How do you listen to an ABX test?
A sighted test for differences tests not sound but at best sound and vision, as vision gives the identification that one asks for. Testing for sound and vision is not testing for sound. Let's put it this way: sighted listening includes some sort of 'placebo effect', so is not an evaluation of audible differences. It's not even a test. It's self-disqualifying as such, but of course jkeny denies that because of the sophisticated QA mechanism he uses: his opinion. So we have to do blind testing. We have several methods that we know work, but as with any other test care must be taken that the conditions fit your test goal. In a personal test, I suggested to check your system and hearing with low bitrate mp3s first. In more formal tests we have participant selection, training ... So what we are left with is the implications of jkeny's earlier statements: the audiophiles are able but not willing - they first hear differences but then deliberately fail ('cheat' in jkeny's terms) - or they lie about hearing differences in the first place. Or the more reasonable explanation: the participants didn't hear audible differences. The differences they perceived during sighted evaluation are the result of bias/placebo effects. Which is why it is absolutely ludicrous to accept claims of audible differences that are the result of sighted listening, especially if you filter them by your opinion (like jkeny does). The rational position to take is not to accept the claim, until those making the claims can provide solid evidence.