Harry Lavo wrote:
snip

Michael, I and others have described similar tests here under similar
conditions, and have always been told we are just imagining the differences
based on "expectation bias". Expectant of what they can't say.

Expectant that there is a difference to be heard...as "they"
always say.

Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight *may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid".

No Harry, it's "sight *always* confers a bias that may, or may
not, affect the results". It is the understanding that your
results *may*, in each case, be affected through simple
foreknowledge, and that the affects of that bias in sighted tests
*cannot* be adjusted/corrected/ameliorated/ignored that
invalidates the method.

Why do you continue to misconstrue "our" position?

Keith Hughes