@axo1989
I’m not positioning you as "against" Toole, simply stating that you ignore that specific recommendation. Ignore in the sense of "intentionally disregard" which is what you’ve specifically stated here. If the semantics don’t suit you, change ignore to "doesn’t follow".
It was a spin and a debating stunt which I called you on. Dr. Toole's collective research is how a specific set of measurements highly predict listener preference. Those measurements are created by me in every speaker review (and then some). This is the lead and core of my review.
My listening tests and EQ are a supplement that I have chosen to include. A ton of people have argued against it on ASR. I have answered them in the video I produced. It is not important or core to my review of a speaker although I personally value it.
What you did was elevate the listening test to something it is not, then complain that it doesn't follow the extensive protocol Dr. Toole used for research. That was improper and I responded to you as such.
Your business model is based on rapid testing and fast turnover and of course that has advantages and disadvantages.
Another debating stunt. I do not run a "business" to have a model. I have a hobby which creates great value for large swath of audiophiles and the audio industry in general. That hobby is based on objective data on audio gear and explaining the science and engineering of audio.
As an engineer, I try to optimize for the resources I have. A $100,000 speaker measurement system needs to be in constant use to provide that level of value. Me sitting on a single speaker to test for weeks and months doesn't provide the right value. Creating predictive measurements absolutely does.
And it is not like you have shown any of those editors that hold on to gear perform comparative blind testing of speakers. They have the time according to you but waste it away with who knows what. You want to complain about something, complain about that.