It is not about justifying what you own. It is not about whether expensive hi-fi is better than cheap hi-fi. It is about how we are best able to find out the real (not imaginary) *sonic* differences between equipment. About how we are best able to distinguish things that work and are worth buying from pure snakeoil. If we can't do this, or can't do this reliably, why should we bother having any interest in sound quality?

So, what is the best method?

Based on much I have read, I would conclude any method should at least be blind in the sense that the testee should not let what they know influence what they hear. I mean, in sighted tests John Dunlavy reports how people heard big improvements when nothing was changed. Lawrie's post also indicates how he 'fooled' himself with regard to two cables. Blind testing would seem the best way to prevent this.

If anyone could point me in the directions or any good articles debunking blind testing then please do so and I may reconsider this. I would say, however, that the sheer lack of quality of the arguments against blind testing speaks volumes.