Yorkshire Mouth
Major Contributor
They are not all invalid (they have validity to the person doing the test) - but they are all unreliable.
I agree (to an extent, more in a moment) * . But that aside, that’s maybe stretching it just a little.
Any test which someone posts about, and which doesn’t carry a massive and clear caveat acknowledging the issues and problems we’ve discussed, is invalid to anyone reading it - a group we may call ‘the intended audience’. And from what I’ve seen, that’s pretty much all of them. But I appreciate I might have missed the odd one, so point taken. But the test is invalid to that ‘intended audience’. If the person posting their experience kept it to themselves, or as I say included caveats, perhaps that might be different.
* Even then, a person can fool themselves almost as easily as anyone else (Clever Hans, etc.). A person might believe that a self-administered sighted test proves to themselves that they heard a difference, even if they concede that’s quite rightly won’t be enough evidence for others. But that doesn’t change the bias they’re imposing on their own experience, nor the fact that this bias may disappear in future listening (the rest of their experience of the hi-fi they buy based on that test).
Phenomena and noumena.