Did you even read the
article? Granted, you can certainly criticize it for the low number of participants, but the methodology is solid, the data are there, and the statistical analysis chosen to analyze the data is appropriate for the sample size. Is that not empirical enough?
Tom
Yes I read it ... in 2018 and again a few days ago. I am sure you read it too. The question should be "did either of us understand it?" And if you are flying it's flag as a reference then I believe that perhaps you did not understand it, or at least didn’t see its flaws.
Here is my take:
1. The results were mixed. Plain and simple. They achieved "psychoacoustical significance" on two tests with non-level-matched pink noise. Nothing with music. That may make you think there is no difference, but ...
2. The samples weren’t all level-matched and to no one’s surprise the non-level matched tests were the ones most people got right.
3. They did not qualify the "listeners" hearing abilities or if they could even detect proper pitch. Nine of the listeners were self-proclaimed audiophiles. I know plenty of audiophiles who can’t hear a darn thing. The other two were high school kids. Applying scientific methodology to non-scientifically attained results does not equal science. When your "meter" is not calibrated, you cannot trust the results.
4. The listeners knew they were comparing speaker cables and were even allowed to view them all first and develop opinions. If you want to do a blind test you shouldn’t even tell the subjects what they are comparing, much less allow open inspection and listening before the blind test begins.
5. The "high end cable" was nothing special. The 2018 re-hash states "Monster’s early speaker cable was essentially also twisted-filament copper like the other test subjects, with nothing particularly advanced in the cable design". So they could have just doubled or tripled up on the 16 AWG lamp cord and been pretty close to the "high-end" cable.
6. What is a “laboratory grade audio comparator” (ABX)? Sounds like a relay to me. They don’t mention whether they tested it for transparency. They don’t mention what cable was used to go from the amp to the input of the ABX. They don’t even say they tested the fidelity of the source amplifier or speakers (I am declining to recognize their Audiophile "street cred" since so many supposed audiophile devices have been debunked on this very site). I wonder where the Perreaux, Spendor, and Kef control devices would score in Amir’s tests? Were they even able to resolve enough info as a system to allow the cables to be a difference-maker?
7. The author states that the original editors set out with an agenda to debunk high-end cables. That’s not journalism, it’s an opinion piece and it appears to be propped up by the same types of shaky science the cable manufacturers use to justify their products.
So yeah. Not good in my opinion.