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

Quick show of hands, everyone here who conducted their last blind listening test with a PANEL of TRAINED listeners, say aye. Congratulations if your every audio purchase gets judged by your panel. See the link I posted above:

"If you want to take the variable of the listener out of the equation, then your listener panel needs training."

When I buy new gear I get a 30-60 day return period. I drop it in the rack, let it break in (I know, the horror) for a few weeks and then take it out. If I don’t miss it, refund. If I can’t live without it "grinrictus" sets in and I buy it.

@kota1 ,

Did you even read the article you just linked on blind testing? You post reinforces what Amir has said on these pages. Trained listeners are superior to every day audiophiles in detecting anomalies. That you for reinforcing that message.  The article provided no evidence to refute blind testing.

@crymeanaudioriver

It’s amazing isn’t it?

By the very logic of the article kota1 wants us to accept, he’s not a trained listener.

It would be at least as damning of his own method.

PLUS he has added sighted bias in to the mix when he "breaks in" and listens to products.

(This happens all the time when audiophiles attempt to pick apart the usefulness of blind testing.  They suddenly get all picky about variables in an attempt to dismiss the tests, conveniently forgetting that the variables would apply to their own method of testing gear!)

Plus if I don’t like it. refund that bad boy.

That policy must be particular to America. In my country, there are conditions on the reasons you may wish for and be provided a refund - not liking it is not one of them.

Such a liberal policy in America has unintended consequences on a number of levels.  But that is what is known as micro-economics and out of bounds on this esteemed forum.

@prof

Why wouldn't Amir defend himself?

If someone was defaming you on another public forum, wouldn't you think it reasonable to defend yourself?  It makes sense to defend yourself directly to the criticisms in said forum ...

The problem with ASR as of late is that such opportunity is not always given. A loud member, or a moderator, or a whole pack of them, publicly accuse an "inconvenient" member of disingenuity, of lack of knowledge, or of low intelligence, and then said member is immediately banned, with no way to defend himself there.

Do you expect to just be able to publicly  criticize anyone you want, and with any level of misrepresentation, without any consequence or pushback?

As far as I can tell, this is absolutely the expectation of certain ASR moderators, and also of certain ASR members whose opinions are considered as the only valid ones by some moderators. That's the crux of the issue the OP raised.

As a medical analogy, this resembles an autoimmune disease. A healthy, balanced moderation serves a function similar to the one served by immune system. A hyperactive censorship, on the other hand, may be gradually killing ASR organism.