But the line of mine you quoted and disagreed with didn't say anything about training creating preference..? Nor did the post afterwards..?No. The training involves identifying what part of frequency response is wrong in a speaker (i.e. colored). It does not create preference for sound. Just take the test and you will see.
What I said was that if a person can be shown to prefer (another word for "rate highly") a speaker that 'measures well' (I didn't specify the measure, but you say it is "uncolored") then that makes them - in Harman's eyes - a 'better' listener. And, indeed, Harman says:
"The training has identified significant differences among listeners in their abilities to reliably identify and rate these distortions. ... This information can form an objective basis for selecting the most reliable and skilled listeners..."
"Training" in that paragraph's context, means "evaluation after training". So in other words, when evaluated, the listener's ability is inferred from his preferences for 'a measure' (i.e. lack of spectral distortion).
Further down in my post, I then go on to say
... which I think is the logical leap too far.Because better listeners prefer speakers that measure well, this shows that our measurements are indicative of absolute quality.
Therefore listeners can be trained to be better judges of quality by learning to maximise their score with speakers that measure well.