"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"MZ" wrote in message
...

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.

The evidence supports what Mark and Eddie have both claimed. I don't
understand why you see different. There is scientific evidence to support
their claims and yet you have only subjective, and logically flawed,
"evidence" that cannot be verified.


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.

Sorry, that is not cosidered publishing your results. But you do seem to be
the type that would attempt to argue that point.


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.

What were they? Your flawed tests that you got 100% in? Your theory that
test equipment is flawed and somehow inferior to our ears?


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?

Because the test equipment is easily verified that it is working correctly.
Your logic is asinine. With your logic you cannot trust anything anywhere.

According to you there is some magical mysterious aspect to sound quality
that somehow amp designers know how to get it by using the right parts or
layout or whatever and YET none of them can explain it.
Sounds a little stupid to me. If there were able to create it then they
would be able to measure it, or at least have a working theory on what it
was. But I have never heard an amp designer claim the supposed SQ difference
attributed to the unknown.

Les