At the Stereophile site, reviewer Jim Austin argues against ABX testing because, in his words, "testing takes time".
Subjectivist audiophiles have long maintained that long-term listening is necessary to assess the quality and character of an audio component. Scientific testing methodologies such as ABX, which require quick and conscious evaluation of a change in the sound, have long struck many of us as insufficient, seeming to miss much that affects our enjoyment of music.
Could someone over @ Stereophile clue Jim in that an ABX comparator test allows one to listen as long as they like before switching? And then, after switching, one can take as much time as they want in order to determine whether X is A or B? Interesting how these 'subjectivists' can describe every little detail in the sound of amps/preamps/CD players, with utmost precision, but when asked to simply tell us which is which, they get all confused and wind up guessing.
Citing some or another 'study' he writes: Based on a limited perceptual bandwidth and 8 hours of dedicated listening per day, getting to know a room and equipment in any detail would take at least a week, but assuming years would be safer...
So let's break this film down. It takes a minimum of a week of listening to reliably tell these 'sonic' differences, but a year is better? Is he shilling for long term loaners? And if that's the case, why can their 'reviewers' immediately tell the difference among components? I mean, one guy's wife was able to tell differences in gear from the kitchen, when the reviewer swapped out components in the living room. I think they let that guy go, though. Maybe he wanted his wife to get paid for her contributions, and the editor said no. LOL
How anyone can take these folks seriously is something serious people seriously can't.