Component reviews are typically a mix of fact -- how many
inputs/outputs does the device have, what formats does it play,
what materials and parts were used in its construction, how is the
remote laid out , how does it differ from previous or competing
models in terms of features , etc -- and possibly spurious
subjective impression about the sound . Guess which part I
find most valuable.

Certainly the same part I do.


Which does not make the conclusions drawn any more tenable...all it means
is that both reviewer and consumer tend to evaluate the sound of a
component in a manner that is unlikely to be particularly
reliable or accurate. But it does make them feel good.


Which is the bottom line in any hobby.


Indeed. But these 'subjective reviews' you talk about do *not* confine
themselves purely to statemenst such as, "I liked this one", "I didn't like
that one"; "This one made me feel good", or the like. They instead often
*do* involve comparisons (often to the reviewer's 'reference system')
and they *do* make *specific claims* about one 'throwing a better soundstage'

or 'sounding less harsh' or 'clarifying the bass'. Under thy typical
review conditions there is a distinct possibility that these
impressions are NOT the result of
actual sonic differences, but are *entirely* psychological in origin -- a
likelihood that science tells us cannot be confidently dismissed without more
controlled comparison.

All true and all a possible reaction that any given consumer may have to such a
new piece of equipment. Just because the reviewer is more detailed in
describing their impressions of a given piece of equipment doesn't make their
impression any less real or any less like the sort of impressions that any
consumer may also have.

Reviewers pretend this isn't the case.

The disclaimer says enough IMO. It is clear that the editor of Stereophile does
not hold the subjective opinions of the reviewers as definitive. I haven't seen
any reviewer specifically claim that thier subjective impressions are
universally infalable.


Yes, the community of belief is a strong component of the hobby. But is the
belief
warranted by the facts? At what point does the hobby become more
'faith based' than fact-based?

At the point where people draw their conclusions based on what they are told
rather than what they experience. You cannot blame a magazine that tells it's
readers to not use subjective reviews as definitive claims of performance and
to audition equipment for themselves before purchasing equipment for some
audiophiles acting on faith.


Do these disclaimers -- where are they printed , btw, in the current issues
of the usual audio journals? -- further recommend that the personal auditions
be
carried out in a scientifically reliable manner? Repeating the error of the
reviewer yourself isn't going to get you closer to reliable.


They do not suggest how people audition equipment for themslves. Just that they
do so. I believe these disclaimers can be found in the introduction to every
recomended components list. It is your opinion that a reviewer or a consumer is
in error if they do not use scientifically valid methods for testing thier
subjective impressions. But then *all* of the advocates of DBTs on RAO clearly
chose the one component that they believe matters most in the same unreliable
manner. The bottom line how a hobbyist feels about his or her participation in
the hobby.


I'll never understand why you think telling me that *lots* of journals
have poor standards of objective proof for their claims, is any sort of
argument *for* sighted comparison.

I agree that it is unlikely you will ever understand. I suggest you give
careful thought as to why skeptics spend their time on bigfoot UFOs and
holistic medicine and not hobbies like audio and photography.


What sorts of products are you thinking of?

Toys for grownups.


All it means is that you can 'refine' a sighted method forever, and the
results will
always have a huge, intrinsic question mark over them. By contrast DBT can
shrink the
size of that question mark to the point of *scientific* certainty...which is
the
strongest kind of certainty we can achieve about the natural world.


OK, if this is what you meant by 'perfectable' than I am OK with your claim. I
think perfectable per se goes beyond scientific certainty.