Excellent article in Stereophile

@millercarbon - I was not aware of the Stereophile test you mention. Could you tell us the name of the article and whether or not it is available on their website? If you can provide a link that would be great.

It would be a wonderful irony if Stereophile touted the results of a blind test that determined that listeners preferred analog and tubes over digital and solid state. Stereophile has dissed blind testing several times in their publication and has taken a strong editorial position that blind testing of audio equipment is essentially meaningless.

The other thing about this test is that the difference in sound quality could be totally explained by the selection of the individual components. Did they compare top-of-the-line Audio Research gear against a Pioneer receiver? Did they compare a $10,000 turntable/cartridge with a $199 CD player? Was all equipment rated Stereophile Class A? Was the CD a good competent transfer of the master tape? During that time period Stereophile rated several solid state as well as tube components Class A. I've subscribed to Stereophile for decades and I don't remember this test or them taking an editorial position favoring one design philosophy over another. Their individual writers can have strong positions, i.e. Michael Fremer, but the magazine's editorial stance seems to be agnostic. If the results were that conclusive I'm surprised that they didn't refer to this test repeatedly. I would think Fremer would jump all over this test the but maybe he has and I just missed it.

Also, if the test was conducted in the early 90's you won't get much argument from me that the digital signal chain (A/D converters and D/A converters) were not up to the sonic standards of the best turntables and cartridges. Digital today is much better than it was 25 years ago and it would be interesting to see a double blind test that compares current state of the art digital to state of the art analog.

No idea, but it was long ago. Back when I subscribed, which I quit around 1994 or so.
 
The story, as I recall, it was not Stereophile it was just published there. It was NOT a test like you're thinking, asking a bunch of audiophiles which system they like better. Nothing so crude as that. Very clever, they asked questions more along the lines of which music did you like, would you like to hear more of it, consider buying, etc. So the subjects if anything would were focused on the music and NOT the system. They had no idea. They couldn't even see anything. Even the girl with the questions, who came from behind. They saw here arm, nothing more. Double-blind? HA! Quadruple blind!

Double blind is of course a canard. Red herring. Waste of time. Distraction. Refuge of scoundrels, etc etc. If you hear it you hear it. If you think anyone needs anything more, go read the previous sentences a few more times.

Ditto the state of digital. Replace double blind with the state of digital, previous sentences stand. One hundred percent. Because you could say the same about all the analog gear that was used. Its all a lot better today. Across the board. So might as well quit dodging and face the music. Heh.

Especially since one of the little-appreciated tricks they played was to use tube gear and solid state. So it wasn't just digital/analog. And lo and behold, the results placed the analog/SS below all analog and above digital/SS. Just like happens with everyone I've ever seen.

Everyone, that is, who is no audiophile. Only the audiophiles, they are the only ones who ever even think to say crazy stuff like I don't believe my own ears or what I heard might be in my head or gosh if only I were double blind instead of merely solo blind.

What a crock. Do you hear it? Or do you not hear it? If you do then why do you need your own experience validated by anyone else? So I can only conclude you cannot hear.

See how it works?

Not being an electronics engineer I often have no idea what he is talking about. He is not very good at describing things to lay people.
I would never pay for his time. Judging by the way he keeps his bench he spends most of it looking for things. 
I stopped reading specs around 1969 or so after I built a Dyna Stereo 120. An upgrade from the stereo 70? Lesson learned. I have always gravitated towards class A amps since I owned a pair of Krell KMA 100's
I have no idea if it is because of what he is talking about. But, on this one I will agree with millercarbon. The only devices you should trust are your own ears. 

mijostyn"Not being an electronics engineer I often have no idea what he is talking about."

I commend, applaud, and congratulate you for your candor, honesty, and transparency in acknowledging you're limitations in answering, responding, and opining on the comments referenced hear and such willingness to acknowledge limitations should be more common ideally in this forum.

Alls I know is I'm way way happier now that I abandoned technical excellence in favor of stuff I enjoy listening to.