Feel like testing your ears?

[Machinesworking]

+1 on everyone saying you're jumping to conclusions based on a completely unscientific approach. Even with studies on medicinal pills they use a placebo in one instance to get a rough idea of how many people in the circumstances given are going to feel better because they're told they will.
To really do this right you would have to randomize the order of the versions and give a lower probability that the subjects pick the "right" one, say 3 offline bounces VS one realtime, randomized in order of listen, and about ten times the amount of subjects. Then you might get something close to a real verifiable case for your claim. At this point you're just cluttering up the interwebs with more unscientific pseudo studies...

[Todd OMG]

This is a completely unscientific faux-study.

The fact is, you were an advocate of real-time rendering before you even started this test, and your bias has a strong semblance to the outcome. You WANTED real-time rendering to be named better. You've openly talked about how superior you believe it to be before this test. But the FACTS are right in front of your eyes, they phase cancel! There is absolutely no difference whatsoever! End of story.

And by the way, talk to an Ableton dude and they'll tell you there is absolutely no "extra stage of compression" added during an offline bounce. Another bogus myth, what does that even mean?

[stringtapper]

You need to google counterbalancing, significance testing, and type I errors.

+1

A statistics professor would have a fine time using this "test" as an example of how not to conduct a statistical study of anything.

[Fizmarble]

So 64.4% of people polled disagree with your conclusion. Your conclusion baffles me.