Any of the provisos he's cited would *also* apply to sighted comparison,
of course...but they certainly don't seem to be applied in the sighted
comparisons I read about every month.

If you don't like them why are you reading them?


But then again, nothing he's written even remotely supports the idea that
*sighted*, 'open ended' comparison, using music (and please, feel free
to add whatever new conditions you can conjure up),
advocated and practiced by the most audiophiles, including the two
main audiophile magazines, is a good way to test for difference at all.


Equipment reviews are not tests for differences per se. They are subjective
reviews of equipment used by the reviewer in the likely manner that the
consumer would use the product.


And that's because -- and this is the crucial thing -- it
can't *ever* be a good method, for verifying subtle differnces.

Varification is not an issue in subjective review for the most part. Using the
product as the consumer would use it is a reasonable way to evaluate equipment
if the consumer who reads the magazine evaluates equipment the same way. If you
read the reviews and don't like the fact that they are not scientifically
reliable, I suggest you read the disclaimer that suggests consumers shouldn't
rely on reviews alone and should audition equipment for themselves before
making any purchases.

In other words, in contrast to scientific methods,
the method advocated by
the main 'voices' of audiophilila, and people like yourself, is
*fundamentally and essentially flawed*,

Yes they are. As is the case for any subjective review. Stereophile is not
trying to be a scientific journal. Most journals that do subjective reviews of
hardware in any number of fields are every bit as unscientific.


DBT for audible difference is 'perfectable' -- sighted listening simply
*isn't*.


I wouldn't expect such absolute claims from a scientist.