Serial # MS50097, purchased 11/20.
Based on my understanding of measurement crowd, its not that they don't listen, rather its best to rely on measurements vs listening. While some of them may admit to limits of measurements, still beats human senses and our individual perceptions of those senses. Human biases of all kinds enter the equation for them, can never be overcome by training, experience, etc. Measurements always retain their superiority over listening, inconclusive results from blind testing prove this superiority. This will never change, written in stone, really is no point in arguing the point in this thread or any thread, total futility.
There is some hope though, periodically, I observe a former measurement adherent joining the dark side after having heard a component or components that resolve to the point where they hear formerly unheard sound qualities like texture, perhaps even color. At this point they now come to the understanding there are sound qualities measurements fail to account for. So, yes, I'd agree at least some of the measurement cohort has not heard extremely revealing systems. Based on the mostly relatively inexpensive components tested over there I believe this true. Now, they occasionally test more expensive components, which test middle of pack, what's the point of listening or purchasing when its far more costly than equally or better measuring equipment. The thing is I'm sure Amir has heard these much more costly components, and likely entire systems. Can he not hear differences with the much more costly components and systems? Or is it he can't or won't admit to it? You have to realize their entire argument can't take a relatively middle of pack or poorer measuring component beating out best measuring components, this would be admitting listening more valid than measuring. And then take an entire system of such components where these gains may be exponential. For those of us relying on listening, correlations or non-correlations between measurements and listening isn't surprising, upsetting, nor does it INVALIDATE measurements. Measurements illuminate the known knowns, don't account for the known unknowns. The difference is we hear the known unknowns, they either don't or won't admit to it.
And I do get lordmelton's reiteration of necessity of burn in with 005. Yes, it's sound quality changes over burn in, extremely likely measurements won't change but sound quality does. Measurement cohort can't admit to burn in changing sound since it challenges entire measurement argument. Seems to me measurement cohort has themselves in small little box, everything has to conform to this tiny little box, can't allow or explain outliers or unexplained phenomenon.