semente

If you don't mind losing "ratings", "playlists", etc. then you can import the contents of "Library name (f.e. iTunes)">iTunes Media>Music folder into a new library. ALT+click on the iTunes programme, select "Create New Library" and name it whatever you fancy.

Interesting, it comes from a region not that far from Darjeeling (where my favourite tea is grown). Might give it a try at some point. Did you guys know that tea is being grown half-way between the US and continental Europe, right in the middle of the Atlantic? https://gorreana.pt/en/

I'd seriously consider a pair of R-series Kef speakers.

Oversimplification seems to be quite common. The Spinorama comes to mind.

I am not sure what you mean but I agree with @PeterSt that "a better measuring product is better engineered", as long as you are considering a product that performs better across a comprehensive set of measurements. There is no point in having a time-coherent speaker if the response curve is completely ragged, the dispersion is all over the place and nasty driver break up resonances are very audible...

Alt-objectivists (ASR is full of those) don't "believe" in listening. They accept only ABX comparisons which are very low resolution unfit-for-purpose affairs. Mostly because Harman has "proved" with their research experiments that not much was audible or important aside from tonal balance... (dumb, dumber, dumbest or perhaps deaf, etc.)

I agree. But if an audiophile is unwilling to take the trouble of learning how to interpret measurements that is his own fault and loss. Measurements and listening are complementary tools for performance assessment and both are indispensible for system building. Measurements are the difference between a trial-and-error method which may occasionally lead to the fortunate accidental upgrade and taking control of your choices. They also help you to steer away from snake oil and hype, and to focus on what is essential. Specs don't help the consumer not because they lack an interpretation – any evolved audiophile should be able to make his own elations – but because they're presented in an over-simplified manner. For example a speaker manufacturer specifying frequency response of a speaker as 30Hz - 30kHz vs 34Hz–23kHz, ±3dB (on axis); 36Hz–20kHz, ±1.5dB, (on axis); 36Hz–10kHz (30° off axis); LF cutoff, –10dB: 29Hz But more importantly a ±3dB range can accomodate very different curves from a nearly-flat curve with a simple tilt to a very bumpy zig-zag across the spectrum. The same is true for other averaged specs like THD. Things get even more complicated when you look at things like bass loading and dispersion (room interference) or the interaction between speakers and amplification. It's the job of the evolved audiophile to learn the basic of how things work. If one is serious about it. Otherwise we're just throwing money into a bottomless chest... Box-swappers. I disagree. I don't care much about Amir's comments or conclusions (I draw my own and sometimes disagree with his interpretations) but I am convinced that once one are able to roughly correlate measurements with listening then one can safely dismiss speakers from a worth-listening-to list. If Joe Sixpack want's it easy then he can use What Hi-Fi?'s star ratings. That's what I did when I was my late teens when I embraced this hobby. He can follow the SINAD and Preference Ratings. Or he can just spend his life navigating through endless amounts of gear in hope of hitting that accidental upgrade... No different that playing the lottery.

This particular case is not so much that measurements are misleading but whether a couple of measurements are enough to characterise audible performance; I defend that they're not. Life would be very easy if a spinorama could characterise loudspeaker performance in full and predict preference. But this is the real world...

Amir expected the speaker, which performed well in a Harman study, to perform but it didn't. Yes the test was sighted and Amir saw the measurements prior to listening but they're not better nor worse than other speakers' which he liked in the past. Is it so difficult to conceive that there could be a problem? Are you that biased against listening assessments that are not of the ABX type? You put a lot of trust in the detailed, repeated, published and peer-reviewed scientific studies; I see scope for flaws and corner cutting and even commercially driven bias and personal taste. Meanwhile a pier-reviewed paper about Covid 19 (hydroxichloroquine) published in none other than the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine magazines has just been found void and retracted... Trust science, yes, but not blindly.

I disagree. It's not a matter of how it sounds (taste/subjective) but of identifying shortcomings (observation/objective). Like I said, I am ever more inclined to believe that corners were cut in Harman's research. Methodology, small samples, untrained listeners... I am not convinced that Amir is a particularly experienced listener but I find it perfectly possible for the Infinity to produce audible distortion(s).

There's an interesting discussion going on at ASR where Amir has against his and others' expectations found that a speaker which was favoured in a Harman study and produces beautiful Spinoramas sounds bad. Many are calling bias, so entrenched are they in their beliefs regarding audibility that they refuse to accept the obvious. They've been Tooled to accept that nothing other than tonal balance matters... Good observation is good science. Ignoring observation is dogma.