sighted and rigorous sure doesn't seem like they're related to each other.
(please correct me with dictionary definitions if i am wrong)
They're not. That was my point. A sighted 'review' of how a unit SOUNDs is not rigorous. The claim is ""Where audio and video equipment undergoes rigorous objective and subjective tests by our staff" -- if Audioholics means "rigorous objective test, and not-rigorous subjective tests" then perhaps that's how it should read.
there are quite a number of objective tests done on the reviewed products and the subjective tests are exactly that - subjective.
And my point again is, you're taking the science halfway. Sighted subjective 'tests' have deep inherent problems, so why rely on them at all? It's possible to make even subjective reports of SOUND quality more rigorous by making them less prone to influence from non-sound factors.
Subjectivity comes into review of SOUND in two ways
1) subjective impression that unit/treatment A sound different from B
2) subjective impression that unit/treatement A sounds BETTER (or worse) than B
Logically, if (1) ends up having no objective support -- from measurements, or from a BLIND listening comparison -- then (2) is unlikely to have any either.
So one way to 'pursue the truth' more diligently, whenever A is being compared to B, is to do it blind.
When there IS a real difference in sound, blinding is also called for to circumvent the natural inclination to rate 'sound' based at least partly on 'non sound' factors, like price, appearance, brand reputation, etc.
