Great post, but be careful with this suggestion. Any claim for the MDC would have to be clearly paranormal. Any old ABX wouldn't do, as it isn't controversial that there's an audible difference between, say, two different amps.
You're right. I was primarily thinking of some of the more "out there" claims, such as the idea that the power conditioning produces noticeable effects on one amplifier.
I know Randi has received offers to test various audio claims in the past, but I don't know what the current standing on such offers is.
Even if he can hear "different", does any of that mean "better"? I'd argue that at the extreme range of sophistication of high-end audio equipment, the only thing you can really adjust for is personal preference, not anything that would be considered objectively better.
This is true. The definition of "better" is highly subjective. I think ES's use of various subjective terms ("muddy," "clear," etc.) hints this is about personal preference.
To bring up your own personal video obsession, as a good example: since the human eye can only perceive about 9-10 million colors, wouldn't you say that it would be sort of daft to pay a premium for video equipment that can capture or display 75 million colors? How could you even tell? I think a ton of this audiophile stuff comes under the same category as that.
Oh, I think you're right. I try to be as objective as possible about my own A/V vices. For example, I purchased an HD-DVD player because the resolution of it is noticeably better than that of the standard DVD player, and I watch less than six feet from a 37" 1080p TV.
I think some video stuff is easier to compare, because some of the elements are easy to quantify (like resolution and eye perception, or color perception). But, like audio, a lot of it is preference in terms of color tone, contrast, etc.
But I'm satisfied with the color available on the current displays. To me, as long as its close to what was originally displayed in the theater, I'm good.
But damn, that HDTV is something else!
My blind tests have always had the same differences as in my normal A/B-ing. The more you practice the less biased you get.
Eh? I wouldn't put stock in my bias. Better to eliminate it by blinding the testing. After all, why not?
All skeptics care about is money. They only look at the numbers, they don't see anything else.
What do you mean? I find it odd you would generalize "skeptics" (those who assume a default position of doubt) as caring only about money.
A believer is challenging the skeptics too, if he doesn't score 8/10 in a cable blind test, he will pay them 100 000kr:
http://www.faktiskt.se/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=18691
What are the details of his challenge, anyway? My Swedish is pretty bad so I can't read that too good.
It works both ways too. They convince themselves it doesn't make a difference so they don't need to spend the money. This happens more often than the opposite. Skeptics need to be more realistic and honest to themselves.
If you believe that personal preference can have such a powerful neutralizing effect on the quality of the gear, then this strongly suggests it's largely in the mind of the listener. That being the case, why not save a few bucks and buy high-quality, but not insanely overpriced, gear?
If you're spending 22 grand on cables, I think the company manufacturing those cables might be having a laugh at you. What is it that makes those cables so much better than no-brand, professional quality cable?
You really shouldn't make such general statements about "skeptics."
