I haven't bothered to read this thread in detail since the usual suspects seem to be playing the usual silly games, but it's self-evident to me that anyone who really believes that hi-fi should be assessed purely by reference to one's ears, should be in favour of tests which remove all extraneous factors other than what's audible. If you believe your ears are all that matter in making a judgement about a piece of hi-fi, you should be in favour of blind tests.

The suggestion that, because blind tests consistently demonstrate most people actually can't hear what they think they can in sighted tests, there's something intrinsically wrong with blind test methodology, is completely laughable.

I think people should buy hi-fi based on whatever criteria they like, but they shouldn't kid themselves about the extent of the audible differences between much of the stuff on the market. Mind you, people who sell bits of wire and other tweaky nonsense have a reason for wanting to muddy the waters, of course.

I do wish Pete would stop accusing anybody who hears differently to him and expresses a contrary opinion to him of not allowing people to make up their own minds, it's just absurd.

-- Ian