"MZ" wrote in message
...
Are you still claiming that we're able to detect differences
(not the quality of the difference, but the difference itself) that test
equipment cannot? If you dropped 10 molecules of something into the glass,
would you be able to detect it with your senses? Would the test equipment?

OK, well some test equipment can, and some can't. Whether the test equipment
exists today that is good enough to tell what I can tell with my ear is one
question (I don't know whether it exists or not.) Whether that is the test
equipment that is actually used to do a review is another thing. (I'm sure some
reviews have been done with cheaper, less accurate equipment.)

Again getting back to audition, I think the answer is more clearcut. It's
common knowledge that we can measure sounds with sensitive microphones that
simply aren't loud enough for humans.

Right.

It's also common knowledge that we
can measure harmonic distortion down to millionths of a percent with test
equipment, but we can't make the distinction with our ears. It's also
common knowledge that you can use an SPL meter to tell the difference
between a sound that's 80.000dB and a sound that's 80.001dB, but the best a
human can do is roughly in the 0.5dB range broadband.

OK, but again - that is what is *possible* (I'm just taking your word for it.)
I can assure you that that is not the equipment that is being used for most
reviews (or at least has been used in the past.) It's either because such
equipment is just too expensive, or too difficult to use correctly, or maybe
even because the reviewer already believes such precision isn't relevant.

Not only is there demonstrable evidence pointing to the fact that test
equipment can beat all of our sensory modalities (in terms of detection!),
but it's also common knowledge.

But it's not common practice.