Well, it's no wonder you avoided this for so long.
A reminder: The issue I raise is not merely about "preference" but about "the accuracy in what we are perceiving."
Whenever I dare to describe the sonic characteristics of loudspeakers, you (and some others) often pop up to denigrate my doing so on the basis it was in sighted listening conditions, which...as you have just re-emphasized in this thread, are too inaccurate to be taken seriously. The implication being that bias so distorts our perception in sighted conditions, we can not be expected to accurately perceive the sound. Which is why any descriptions of sonic characteristics based on sighted listening are null and void.
THAT is the issue I'm addressing.
So....
Here is your argument in a nutshell:-
If, (a) sighted listening leads to terrible misevaluations of how much we actually like the sound waves themselves,
Then, (b) well that sucks, and makes it impracticably difficult to choose gear on the basis of sound waves themselves,
So, (c) sighted listening must be somewhat good at evaluating the sound waves themselves.
No that is a totally illogical formulation and not the question I asked, nor what I have argued. How do these things get so scrambled when you read them Newman?
Here is the issue, again:
A: IF speaker blind listening tests can not predict how we will perceive the sound of a loudspeaker in sighted conditions: what use is blind listening as a guide to selecting speakers for sighted listening?
Alternatively:
B: IF speaker blind listening tests CAN predict how we will perceive the sound of a loudspeaker in sighted conditions: What EXPLAINS that predictability?
Your reply avoided those issues.
For A, if the results of blind testing -
and the preferred measurement suite/curve derived from such tests - have no predictive relationship with sighted listening, then it seems you've reduced the relevance of the blind test data to mere academic interest. Like chasing ever decreasing SINAD numbers that you'll never hear anyway. So it's like "I'll just buy the speaker because I know it passed some studies, even though I'll never hear the sound quality anyway." Now, clearly that is NOT the approach people on this site are taking in regards to loudspeakers. People are clearly evaluating which loudspeakers to buy on the premise that the measurements will, in fact, predict what they perceive in their actual use case: sighted listening.
Further: How would you explain the actions of Harman Kardon, well known for employing blind testing in order to guide their speaker designs? They know their speakers are used by customers in sighted listening conditions. Yet they spent all that money and effort in seeking blind test results for speaker preferences. This was clearly on the assumption that the results of the blind listening tests would translate to sighted listening: that the particular sonic characteristics heard in blind listening would also be perceived in sighted listening. If sighted listening so distorted perception of the sound as to be wholly unreliable, then there would be no predictive quality between the blind testing and sighted listening, rendering their whole project irrational. Do you think Harman Kardon engaged in irrational research for their product?
This all speaks to "B."
If the results of blind listening CAN predict how we will perceive the sound in sighted conditions, what would best explain that...other than that sighted listening IS, to a relevant degree, accurate enough to perceive the "real sound waves?" What other option can you give us?
But if sighted listening is at least accurate enough to perceive the "real sound waves" of a Harmon or other loudspeaker, then it makes sense to temper the level of skepticism aimed at sighted listening. It can't be "THAT" inaccurate all the time. And so a discussion of when it's reasonable to accept sighted listening impressions, as I often bring up, is entirely apt and not some "GOTCHA AGAINST THE SCIENCE."
So on to how you didn't answer this issue....
Instead, current audio science is telling us, to your great disaffectedness, that:-
(A) sighted listening leads to terrible misevaluations of how much we actually like the sound waves themselves,
So (B) use controlled listening tests if we want to choose the gear that produces sound waves themselves that we most prefer,
Hold on: "most prefer?" You mean "most prefer" under blind listening conditions right? What about what we'll hear under the actual sighted conditions for our loudspeaker? If your sighted listening is totally inaccurate, then you will not hear the "sound you prefer" in your sighted listening! So there is no connection between the relevance of the "sound you prefer" blinded vs how you'll actually use the speaker.
See how you aren't answering this problem?
Or, (C) use a clever proxy for controlled listening tests, namely a specific suite of measurements plus interpretative guidelines that have been experimentally determined to apply to us all quite evenly and with sufficient confidence to be useful, and likely to lead to us choosing the gear that produces sound waves themselves that we most prefer,
Which contains the same unanswered questions. Will the "clever proxy" predict how you will perceive the speaker
in sighted conditions...or not? And if it will,
if your sighted listening tracks with measurement...wouldn't that imply your sighted listening has some accuracy?
Or, (D) abandon the whole idea of choosing audio gear that produces sound waves themselves that we most prefer, and choose gear using a method that is largely delusional but, but like all delusions, can lead to happiness…or hellishness.
Which is a bunch of gobbledygook that doesn't address the issue.
Our choice. Basically, the red pill via B or C, or the blue pill via D. Turns out your conundrum doesn’t beg a solution, it begs a choice. I have previously proposed a hybrid option, where we shortlist gear from B or C, then go via D (sighted biased listening) to pick from the shortlist. That way, at least, our sighted choices are 'harmless' to the sound waves.
All of which presumes the translation of the criteria to our perception in sighted conditions! Which only makes sense if sighted conditions allow some level of "actually perceiving the sound correctly."
Remember: it's not merely about The Sound Waves - what matters is What We Perceive, whether we percieve the sound waves with any relevant accuracy!
One of the nice things about choosing the red pill, is that it takes us closer to hearing the sound waves that the recording production team heard, and wanted us to experience as a result of their effort, creativity and skill. The blue pill loses sight of that.
But...under sighted conditions? That is how you use your speakers, right? If you don't accurately perceive the sound in your sighted conditions, how would you ever have a chance to accurately percieve what the recording production team heard?
You have not at all produced a coherent answer...which I think is due to either not understanding the issue, or just being so worried about being "trapped" and giving any credence to sighted listening, that you'll bend over backwards to avoid the problem.