Critics devise theories which become influential and enable them to tell the rest of us what is good and beautiful.
I don't subscribe to that view. I won't allow a critic to dictate what I should or should not like.
Well that doesn’t apply to me because what is "good" or "bad' is by definition in this context, subjective and the only reason I am contributing at all is that I believe a purely subjective assessment of audio gear is 'dangerous' with a serious potential to mislead, because of the way our ears/brain work. The beauty of objective tests is that they are, well, objective - so any vagaries of the human mind, placebo, expectation bias, auditory memory etc can be safely removed from the assessment. After all the testing and measuring has been done, then I do some serious listening, using just my ears/brain :) If what I hear sounds 'good' I am done. If it sounds 'bad', then I need to dig deeper to discover why. I have rarely, if ever, found that something which measures good sounds bad, and only occasionally found that something which measures bad sounds good. I could never just rely on my ears and my subjective opinion - there are too many vagaries involved. If my system is, to my ears, sounding imprecise in its imaging, for example, and I run some ETC graphs, I can get a pretty good idea of why it sounds imprecise. I can use the graphs (and some string) to determine the likely cause of the problem and correct it - and then I can listen again. Both aspects are important.
WRT to 'evangelists' surely you must agree that this applies just as much (if not more) to the 'pure subjectivists' as it does to the 'objectivists'?
Breathe freely. Arny has rescued you from death by suffocation :) Meantime, I accept the apology you are no doubt about to make.
No - it is not correcting the response curve of the amp at all. That 'curve' will be more or less ruler flat 20Hz to 20kHz. Room correction software corrects the in-room frequency response of the speakers in the room.
All of them? Oh come on... I think you have just given up if you really believe what you just typed there. You asked for the evidence of the thousands of tests conducted. It has been provided (which you did not expect, hence not holding your breath) and now you say that ALL of the tests are likely to have been doctored? I am sure if you quietly reflect on what you just said that you will see the absurdity of it.
Yes, come on Heinrich - a few of us are waiting. I asked you too but instead of providing it, you just asked ME to provide evidence that thousands of ABX tests had been conducted. Well, that has now been provided (thanks Arny) and so let's see you give what you promised... where is this one DBT test to which you refer?
I'm betting it's the Robert Harley/Swedish test. Which wasn't actually an ABX test anyway IIRC.
OMG - it's French! If it's 'just a sample' that means there must be lots more. Can you provide one in English please?
Admit it - you just googled and found that didn't you? You didn't know about it before did you? ;)