"MZ" wrote in message
...
I'm talking about a peer-reviewed publication. Let's see if your
methodology passes the reviewers.

I really don't care. I didn't post it for publication and I never will.
I
posted it as a general help, just like all help here. If you don't want
to
believe, don't. I truly could not care any less.

My point was that just because you say it's so doesn't make it so.

Likewise, just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it not so.

Your
tests have not properly isolated variables, therefore you cannot attribute
the perceived differences to the variable of your choosing.

Says you.

Sure there are. You just aren't an agreeable peer, that's all. "Peer
review"
is a joke, because your definition of "peer" is "someone who already
agrees with
me." There are *tons* of "peer reviewed" audiophile publications that
make the
claims I have. (Not that I agree with most of them, but the peers of the
author
do.)

That's not what "peer reviewed" means. Peer reviewed implies that the
methodology and the logic has been examined by others that are active
researchers in the field.

Whatever. Now we have the same problem with "researchers". Again, they will
only be people that you consider to have the correct perspective. Stereo gear
reviewers happen to believe in their methodology and logic, even if you don't.
If they hear something to be true, and the "tests" indicate otherwise, they have
every bit as good a reason to be suspicious of the methodology and logic of the
testers as the testers are of them. Maybe the testers are incompetant. Maybe
the equipment was malfunctioning or calibrated incorrectly, or not as precise as
claimed. etc.

Even "audiophile" magazines that claim you CAN detect differences never
claim 100%. In fact, someone posted one here recently which based its claim
on a statistical measure that amounted to something akin to 51% correct vs
49% incorrect. I suspect either your test was not adequately controlled or
the equipment was faulty.

And I suspect you just are going to believe what you're going to believe
regardless. According to you, any time I hear something different, I either
cheated or my stereo is broken. Fine. I claim that everytime you measured
something, your testing equipment is broken, or you cheated. Something akin to
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle springs to mind. Certainly, I will trust
my own ears in a simple test before I will trust the results of some testing
that some guy I don't know did, with some equipment that I haven't myself
tested, under some conditions I'm not aware of, when those people might or might
not have had some ulterior motive I can't be aware of. This isn't rocket
science.