If you call a blind test fruitless, you have just basically stated that your opinion is worthless.
Do you think Helmholtz ever needed an equalizer in his times to set his music room right?
A clue: no more than the Wright brothers needed a boeing 747 to prove flight....
Do you think he ever needed a blind test to prove his room is acoustically well set?
A clue: no more than Faraday, devising experiments for the coming Maxwell, needed blind test....
If you think so in spite of common sense and history of science, you are doubly wrong, it is called acoustic and it is also an empirical science even today....
Then apply to yourself this sentence you wrote for others....
You may want to think on that one a bit more before saying it again.
Have you read the japanese acoustic article yet?
I cannot wait to communicate to you how an "idiotic audiophile" like me read a research paper with an experiment of his own on the "imaging" concept you seems to know like the "timbre" concept .... A clue: it is acoustic not material or electronic engineering....
With this experiment i just created my last control device for the acoustical working embedding dimension ... Cost: peanuts....Effect on S.Q. : Huge, that is to say, more than audible if you want, transformative....
But you can call that a stupid "tweak" and speaking of placebo effect .... But it is a pure application of Helmholtz science, nothing less, nothing more.... Thanks to the Japanese article for the inspiration....
