And I suspect you just are going to believe what you're going to
believe
regardless.

No, I'm going to believe what the evidence supports.

No, you're only going to believe the evidence you choose.

According to you, any time I hear something different, I either
cheated or my stereo is broken. Fine.

No, I'm claiming that you haven't published these results because, first
of
all, they're incomplete and, second of all, they haven't properly
isolated
variables. Until then, I'm not going to take your conclusions into
consideration.

This is an internet forum. This is not a scientific journal. I have now
"published" the results here.

Instead, I'll rely on published results. I'm always willing
to read other attempts to get to the answer of this question. You just
haven't provided any.

I have. You just don't like them.

Let me ask you this. If you're content to trust your own ears in a
listening test (without implementing the proper controls), are you
content
to trust your own eyes when you go to a magic show?

Who says I didn't implement proper controls? How would you know? And
your
analogy is absurd. For one thing, the likelihood of being deceived when
there
is no intent to deceive is very small compared to when there is intent.
For
another, why would you trust your own eyes when watching your test
equipment?
Relying on "peer review" in that case is about as reliable as relying on
your
fellow magic show observers.

Once again, I'll point out your fallacy. Your entire argument must assert
one of two things:
1) distortion is present in the output of the amplifier - enough to exceed
human thresholds of detection; OR
2) while there's no distortion present, one can still hear the difference.

You've already rejected #2 in your reply to Eddie Runner in this thread. So
you are therefore claiming that #1 is the case. Yet, when one measures the
distortion content of the two amplifiers, there's none to be found
(certainly far less than what is audible to humans). So your assertions
have knocked down 75 years of well-established psychophysical data all in
one fell swoop. And you wonder why I question your methodology?

Your reasoning has been that the test equipment is wrong. That's a cop out
if I've ever heard one. Measuring voltage is not rocket science. It's
incredibly easy to do, and it's incredibly precise. The fact that you don't
realize this implies that you don't do much electronics work and so you
never have the opportunity to deal with these devices yourself. Take it
from those of us who do, or from the manufacturers who build this equipment,
instead of making yourself sound like a lunatic with claims that all the
manufacturers are lying and that all the error bars in every single paper
that incorporates such measurements are fabricated. You started out in this
thread with intelligent and articulate replies, but not you're coming off as
a conspiracy theorist.