At the extreme, his arguments against "objectivism" could be taken to mean that no one should listen to his opinions, either. If there is no objective viewpoint, then there's simply no point accepting his viewpoint, either. It's a common problem of post-modern flavored thinking.
I have to admit I stopped reading his essay a few pages into it. If the following is already covered by him, I apologize.
Double-blind listening tests may be our best shot at higher audio performance, but I'm not sure we've done enough kinds of research to work out the weaknesses. For one, they don't recreate a normal listening experience. No one listening to their own system is unaware of what hardware they're running. They're also not instantaneously switching between two components for comparison. As for me, I know I end up noticing new details quite often when I'm engaged in the content, not necessarily listening for sound quality differences. What if our best listening isn't when we think we're listening critically? Then again, how much research can be done on that? It's just that so much of our ordinary listening has us preoccupied with the lyrics, or with the story. Maybe the general impressions we construct over time with this casual kind of listening have more value than critical back-and-forth double-blind.
How many audio companies DON'T utilize double-blind listening tests when designing their products versus those that do? I'm sure the ones that were created out of magic have higher price tags, but I wonder if it's guaranteed that they'll perform under the level of those that have benefited from "proper" research.
Most of you are much more studied than I am on the topic, so I'd love to hear of the research that's been done.
