I can see that measurements and blind tests rule on this forum. I like the measurements part a lot, but imo double blind tests are overrated (in audio at least).
I also stumbled upon this article:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-audiophiles-reject-blind-testing-of-audio-components
Perhaps the way our brain works when it comes to listening indeed rules out blind tests as a reliable way of getting to audio nirvana? All imho.
The author of the article is confusing
blind tests with
ABX tests.
The article and the links in it have nothing to do with blind testing, but the writer seems not to understand that blind testing and ABX testing are completely different things
In fact, there is no doubt whatsoever that blind tests (preferably double blind) are not just "better", but are absolutely essential if we want to remove subjects' (possibly unconscious) biases and other confounding variables from the test. This is simply a necessary precondition for any test to have the capacity to yield any valid result whatsoever.
ABX tests on the other hand are a specific type of (of course blind) test in which subjects listen to A, then B, then X (A or B). If subjects are able to reliably determine whether X is A or B, we can conclude that subjects are capable of discerning a difference between A and B. If subjects are unable to reliably do this, we reach the more cautious conclusion that the difference did not seem to be discernible under the test conditions, and that this may indicate an absolute inability to discern the difference (or not).
ABX tests have been criticised for various reasons, and the studies the the author links are among those critical. However, the conclusions the author attributes to those studies are just not there. He hasn't read the studies properly or hasn't understood them.
There are more sophisticated types of blind test than the ABX test, some of which seek to address potential issues with ABX testing.
But it's not even up for debate whether these types of tests should be done blind.