Since ABX and blind testing is banned elsewhere in this forum, we should have a similar ban on the constant subjectivist argument that they hear differences between all sorts of hifi kit and components from opamps to cables and that difference is caused by the hifi component itself.
Banning ABX and blind testing elsewhere removes one of the main planks of the objectivist argument, that if you cannot see what you are listening to you either really struggle to hear, or cannot hear a difference anymore. The conclusion from that is the difference is caused by sight and knowledge of the component, so influences such as image, reviews, cost become part of the perceived sound quality. That is a well proven conclusion that stands up to a repeatable, recognised testing method.
ABX and blind testing is a better evidenced argument than the subjectivist unproven, pseudeoscience non sequitur, 'I and my mates hear a difference between Supadoopa £500 cables over Elcheapo £5 cables and the difference is caused by the cable, where the Supadoopa cable maker claims that the reflective uber sheilding causes a reduction in static which realignes the skin effect molecules allowing a smoother transmission of the audio signal'. That is no repeatable, not proven and uses no recognised testing method.
Such claims then allow another subjectivist debate spoiler, the claim objectivists don't think they really do hear a difference. That is not true with those who are seriously asking how hifi kit works to cause sound quality differences. Some objectivists, such as myself still hear differences between cables. But we no longer think that the difference is caused by the cable, it is caused by us and placebo or whtever you want to call it.
We don't dispute that subjectivists hear a difference, we ask instead why do you hear a difference.
So I would ask that the main subjectivist argument of 'I hear a difference between X, so it is caused by X is banned'. It is used as a spoiler to ruin many a debate here.