I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

Do you need to control what you want to hear? Or  are you open to discussion?

Please keep posting. I quit reading some pages back, pretty sure everyone else has also. I appreciate all your input but you lost your audience I think. 

If the interest is truly to share information and help others , it helps to listen to what people say and take their input to heart and respond accordingly rather than discount it. That is well documented common knowledge. Merely preaching on one’s soapbox alone has limited utility. Anyone can do that.

For example if someone requests a summary in 20 words or less or with any restrictions whatever they may be just give them what they ask for. Shouldn’t be hard. Then they should say thank you. That’s how people can click together.  By listening to each other.   Collaborating successfully is a team sport  

Just trying to help.

What surprize me is that you act like children and propose me "thorazine" or something else not "amazing" at all...

You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video

You confuse the message and the messenger in a bout of rejection without even thinking about what is proposed by 3 geniuses who think about sound and music in a new way...

And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.

But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.  We are beating a dead horse, because we are ignoring the initial premise of the thread in some unusual, I would say bizarre special pleading that in the framework of the discussion is totally meaningless. It is self indulgent to even bring it up, and is brought up purely to advance a personal belief while ignoring relevance to the topic.

As has been stated too many times in this thread, and others just in the last few weeks. Almost no one doubt personal preference is not a thing and is not important. But as @prof eloquently stated, and I have in less eloquent fashion, that is not at all what we are ultimately discussing. We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions. Hence why the insistence that subjective impressions can only be treated as objective conclusions, if, and only if, you make all attempts to isolate the inputs available in making the subjective impression. The so called blind testing's goal is to remove a variable from the outcome, namely our most critical sensory input, vision. This should be obvious to anyone who tries to compare to items. I won't insult you by saying we need to remove the variable of touch, and I hope you are not smelling or tasting your audio equipment, but the smell of a tube amplifier (from heat effects) if only evident while listening to it, could also impact a test.

I am sure someone will now post multiple paragraphs and multiple posts of unrelated self indulgent material that not only is unrelated but has no value in answering the question above, but I can only control my own actions.

^ Well put @deludedaudiophile ^

And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.

But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.

Very comical! i never argued with you about some point...You put forward no point...

I was suggesting listening what these three persons had to say.,..And i explained why...

Saying that they are not idiots, but honorable recognized scientists, is not an ad hominem argument, because you NEVER MADE ANY POINT anyway to argue against here in a discussion ...

You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video

I am happy that you dont think i need thorazine... Good news ! But it is worst than i was thinking about you now...

You judge a scientist by his appearance in a video and recommend thorazine for him BEFORE even knowing what he speak about...

And you think your behaviour is ok ?

i am laughing right now to your high intelligence level...

I am glad you see a relevance.

Let’s agree that I am probably just not smart enough to catch it or appreciate it.