I did not need these programs because i only use homemade solutions and i dont buy cables or costly tweaks or costly gear upgrade...
It is way easier to use simple blind tests multiple time in the working optimization context way easier and more useful than ONE public stage show ... Anyway i see no valid reason to use that with my modified 10 bucks Schumann generators now for example ,save to convince you after a public test to buy some 😊...And anything is further from my intention than arguing with people about qualitative effect i gain from my device in specific constrainted acoustic context and pushing them toward expansive devices i ask for experiments in their private home at low cost ... I see it as a meaningless crusade asking for more for the average people out of a laboratory ... Sorry...
You answered all my argument save the main one : I favor multiple simple blind tests in the same acoustical context and relax routine of the listener-tweaker and i dont see the need for most audiophile of anything more save for the scientific laboratory of the industry or for objectivist crusaders show ...
You completely put aside my point about aural memory and routine behaviour in a known environment and put aside completely the difference between a step by step incremental process of multiple changes of parameters and devices in a known acoustical working environment and a public stage show about a singular minute change out of any known habitual working context ... Simple ...
For aural memory and behaviour :
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04675-8
Common sense dictate such observations i made ... Repeating your line as a preacher dont change common sense ...
no I don’t see it. There are programs that allow users to easily do ABX DBTs. And it’s not “against an audiophile’s claims.” ABX DBTs are not for or against any claims.