Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

@westcoastaudiophile 

@amir_asr do I get it right what you say: -130dB using Amazon RCA basic cables in not shielded chamber? Without power filters or RFI noise control etc? 

Yes to all except that measurement is balanced which is using ($30) Mogami Gold XLR cables.  No filters. No cages. No nothing.  Just a superbly engineered audio device being measured by state of the art audio measurement gear.

They way you are stating that tells me you don't have any experience measuring such audio gear or with this instrument as that kind of performance is routine for devices I test.

@russ69 

The myth is that short term blind testing with unknown recordings, with unknown equipment, in a strange environment provide accurate results. Blind testing generally gives a null result, it's use as a scientific tool is very questionable. It generally gives no result. 

Sorry, no. The myth is that there is time limit to blind testing. Or that you are forced to use supplied music. The AES paper I referred you to allowed audiophiles to take a distortion box home, connect it to their system and spend as much time on it as they wanted, and play whatever wanted.  They failed such a test compared to another group that performed fast AB switching.

As to always getting null results, that is also completely wrong. I have passed and documented very challenging blind ABX tests. I am able to do that by being a trained critical listener and using very fast switching.  If switching is slowed, I fail to test many if not all of them.

I suggest reading ITU recommendation (standard) BS111.6 on how to detect small impairments:

RECOMMENDATION ITU-R BS.1116-1*
METHODS FOR THE SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL IMPAIRMENTS
IN AUDIO SYSTEMS INCLUDING MULTICHANNEL SOUND SYSTEMS

"Since long- and medium-term aural memory is unreliable, the test procedure should rely exclusively on short-term memory. This is best done if a near-instantaneous switching (see Note 1) method is used in conjunction with a triple
stimulus system as described in Appendix 3. Such switching demands close time alignment among the stimuli."

You are arguing against the very nature of how your perception works.  Not only experts in audio will disagree with you, so will those in the medical community who research the same.  No way your brain has the capacity to remember every bit of fidelity in music you listen to hours and days later. It is impossible.

But again, nothing in the protocol requires you to listen for longer if you so wish. I am just telling you that your ability to detect differences goes down. If you want to ignore that, then fine.  Just make sure the test only involves your ears, and not the rest of your senses.\

Here is a video I produced on that:

Thanks for the reply, Amir

Note that I listen to every speaker I review.  Measurements are the foundation but I test them by listening. And equalization.

I appreciate your time here, we won't ever agree but you have explained your process in detail and that is more than most would do. But I have a question about the quote above. You added you listen to loudspeakers "and equalization", can you explain that please. I'm assuming you equalize the loudspeaker for your listening session?  Is that right? 

@Amir-asr

Done...