Good ideas, Craig. Blind testing doesn't remove differences that actually exist(and some do exist in speakers, although not to the "blow-away" extent sometimes described when fairly similar speakers are involved), but it does remove preconceived notions as to construction, brandname, price, etc. I noted that even Curtis used the term "metallic" twice in his first M22 impressions. Of course, no such characteristic sound exists; a speaker with a titanium dome tweeter can be made to sound as dull or "laid-back" as one desires by increasing the value of the resistor in the crossover. Conversely a speaker with a paper cone tweeter can be made to sound harsh(metallic?)with the opposite crossover treatment. Can't recall many comments about a "papery" or "plasticky" quality of a speaker.
I remember my first(anonymous)post here over a year ago in which I was somewhat derisive of an M2 listener who reported not only a ringing in his ears but a metallic taste in his mouth. In a later post he made clear that he didn't appreciate my advice to listen with a mint in his mouth and my failure to take him seriously.
This also brings to mind the occasion a few years ago when otherwise identical black and gold finished receivers were presented to a listening panel with the "explanation" that different output impedances were being tested. The panel members were in general agreement that the sound of the gold receiver was "warmer".
I suppose the bottom line may be that the mantra to "trust your ears" can't be applied to someone who's listening with preconceived notions.
