitly state who was blinded, and how. We recommend placing greater credence in results when investigators at least blind outcome assessments, except with objective outcomes, such as death, which leave little room for bias. If investigators properly report their blinding efforts, readers can judge them. Unfortunately, many articles do not contain proper reporting. If an article claims blinding without any accompanying clarification, readers should remain sceptical about its effect on bias reduction.


Exactly in line with what I had argued!

This ain't my first rodeo on this stuff. I'm quite familiar with the scientific method and it's justifications, which is why I have written much more carefully than you give me credit for.

I'm done here.

Ok. So long. Thanks for the conversation.

Would you like me to delete the cartoon or not?

Certainly not. All commentary or opinions welcome. Post whatever you like; just be prepared that someone may ask you to back up your opinion or argument. I'm perfectly happy for someone to make that demand of what I write.

 

[twitch]

How can graphs or measurement show what is audibly improved? Graphs don't have human ears.

Simple........graphs unlike ears are not predisposed to the human biases that are part of the sensory interaction between ears and ones brain !

I love it when audiophiles get their 'panties in a wad' !

 

[Gregadd]

Single blind test are allowed but only when that is the only option. It is irrelevant here because it is so easy to achieve double blind. When you use single blind they are less reliable.. Impossibility is the rationale for a single blind test. Not inconvenience or informality. A test for colorblindness would be an example.
Edit: See, https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.2132-0-201910-I!!PDF-E.pdf, for proper example of evaluation procedure.
You are getting desperate. I anticipated this would be your rebuttal and performed the necessary research last night.
So you don't want me to take down the post. I truly am done.

 

[microstrip]

How do you know they conducted their tests in any more or less casual method than a hobbyist? From reading Lampi or Schitts description it sounds about how I would conduct it.

I have read or talked on how manufacturers such as Harman, Bang and Olufsen, Focal or dCS carry blind tests, using double blind and extensive charts for long times with many listeners. You will not find this information in the net, but usually in side interviews in reviews in paid magazines or simply talking informally with people from these companies at dinners.

Wise high-end manufacturers will surely avoid this taboo topic in the net, but we can easily find Schiit's Jason Stoddard writings on the subject.

 

[COF]

Single blind test are allowed but only when that is the only option. It is irrelevant here because it is so easy to achieve double blind. When you use single blind they are less reliable.. Impossibility is the rationale for a single blind test. Not inconvenience or informality. A test for colorblindness would be an example.
Edit: See, https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.2132-0-201910-I!!PDF-E.pdf, for proper example of evaluation procedure.
You are getting desperate. I anticipated this would be your rebuttal and performed the necessary research last night.
So you don't want me to take down the post. I truly am done.

Wow.

This has reached peak: "I Can't Admit I Was Shown To Be Wrong On The Internet" phase.

First you made false claims that I had made false generalizations unsupported by science.

When you couldn't back that strawman up, you tried to claim your sighted tests are just as valid as my blind test.

But when asked to identify a fault in my blind test where I likely would have known which cable I was listening to, you didn't.

So instead of finding a fault, you just retreated to suggesting that it was worthless because it didn't meet Double Blinded protocol.

I explained why that is a naive understanding of how confidence levels are scaled, and that single blind tests can, if done well enough, also be valid and raise confidence levels.

You then demanded me to "just cite one recognized authority accepting a single blind study as a recognized standard."

And when I do EXACTLY THAT...with a page full of examples and information clearly showing the scientific viability and use of single blind tests, and literally Lancet authors arguing exactly what I've explained...you just can't admit you were barking up the wrong tree.

Even the attempt to throw a wall of text at me - that pdf - didn't even demonstrate your position. I didn't see anywhere in there refuting single blind protocol and to the degree it talks about controlling variables it does so with respect to the "assesors" (the subjects) and it does not talk about blinding the "experimenter." Now, of course you CAN try to double blind, but it's not always necessary (nor does that article declare it necessary in all cases).

You realize that, for instance, audiology hearing tests - a clinician performing an audiogram - are typically single blinded tests? The subject doesn't know what or when a signal is being produced, but the clinician does. Do you want to throw out all audiograms as non-informative and useless now?

My position has been that I did not attempt to make some general extrapolation from my blind test, that anyone else has to accept. Only that we know sighted bias is a variable, so it is reasonable if I wanted higher confidence levels the sound was actually changing, that I control for sighted bias. Insofar as I reasonably controlled for that variable, it offers a higher confidence level as to whether there was something I could hear or not - than my sighted listening. And that if you want to say your sighted listening is "just as valid" as my blind test, you need to show how my blind test did not in fact control for my knowledge of which cable was playing. If you can't do that, you can't just move to generalizations like "Double Blind Is The Gold Standard." Again...that is the point of the Lancet article I cited.

Look, you've tried to play every card to avoid you've been wrong and haven't addressed my real arguments.

As the advice goes, when you are in a hole, stop digging. I'll save you reaching China and end the conversation now.