Ditto. My interest isn't in shaming folk or anything of the like, I'd just like to go through the full process and understand what it is that these people are hearing so that I can gain something from the likes of the review I posted.
I'm not digging out said reviewer. I'm just genuinely curious as to what these perceived differences are.
I know the standard view on here is DID YOU BLIND TEST? WHAT CONDITIONS? and very rightly so. But let's face it, that's a bollocks stance. As objective as i am I can't afford a full test scenario let alone the cost of several amps to test therein.
But to witness what they're hearing and to then try and explain what they're hearing scientifically would be far more beneficial to me than a billion WAS IT ABX BLIND? WAS IT? rebuttals
I don't disagree with you either for the most part, except the last part. By the way, you are probably aware that ASR has more than one tests that people can do online, and sort of done DBT too using music clips done for such tests. I do not recall anyone scoring well in those tests. Should we expect people to be able to tell the difference between amps that are designed for accuracy and have specs and measurements that would understandably make them hard to tell apart? And if not done in ABX blind, do we just accept whatever the testers tell us as facts regardless of what the experts told based on their experience, often in studies.
To me, it would be far more beneficial to try and find the reason why sample A would sounds different, or better than sample B only if the listening tests were done in ABX blind with reliable support data. If we know the reasons for the differences heard, then we may be able to develop a way to pick the best performed amp based on accuracy/transparency/neutrality, without having to hear multiple amps in our own setups and done in ABX blind tests that we all know are difficult to do.
By the way, here's one example of how useful (not not) it can be for people comparing avrs without following a protcol, you only have to read the first page to see that it is all over the map:
There is also logic here, if hearing is believing, then we need to hear whether the amp designers/engineers actually do listening test and tweak their design (circuitry, parts etc..) by conducting all sorts of listening tests, or they just use best practice in the design and be not influenced by their own listening tests. If it is the former, then should we not expect such amps would not measure well, at least by Amir's standard bar? And either way, are we willing to buy amps that are tuned by the designer's ears even if it resulted in subpar measurements, again by Amir's standard?
Lastly, you may be interested in reading Peter Walker's (a brilliant and highly regarded engineer) comment on listening tests, if you haven't yet. I found what he said interesting, but logical, and hope you would too.
We designed our valve amplifier, manufactured it, and put it on the market, and never actually listened to it. In fact, the same applies to the 303 and the 405. People say, 'Well that's disgusting, you ought to have listened to it.' However, we do a certain amount of listening tests, but they...
www.audiosciencereview.com
The original interview article: