How is he, or anyone, supposed to disaggregate the two unless he knows a given track very well?
Believing you can judge speakers sighted in a new room with unfamiliar program…that’s a trap.
This is such an unreasonable line of thinking, sorry. Statements like these are exactly why we destructively alienate ourselves from classical audiophiles/subjectivists.
So If I am at an audio show, and I walk into a room with
these speakers, right after hearing the Dutch&Dutch room right next door, both playing classical music I don't know, my clear perception of 3-5khz being 15db sucked out, and horrific laser-like dispersion, are totally invalid because I saw the speakers, and don't happen to know the particular piece, orchestra, and specific recording, or possibly re-master that they are playing?
If I walk into my friend's house, and for some reason, he is playing a song I don't know thru a $100 tv soundbar, I first must put on a blindfold, and have him lead me (blind btw) to the couch so that I can't see the bar, and then ask him to play a song I am intimately familiar with before I am allowed to make the conclusion that, in fact, it sucks, has no bass, no stereo width, audible amplifier distortion as volume is raised, and huge comb filtering/cancellation effects off-axis?
If that wasn't enough, I'll give you this tidbit of info, I work in live sound. I need to tune and mix on PA systems I have never worked with before, with artists I have never heard of before. Are you suggesting that if mid-set, a change in the performance reveals a minor issue with the subwoofer to line array integration, or the guitarist changes a pedal setting that creates a screechy unpleasant resonance, according to your logic (judging subjective acoustic effects is only valid blind, and with songs you know well), therefore I should radio to the stage manager and have them stop/pause the show, so that I can put my blindfold on, and play songs that I know well, and fix the issues?
And before you say "Oh well actively engineering isn't the same as listening/judging speaker fidelity", a -15db 4500hz Q=4ish dip like in the above linked Zus, sounds the same to the listener if it is a filter in my mixing console, or a fault or the speaker, this is precisely why we can EQ speakers to make them sound better/more on target, and as a result more subjectively pleasing.
Lastly, at audio shows like this, you can just sit in the room for 2-3 songs, and maybe walk around, and by using some critical thinking, associate traits you are hearing/experiencing with either the mix/master of a particular song (goes away when song changes), or with the system/setup/room (trait stays identical across multiple tracks). And then there are fixed traits, like dispersion for example, which are not song dependent, yet easily apparent subjectively.
Trying to memorize the tonality, stereo characteristics, and other quirks/etc of hundreds of songs you'd request to judge audio, is significantly more unreliable than using the magic of simple comparison/elimination.
Vocals were diffused. Seems partially to be an aspect of the recording.
Even Amir was able to make distinctions on speaker vs song by the magical virtue of.... Listening to more than one song.
I 100% agree with you for A/B/X comparisons, but please do not project that you might not have a very good ear for these things, as a hard rule to the community. If judging how something sounds (speaker, mix, room, etc) is only possible blind with material you are familiar with, then please explain how you expect a mastering engineer to do their job. They couldn't, because their job requires them to use their ears to (get this), listen to a new song they have never heard before, and optimize it to make it sound the best over numerous playback mediums.