There's alot of noise about possible differences in the graph if we measure with a different reference axis, but I think that's 98% irrelevant.
IMHO, the main reason why I'd like
@amirm to use the correct reference axis is because that's what CTA-2034-A specifies, and the CTA-2034 procedure for determining the reference axis is easy: if the manufacturer provides it, then use that, otherwise it's basically "do what you think is best", so no changes needed in that latter case. It takes basically no effort to follow the proper, standardized procedure, so I really don't see why Amir stubbornly refuses to do it.
I can concede that it might not be
that important in terms of correlating with audible differences, but it would make Amir's measurements more consistent with other third-party measurements, which is a good thing. Multiple parties all doing measurements in a standard way makes it possible to spot potential problems or interesting patterns, and promotes repeatability and replication, which is one of the pillars of good science. This is Audio
Science Review, after all.
If Amir doesn't want to remeasure the KH 80 because he thinks that's not a good use of time, then that's one thing, and I can understand that. I'm just hoping he will rectify the issue on future reviews. So far it doesn't look like it, given that he only mentioned this subject in his last two reviews in the form of petty jokes. Which, by the way, is worrying for another reason: an outsider who's not privy to the debate will likely not get these jokes, and from that perspective Amir might look like someone who doesn't care about rigour or accuracy. That's not exactly the best way to get people to trust these reviews.
So can we please, please,
please follow CTA-2034 from now on and put this issue to bed once and for all?