Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote in message ...

Michael,

You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception
which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test.

You have to show:
1. That such a thing exists
2. that it is more significant than any difference in the equipment

It most certainly exists. Any serious effort towards doing
controlled blind testing in audio should convince you. The funny
thing is that it doesn't have to work the way you expect: it may
have no connexion to your conscious biases. Sometimes when people
make fun of audiophiles, they imply that there are obvious connections
between the illusory differences heard and the listener's
preconceptions. I do not think this is true of the differences
I hear, and I don't suppose that it is true of you either.

The differences which are heard as a result of open listening
tend to be "audiophile" type differences: more open, warmer,
more natural, more lively, and their opposites: constricted,
cold, unnatural and dreary. (This is by no means intended
to be a complete list.) When such differences are detected
in controlled testing, no one questions their significance.

Even if you are not interested in doing any controlled testing
yourself, you might be interested in reading some of the literature.

My favorite article on the subject is:

Peter Baxandall. "Audible amplifier distortion is not a mystery"
in Wireless World November 1977.

Peter.
--