This is the second time you've mentioned the Hi-Fi Choice reviews. The general opinion is that they're meaningless. Please allow me to explain why I (among others) have that opinion.
You wrote, " .... Significant differences and preferences were observed in all classes of components." In the first place, here is no mention of level-matching. If levels are not precisely matched, then the louder speaker will seem preferable. And you
did mention "preferences", which is not the same as "more accurate". Preference is referenced to one person's personal likes or dislikes, and accuracy is referenced to reality as much as possible. As such, it's removed from the realm of "personal".
You used the phrase, " ... group reviews of products using a panel of experienced staff ... ". The way you structured this sentence leads me to believe that there were several listeners as well as several devices under review, all at the same time and in the same place. Multiple devices arranged in a row, can easily be identified by relative position. So the word "unsighted" might be misleading. Not only that, but a group of listeners, unless highly disciplined, will give subtle body-English cues in their reactions. Other listeners can pick up on these cues. If equipment is auditioned by a single person, alone in the room, then that disappears.
You also wrote, " ... Significant differences and preferences were observed in all classes of components and there seemed to be very weak correlation between how things measured and the listening panel rankings. " There are many pieces of equipment on the market, speakers, amps and interconnects inclusive, that have been designed and manufactured in such a way as to be euphonic, or to sound "pleasant" or "different" rather than accurate. If a device is designed to be accurate, it has only one point of comparison. But if a device is designed to be "pleasant", there are myriad upon myriad different results that can be obtained, each one of them sounding a little different. A listening panel should have no trouble determining which speaker or amp is neutral and accurate. But if they were auditioning equipment that was designed to be "euphonic", then each personal idea of "pleasant" would compel listeners to rate each device differently. Naturally, there would be little correlation between measurements and opinions, because personal likes and dislikes, which is what opinions are, would predominate.
Not only that, but a person infatuated with "euphonic" equipment may very well find accuracy to be distasteful.
One other thing you wrote was, " ... the listeners were highly experienced people from within the industry." To me, and probably to other people here, this means nothing. There are many con men and bunco artists who are experienced. That doesn't mean that we can trust them. The only description that means something is "disciplined and unbiased".
THAT means something. There is nowhere any indication that this was the case for these "group reviews."
For all we know, they may have been drinking coffee and joking around with each other, making comments and comparisons during these auditions.
We just don't know. And because we don't know, I don't give any credence to reviews like that.
Jim
This is the second time you've mentioned the Hi-Fi Choice reviews. The general opinion is that they're meaningless. Please allow me to explain why I (among others) have that opinion.
You wrote, " .... Significant differences and preferences were observed in all classes of components." In the first place, here is no mention of level-matching. If levels are not precisely matched, then the louder speaker will seem preferable. And you did mention "preferences", which is not the same as "more accurate". Preference is referenced to one person's personal likes or dislikes, and accuracy is referenced to reality as much as possible. As such, it's removed from the realm of "personal".
You used the phrase, " ... group reviews of products using a panel of experienced staff ... ". The way you structured this sentence leads me to believe that there were several listeners as well as several devices under review, all at the same time and in the same place. Multiple devices arranged in a row, can easily be identified by relative position. So the word "unsighted" might be misleading. Not only that, but a group of listeners, unless highly disciplined, will give subtle body-English cues in their reactions. Other listeners can pick up on these cues. If equipment is auditioned by a single person, alone in the room, then that disappears.
One other thing you wrote was, " ... the listeners were highly experienced people from within the industry." To me, and probably to other people here, this means nothing. There are many con men and bunco artists who are experienced. That doesn't mean that we can trust them. The only description that means something is "disciplined and unbiased". THAT means something. There is nowhere any indication that this was the case for these "group reviews."
For all we know, they may have been drinking coffee and joking around with each other, making comments and comparisons during these auditions. We just don't know. And because we don't know, I don't give any credence to reviews like that.
Jim