Once your sure, you're sure. If it's after 2x, 5x, it's up to the individual listener to determine that for himself.
If I'm anal-retentive it's only because I'm trying to lower my carbon footprint
I'm not commenting on their procedure where they posted so I doubt it affects them. Critical commentary is hardly a hatchet job.
Yes, I prefer voltage matching and that at 3 points. It gives a picture that the pink noise, which is better than nothing but can be better, does not. It's quicker, not subject to variances in the room (a person moved, stood up, a door opened, closed, and so forth...all of which affect an spl meter), and cheaper. It's the procedure used by scientists and researchers and has not found to be bettered. Extreme care and attention to a lot of detail is needed to achieve reproducibility with a microphone. I wasn't there.
A review of the Lamm ML2.1 in StereoPhile indicates a few things - it is decidedly non-linear past and to some extent before 20K and being low powered, distortion rises appreciably at increased levels. Contrast that with the performance of the Aragon 8008. This means...
1) If the CDP's had signficant HF output beyond 20K, the non-linearity of the Lamm will make it prone to IM.
2) If the matching only appeared to be reproducible for the reasons mentioned above, then euphonics can vary between two players.
I have no idea what the modding entailed or if measurements were provided. I struck out on any reviews that involved measurements for the players in general. A player doesn't have to be modded to have information "outside the medium".
I have no comment about the modded player. In the past, I've contacted various companies about whether they've performed measurements on players before and after. I've not done well.
Yes, the test took 6 hours. In that time, they attempted to accomplish a lot - perhaps too much. I'd be spending more than a couple of listening sessions if I was dropping that kind of change. Maybe you would too. Perhaps we'll read more in the future.