I wonder if you have gone through a hearing test... It is accomplished by playing various tones at different frequencies and at different sound pressure levels. In my case, age has taken away my ability to hear much over 14Khz so I've lost some high end hearing...
Its been a couple of decades since. I aced it then, but don't know the results. I don't see how hearing "only" up to 14khz is any big deal. No big deal at all. Assuming that 20khz is the ceiling, that 6khz difference is only barely over a "perfect fifth". You are still able to hear the lower 9 and 1/2 octaves. Good enough. I would say, at least with the fundamental tones, that none of my music ever breaks 3khz. With my collection of baroque and renaissance music, I doubt that there is a single note that is even over 1.5khz. So, 14khz will cover all that along with plenty of, if not all, the audible accompanying harmonics.
Yes, but you still fall prey to placebo like anybody else. I'm also a musician of about 30 years experience (piano and keyboards) and I understand what you are saying. But your humanity will trump all of your experience. Same with me or anybody else.
I, explicitly or not, have already conceded the point you are making. But, to take it to an extreme and unfair analogy, I usually know when I am talking to a female or male even with my eyes closed. Do I need someone to blind-test me? Depending on the recording, my two players offered tremendous differences in audio,
in my subjective opinion 
. As I said before, the differences were not subtle!!
Placebo!!!
I don't know. I assume they explain their testing procedure somewhere on the site. I've never looked for it. I had no problem with audible differences in the PS1 test. Both my wife and I scored 100%. No question that the CD players sounded different. But the fact that they sounded different wasn't an opinion, it was a test result. Therein lies the difference.
IIRC, Gene had his wife swap players while he was "blind". They had identical recordings cued up in sync, I believe. He was surprised that he kept preferring the player under review, IIRC, when told by wife. He then proceeded to swap them back and forth for himself.
Therein lies the most negative aspect of audiophilia. Listening to music is far more entertaining for me than listening to equipment. I rather envy my piano coach. He could care less how much fidelity is delivered. He is fascinated by the performer's technique and the way he deals with a given element in the music. It's fun to watch him listen to a recorded pianist and comment on the performance. It has nothing to do with audio fidelity. It has everything to do with piano playing. I sometimes break out in a sweat when I hear Oscar Peterson playing jazz piano. It just seems impossible that someone can play jazz like that. Yes he was classically trained at Julliard and turned to jazz when he couldn't get concert dates because of his race. What a treat that was for the jazz world and for him as well. He was in his prime in the late 40's and early 50's. The recordings aren't so hot but the performances are amazing.
Although I don't own any Oscar Peterson recordings, I'll never forget the first time I heard a recording of his. He has a very impressive right hand. (Methinks his favorite classical stuff might have been Chopin
). I wish he used his left-hand more often for increased complexity of counterpoint. (My own bias, I think contrapuntal music is the greatest thing ever created! Even better than sliced bread!). I know one decently well-known composer was telling me that he thinks that Gould is the only pianist ever to have a left-hand as adept as his/her right hand. I dunno. Argerich could be a candidate, but then again, she plays a ton of Chopin too...
Sometimes I find audio to be similar to searching for a good instrument. Firstly, there is always compromise, period. That being said, some are more clear, some have more pleasant coloration, some have wider dynamic range, some play soft stuff very well, some play loud stuff very well, some have better separation, some are easier to play, some have better balance, etc, etc, etc. I think a lot of those adjectives can be applied both ways. Better instruments and better speakers can do a number of things well, at the same time. However, rarely or never all traits. What's great about speakers/audio is that all you have to do is put on a disc! So much easier....
Anyways, for the enjoyable tangent of music performance, one thing that a pianist does not have to concern himself with is "fingerings", not as in which finger to use, but where to play the note. (Another is that simply lifting the key will "stop" the note). Any one note can be played on only one key. This is unlike stringed and wind instruments. Im not saying piano isn't freaking the most difficult thing ever because it is, but it does point to some "music fidelity" issues that are not dealt with by pianist. If I were to play two contrapuntal lines simultaneously, say, on a guitar, depending on how one "fingers" it, some musical intention can be lost, or something seriously simple as clarity/separation. Then, certain instruments offer less clarity than others in "higher positions", leaving options even more limited. Not that these instruments are worse or better, only that this is not a particular strength (even happens with top-notch +$20k instruments). Then choices are re-made once again for live performance vs recording. I do truly love piano, both classical and jazz. I have one decently sized cd book that is dedicated to solo piano recordings only. (Chamber stuff, concertos, are all categorized elsewhere).
The problem is that, since the ears are connected to the brain, the audiophile experiences inconsistencies in his reaction to audio equipment. What he liked one day, he dislikes another because of mood changes and who knows what else might be going on inside his head. There is alway another glittering piece of gear for him buy to replace something that no longer satisfies. I could buy a decent house with the money I've spent over the years trading audio equipment. I too have owned state-of-the-art Stereophile recommended, high end, super expensive gear. I liked it a lot. But I realize now it didn't have much more to do with enjoying music than what I use now. It had more to do with enjoying equipment.
You know, I almost dropped the uber-expensive audio rig purchase for a near impossible to obtain instrument purchase. (We get one per year in the US, specifically here in CA, and price is double here at about 30k, plus purchase must be made years in advance before even getting to audition it). Seller was asking 10k for it (he and his wife were staying at my place during his California portion of a recent US tour). It accidentally dropped and broke in 5 places, all of which were cleated by original luthier. To get a new one (if the luthier even makes them anymore), you must be world-famous, and bring the sum in cash. The luthier then does not count the money. He uses a caliper. He told the original seller that 3 bills were missing. He was right! I have a soft place in my heart for formerly damaged instruments. My violin is over 200 y.o., but it was affordable to me since it had a major reparation in 1991. It was also affordable because its not Italian!
I also have a guitar that was the luthier's personal instrument before he committed suicide. He beat the living hell out of it.
With that, I'll end the rant. Take care.
You too.
