You are talking about misdirection. Yeah people are suseptable to
misdirection.


What if the non-change was self-imposed and accidental, as in where one
discovers after the decision that the switch was in a different position
than
supposed?

Whether misdirection is accidental or done on purpose it is still
misdirection.
I would suspect your tests using misdirection are quite incomplete.

I wasn't describing a "test" of misdirection; but instead describing a
situation where a friend asked me to demonstrate the "capacitor" test. I
gladly
did so and he reported the expected results. But to my amazement I discovered
that the "difference" he reported were the same as they were in previous
tests

I didn't say yours was a test *of* misdirection I said it was a test that
*used* misdirection. My claim is quite accurate.


So I then asked my son to proctor the same test for me but under single blind
conditions. Surprise .... I couldn't hear the "obvious" differences that had
been confirmed by audiophiles under open-testing.


So the real question is do you still think you hear differences when you
compare capacitors sighted?


That was the experiment that set me to controlled listening tests. I'd been
indoctrinated by the "talk" about capacitor sound. I'd "experienced" the
expected effects in open listening. I'd successfully demonstrated those
effects
to friends (and family) all under "open" conditions.


All using misdirection. you cannot rightfully claim that such experiments prove
that all people under all circumstances will to the same degree percieve
differences that are not there. All of your experiments involved obvious
conscious expectation bias. I am not saying expectation bias doesn't affect
perception. I am saying that your personal experiments do not prove that people
will always be inclined to percieve nonexistant differences regardless of their
expectation biases. Steven suggested that everyone has a subconscious
expectation bias that in any comparison there will be a difference. I don't buy
that and I don't see anyone proving it.


So now when I was forced to the wall I had to either conveniently "ignore"
contrary evidence OR put it to the real test.

From that time onward I out EVERY audibility issue to the blind test. IF you
can't "hear" it when the levels are matched and you figurativey have your
eyes
closed ....then it ain't sound or sound quality.

But since then you have done nothing to avoid the effects of expectation biases
that things sound the same. That is a problem in your tests IMO.


I suspect
if you had done the test twice,once with the specific directions stating
that
there may or may not be an audible difference when the switch is made you
would
have eliminated the effect of deliberate misdirection. If the results of
such
a
control test were the same as your test which used deliberate misdirection
you
could then claim that the misdirection was not a factor.Certainly if you
tell
the testees that there will be a difference they are more likely to to for
and
find one that doesn't exist.

You don't even have to tell them or suggest anything. The mere setting of a
comparison signals "difference."

I don't think your tests prove that.


Like I said, I bet you could easily get the same
mistakes from people who expect no difference will be present when one
actually
is present.

And exactly "who" would that person be?

What "person" did I refer too?

Any comparison implies difference. Who
would (other than a crazy like me) ask you to compare two identical things?

I don't think you understood my point. In the scenerio I proposed the things
being compared would be different.


Which test do you reference? "Can You Trust Your Ears? AES Conference 1991"?
Have you read it? What 'misdirection' was involved other than the sound "may
have been processed" which in some cases it was to change level.


I am refering to your desciption of your tests inwhich you told the testees
that you were making a switch but infact you made no switch. I would think the
misdirection would be pretty obvious.


I don't think it proves much. We know that people can be fooled
by magicians.

OK and by amp/cable sound advocates as well.

And by amp/cable no sound advocates as you have proven.


Even so, how do you insert a
"barely", or even "obvious", audible effect (such as wire sound) that has
never been shown to exist?

You don't. You insert one that has been shown to exist. Maybe you didn't
understand what I was proposing.

Maybe not. But those experiments have been conducted or maybe you didn't
notic.

Not in the ABX DBTs articles you have cited. If you have done them I have never
seen you talk about them.


No, you do it by simply making one piece of information
*unavailable* to the listener at the time of audition -- namely, the
identity of the device or treatment currently playing. The only
cues to that, should be what is *heard*. Otherwise there's
a signficant chance the identification was made based on factors *other*
than the audible.

Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully
identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis. Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity. The interaction of senses
is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses


So blind people don't have a sense of taste when they aren't in their
reference
kitchen?


Of course they do if they have enough experience tasting things as a blind
person. I guess you have never tried to identify things by taste while
blindfolded. Try it with many different samples and see how well you fare.


OK and exactly how does something like that support yoiur case? If I can't
tell
an orange from a tangerine with my eyes closed that only tells me that my
sense
of taste isn't that sensitive.

Nope, that isn't what it tells you at all. It seems you are ignoring the
complex interaction of the senses. If you see the orange or tangerine your
brain has already done the major work of figuring out what you will be tasting.
that frees your brain up to do the detail work. If you are literally
blindfolded your brain is busy figuring out whether you should be eating this
thing at all. Your brain is busy dealing with defense mechanisms. The fact is
if you have to start from scratch there is more to figure out and less chance
of percieving the finer nuances. If you don't like that example i could easily
give you a visual example. compare prints of a complex photo one with a slight
change in the dynamic range. See if anyone can tell the difference without
being told what to look for. Then tell the testees to compare the color
definition on the shadow areas. What was at first undetectable will become
pretty obvious.


Double blind testing tells us exactly the same thing; my sense of sound is
pretty gross and a cardboard box with the picture of a Krell on it will
perceptually turn my Parasound sonically into a Krell. Tell me something I
already didn't know.

I am trying to.