What's your process for comparing new gear, cables, etc.?

I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I will not respond to insults or condescension. I phrased my question carefully. And yet...

So, to the thoughtful responders: I will think about what’s been said and respond when I have a moment.
@tommic601 -- the specific mentions of equipment and techniques is very helpful, as is the encouragement.

In the meantime, I found this interesting piece: http://www.acourate.com/Download/BiasesInModernAudioQualityListeningTests.pdf

I have not read it carefully or fully, so I am not endorsing it, but clearly auditory memory is a complex psychological subject area.

Thanks @kren.
There is a new You Tube channel on audio. Notice he says, "Short term auditory memory has been shown to be very unreliable, even the order in which you switch components makes a difference."

His reply to my question was interesting. Sharing:

Tarun A British Audiophile
"Hi David, that is an excellent question. You have to try and eliminate as many variables as possible. Here is my process...

The room: I need to understand the acoustic characteristics of my room so that I can develop an ability to listen “through” the room. If I am evaluating speakers, I need to spend quite a bit of time experimenting with positioning to try and get the best out of them. I have a listening room on the acoustically lively side. It helps to have another room that has more damping just to double check my conclusions. Although, with experience this becomes seldomly necessary.

Partnering equipment: I use a minimum of 3 DACs, 3 amplifiers and 3 speakers to evaluate a new component. I have owned these components for some time so instinctively recognise their sound characteristics. Although, I mainly listen through my main system if I am evaluating a new piece of equipment, it is important to try any new component with different combinations so that I can determine how it behaves and what might be suitable partnering equipment. For example, my Exposure Pre/Monos have a big, warm, rich sound where as my Hegel H160 is much leaner and more clinical in its presentation. My Audiolab M-PWR is a compact 40 watt amp that shows if a speaker is difficult to drive. Listening material: Having test tracks that I know inside out helps because I know instinctively how it should sound ordinarily and can more easily identify changes. Tracks are selected based on their ability to highlight a specific aspect of a products performance. For example, I have certain tracks that I listen to for evaluating female vocals, soundstage, imaging, transient response, etc. Most of them are great quality recordings but not every track because it is also import to know how forgiving a component may be of less than perfect recordings.

AB testing: I resist the temptation to switch components after minutes or hours of listening. Short term auditory memory has been shown to be very unreliable, even the order in which you switch components makes a difference. Have you noticed that when manufacturers do this they always start with the cheapest component and then go to the more expensive one and not the other way around. There is a very good reason for this. The second time you hear something new, it will sound better even if you haven’t changed anything. IMHO the only way to evaluate a component is to listen to it for days, making notes that you refer to and update through the process. Product burn-in may be a hotly contested debate but human burn-in is definitely an element to be considered when evaluating any new component. Give yourself time to adjust to how a product sounds, allow yourself to slowly form an impression, once you feel comfortable, only then, change a component. Is this process scientific? Absolutely not but I know of no better way to evaluate new components.

Thank you for the question. I may do a video on this topic."

@big_greg I agree. I’ve found as I put my system together, that people say things like, "Get 3 different cables and try them out." Etc. And I know that anyone who’s built a system has had to do close listening comparisons to try to hear differences — unless they’re just willing to buy something based on reviews, price, etc. And I also agree that A/B differences do show that there is a difference, but I have been reading about a multitude of factors which can be responsible — time, mood, other gear, etc. — and so sometimes I wonder what the cause of the change is — and even IF there really was a change. And everyone who pays attention to how they listen knows that there are times you *think* you heard something, but you didn't. Whenever one pushes the boundaries of one's perception and then tries to label it, there's a margin of error.

@tvad — glad to share.

@tomic601 Those are good suggestions. I'm trying to standardize a manageable listening selection — with particularly good recordings (and with some older ones, to see if when my system is too revealing), with certain characteristic instruments (as Harley suggests, and especially unaccompanied). Ideally, I'd have it down to, say, 4-5 cuts. Otherwise, I will have trouble because there'll be too much in mind before I change setup.

I have a streamer and a subscription to both Spotify and Amazon HD tracks. I have listened to "The Nordic Sound" by 2L Audiophile recordings. Spotify has a few playlists I've also listened to: Paul McGowan's picks and some other playlists — "Loudspeaker Test Songs by Telegrapher Loudspeakers" and "Bowers and Wilkins High End Audiophile Tracks."

I will try to download a few of these and put them on a thumb drive for my streamer. Again, the challenge I'm overcoming is to (a) switch quickly enough and also (b) keep a record, with sufficiently precise vocabulary, so that when I compare I feel confident about how much change there is, and the character of that change. Any changes, I feel, need to be indexed to speaker placement, too.

@tomic601 I completely agree. What these listening tests are doing for me -- besides evaluating gear character and quality -- is teaching me different things to listen for and different *modes* of listening.

Let me give an example. Last night, I was playing different tracks to test out my new system, and I decided to bring up some old school stuff I really love — "Rain" by the Beatles, and "Steppin’ Out" by Joe Jackson. I was amazed at how bad they sounded in comparison to, stay, "Babylon Sisters" on the remastered Gaucho album by Steely Dan. But those two tunes — Beatles, Joe Jackson — are classics, and I suspect that they were mastered to sound good on the average stereo at the time — main vocals and tune are *forward* and everything else just supports.

The question -- "How do I makes these sound better? -- How do I get back to the music (other than my forcing my mind to disregard what I'm paying aural attention to)?" then divides for me: Do I want a remastered version of those tunes (there is for Joe Jackson, and it sounds much better) OR do I want a way to set my stereo so that it plays in a more "down market" way. This is where a DSP or equalizer might be an interesting addition.

@mijostyn — got you. So…there's "good kabuki" and "crappy kabuki". I want to do "good kabuki"!
Will look into Psychoacoustics
@tvad  -- Your advice is sound. I'm just looking to make conversation that will (as you say) become really operative in the future. And, nope, I don't have the speakers yet. Everything is shut down in MI and Salk's timeline for production is already a multi-month deal. He has 1/2 my deposit, so I hope it moves forward quickly after things get going again.

@kren0006 -- I have a Rel R-328 sub. Ever see them used? I bought mine used but want another, without paying full price.

@minorl Your advice is good and sensible. What I'm seeking are ways of implementing criteria for how things sound beyond line level matching. If one looks at Harley's book, you can see various ways of describing treble, midrange, bass, soundstage, etc. There's a fairly precise vocabulary that reviewers use. But it's a complicated array of terms and a bit cumbersome to establish and then keep in mind. Especially with the issues raised by auditory memory. I realize that my ambition will seem overblown to most people -- they're content to equalize out the factors you mention, eliminate big variables, etc. I'm seeking to (a) create a workable set of perceptual criteria, conjoined with (b) an apt set of useful descriptive terms, so that I can (c) try to overcome the adverse effects of time lag between comparisons. Anyone not on an audio forum would have run away from me by now, so I'm grateful that some here are willing to inquire or trade stories about what they did.

@tommic601 Thanks for those suggestions — I'll take a look.

@kren -- please do tell me how that goes. The only alternative for me would be to sell my REL (I can poke you if you wish) and then buy two matching. 
@djones will check out, thanks.