No escape indeed, and it wouldn't be a hobby if we didn't subjectively judge and discuss it! All we need to do is to acknowledge the subjectivity.
When I go out to buy, I'm as subjective as they come: even the visual/tactile aesthetics of the equipment counts (as the manufacturers well know). On the other hand, if I read a "group test" in the media,
it should have been done blind. Hard though it may be to arrange, if we are seriously interested in assessment, even at home, it's really better if we can manage it, not to know which alternative we are rating as we [get someone else to] switch the alternatives.
The article you quote (warning: I may be about to be subjective; I'm not sure
) presents some really bad arguments, though, in what seems to be a desire to discredit blind testing.
But for some, Oscilloscope will only be next level of debates, as across international forums I read people debating & discussing on circuits used to test, components used, even materials used to make components.
If a difference can be heard, the instruments can usefully explain, perhaps --- or even arbitrate, where difference is disputed. Whilst I'm never going to understand those squiggly waves, If someone can use them to translate into something more objective than "squishy in the mid tones, muddy in the base," I don't mind at all. On the other hand, even though the data might be scientific, I am sure that it will still be used to
unscientifically justify some product, especially an expensive cable ("Whoa, this
proves that tones above 60khz* are subject to calcification," in conjunction with the catch-all justification that even frequencies that bats can't hear do affect what humans can hear.
*(whoa!
bats can hear up to 150khz, so can whales and dolphins. Perhaps mere humans don't even deserve hifi
)
