Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

This is, of course, interesting because we know from the measurements that there is a difference. Methodologicaly the problem is that you do not believe it is big enough to show up in a double blind listening test, and it is beyond the level where by common consent it is believed the limits are of human hearing acuity. So it could just be expectation bias. How do we decide that what you hear is real?
My real concern is when measurements show that there is nothing there, or even, that the audiophile marvel measures badly and is still praised by golden ears.

@geoffkait 
"One problem I suspect is that audiophiles for all their bluster aren’t very sure of what their listening to and uncertain as to how to proceed to improve whatever it is they've got. it's a sticky wicket."

Might it be on account of circus clown snake oil scam artists like you insisting magic rocks and phone calls will tweak audio gear or the listener's brain and that some things just can't be measured? People would do well to come to terms with what measurements sound like so they can make informed choices instead of giving snake oil pitches the same credence as actual science. 

Eek!

Yup, that’s all one can expect from a self proclaimed F5 clown 😉

Way better than magic rocks and blue spots, isn't it?