@mahgister 

Proper listeningt tests are LONG TERM MEMORY TESTS using musicians, acouswtician or trained music lovers...

That is a myth and insult to many audiophiles who don't consider themselves any of those.

Nothing about a controlled test says you have to do short term testing.  You think a cable sounds different?  Spend a month listening to it and another month listening to another.  As long as you don't know which cable is which when listening, and repeat the test enough to know you are not guessing, you are performing a valid test.

Now, we encourage you to not rely on long term memory as it is an extremely lossy system and sharply reduces your acuity when it comes to hearing small impairments/differences.  This is backed by medical science (look up echoic memory), and controlled listening tests.  Please see this summary of an AES paper on this topic:

AES Paper Digest: Sensitivity and Reliability of ABX Blind Testing

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/aes-paper-digest-sensitivity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

The results were that the Long Island group [Audiophile/Take Home Group] was unable to identify the distortion in either of their tests. SMWTMS's listeners also failed the "take home" test scoring 11 correct out of 18 which fails to be significant at the 5% confidence level. However, using the A/B/X test, the SMWTMS not only proved audibility of the distortion within 45 minutes, but they went on to correctly identify a lower amount. The A/B/X test was proven to be more sensitive than long-term listening for this task.
 

I have done a ton of such tests.  The longer the switching time, the more sensitivity I lose.  Again, this is due to our short term memory being almost lossless compared to the highly lossy long term listening.

Once more though, you are welcome to take as long as you want in comparing products blind.  

As to you putting your fait in certain group of people, that again is false.  I showed example of how audio reviewers did so poorly in blind tests of speakers. 

As to Musicians, while they hearing does get trained in certain areas (e.g. detection of reflections in a room), they do no better than general public when it comes to matters related to audio fidelity.  If they did better, then they would mostly be audiophiles which they decidedly are not.  My piano teacher for example just gives me blank looks when I talk about anything related to audio fidelity!  Musicians listen to music from a spot in the performance venue that is different than us as listeners anyway.

As to those "trained music lovers," when tested in any kind of blind test, they do very poorly.  Most would not dare taking the same tests that I have taken and passed.  It is entirely too convenient to declare yourself as trained with no proof point whatsover.

@somethingsomethingaudio 

@texbychoice not only that but Amir himself profits from it by constantly promoting revel products. How do I know this? Well I once early on before I knew better was interested in his company and thought maybe I’d grab a pair of revels from him. He does exactly what he forbids others from doing. Allegedly. 

I do zero promotion of Revel speakers.  Every year, a handful of people reach out to me asking if we can sell them Revel speakers.  I quote them a price.  Half the time they get it from us, half the time they go and buy it elsewhere.  My company's business is NOT retail audio.  We make our living designing million dollar whole house (or commercial building) lighting, security, shades, etc.  Our clients are not audiophiles and the most they want is a whole house sound with invisible or nearly so speakers throughout their house/estate.  

I run AudioScienceReview.com as a separate venture that has nothing to do with Madrona.  Every review of a product that may bring even appearance of conflict of interest comes with a clearly note:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-c763l-in-ceiling-speaker-review.42029/

Note: our company, Madrona Digital, is a dealer for Revel speakers. So feel free to read any level of bias in subjective comments from me.

And this was my conclusion:

"Many are thinking about using these speakers for Atmos height speakers. I don't see them being optimal in this configuration given the narrow usable angle."

You think that is going to result in more sales? I don't think so

Yon keep throwing these innuendos all you want.  At the end of the day, I conduct myself with highest level of ethical conduct I know how.  That you think money speaks more than anything else should be reason to avoid the work of many others who chase the same.  It is not a motivator for me as I have repeatedly explained.

@mahgister 

I'm curious: what happened to the photos of your virtual system on Audiogon?

The...uh...very interesting layout of your tweaks?

speaking of which, @prof, I was curious about your system…

@soundfield 

Exactly! There was a perfect opportunity to clearly state that most of your measurements fall well below audibility thresholds AND, even if they are perceptible, there is no clear evidence one is preferred over another.

And how do you know if some product falls in the "most" category or the other?  By measuring!!!  You don't just sniff the box, look at the price or reputation and decide that.  You measure.  Then you know.

Of course you are just waiving your hand on that "most" bit.  You have no background in psychoacousts, measurements or even electronic design.  You have never participated in a single blind test presented to you.  So what you are spitting out are just claims.

Here is the good news though: superlative measured results cost next to nothing.  So if you are purchasing something new, there is no reason to settle for "just enough fidelity."  You can get to what I call provably transparent.  There, we compare the measurements to threshold of hearing (which is determined by listening tests).  If the equipment has less noise and distortion than this, then those factors are simply not in play and we can prove it!

The moment you go above that level, then it becomes shades of gray which requires interpretation.  A skill that our soundfield friend does not remotely have.

You do ZERO valid listening tests. Yet you not only "Rank', but routinely "Not recommend" products based solely on measurements with zero listening test correlation.

I have post numerous blind tests that I have passed.  We ask people to run blind, level matched tests.  And when they do, backed by training and skill they have, across countless such challenges, you jump up and down claiming they must have cheated.  Well, you are dead wrong and have no proof of it.  In the video I post on listener training, I actually explained how I passed Archimago high res challenge.  Ah, you don't like the fact that I knew what impairment to look for.  Well, that is how a proper listening test is done.  We want listeners to know what to listen for.  We don't want to stick our head in the sand by removing that skill and hoping to get negative outcome, the reality be damned.

Yes, it is inconvenient for likes of you to see someone like me disprove your ideas of inaudibility.  Tough.  Next time learn the topic itself and not just repeat talking points that nothing can sound better than something else.

Finally, I looked at your website.  There is no measurements of any speakers except for one random one with no documentation.  Surely you don't claim that speaker measurements are of no use, are you?  You are not that deep into subjectivity, are you? 

Then I saw this bit of absurdity on your home page:

"Our products reflect the philosophy that loudspeakers should strive to sound like the real thing. "Hi Fidelity" once meant exactly that. If you know what live acoustic music sounds like, you will appreciate our products."

Oh really?  How does a speaker convert a microphone recorded content into the sound of the real thing?  Magic?  You have some scientific research to link to that states anything remotely like this?  Or is it that when it comes to selling speakers, you are just as bad as the next guy in ignoring audio science and engineering?