"We see the statement a lot that "the differences disappear when a cloth
goes over the equipment." But in most blind tests, it isn't just the
"blindness" that has been changed. Especially in tests designed to show
objectively that a difference based in sound was perceived, the listener
is
required to discriminate under a certain set of conditions, and to make
the
discrimination a large number of times in a fairly brief period of time.
So
more has changed than "putting a cloth over the components.""

Indeed so, which is why I keep drawing the focus back to the cloth as the
most minimal blinding approach, it avoids all the usual suspects the
subjective folk present. Just a cloth, nothing but the cloth, so help me
God. This has been done and reported upon here and is not a "what if"
dodge.

"It's very simple: people's experience of music is a combined result of
the sound, and how one responds to the sound (call it the "subtle internal
dance"). If either one changes, then the experience changes. I find that
the internal response to the sound is something that can be modelled and
understood, and explains a great many experiences, as well as casts light
on the shortcomings of the common blind test."

Huh, with the right meter, pun intended, it could be poetry. Again to the
point, when switching is said to be happening and it is not, responses and
reported perceptions switch accordingly. This tells us the difference is
not in the signal but is an artifact of the perception process.