And as I've already said, your example is worthless because it didn't
implement sufficient controls.

So are your examples of reading your test equipment. Did you do double
blind
readings of your test equipment to make sure you were reading the results
correctly?

There's no such thing. Clearly, as someone who has NEVER conducted a
scientific study, you have no idea about such matters, do you?

If the readout says "1.2087" do you doubt yourself and think that
maybe if you got really precise photography equipment and computer image
recognition, then in fact the readout might really say "1.2137"? Somehow,
I
doubt it.

Since your argument has completely fallen on its face, you resort to such
silliness. Now you're claiming that each of the authors of the hundreds of
papers that have systematically examined the very effects we're discussing
did not know how to read?


Again, you're
having trouble understanding that TEST EQUIPMENT IS MORE PRECISE
THAN
THE
AUDITORY SYSTEM.

Sorry, maybe some is,

No, all of it is.

Well, that's obviously horse hockey.

Give me an example then. What device has been used to make distortion
measurements isn't as precise as the human auditory system? I ask for only
one example.



As I've repeatedly explained to you, the auditory system
isn't interested in being accurate. Even the crudest test equipment is.

You don't understand the problem at all, do you? The auditory system is
the
ONLY system that matters. It is, by definition, 100% accurate.

No, it is NOT 100% accurate. IT CANNOT DETECT ALL THE THINGS THAT TEST
EQUIPMENT CAN DETECT, BUT TEST EQUIPMENT CAN DETECT ALL THE THINGS THE
AUDITORY SYSTEM CAN DETECT. That's the bottom line that you refuse to
accept. The ear cannot detect differences in the signal that the test
equipment cannot detect. This is not an opinion. It is a proven fact.

Once again, you
don't understand the difference between accuracy and precision. What we
hear
live is the only reference we have vs. what we hear coming through our
speakers.
Any measurement is at BEST only theoretically as good, and in practice not
as
good. To say that measuring equipment is more precise than the human ear
is a
complete red herring.

It's not a red herring. If the ear is detecting it, so too will the test
equipment. If the test equipment is not detecting it, then it is physically
impossible for the ear to detect it. You claim otherwise, but you
admittedly know very little about the human auditory system and the test
equipment that we've been discussing.