Excellent article in Stereophile

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.

The sound that no doubt measured best. Of that I have no doubt.

I've been maintaining for some time that harmonic distortion should be measured according to a weighting system that assigns a low number to lower ordered spectra and a much higher number to higher ordered spectra, especially the 7th and beyond.

But the flip side of that would be a spec sheet that allowed you to know how the equipment sounds! The industry doesn't want **that** - yikes! We've had the ability to do this for some time, but no collective will.