This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. You're really
reaching
now, claiming that all testers can't read numbers off a computer screen.

Did I say "all testers" somewhere?

It was implied by your assertion that the measurements that are obtained by
all testers are incorrect. Even if you claim that the measurements that are
obtained by some testers are incorrect, then you've got the ones that you
acknowledge are correct refuting your points. So yes, you are implying all
testers.

Anyway, it's no different from claiming all
listeners can't hear sounds coming from a speaker.

I never claimed that listeners don't think they hear sounds coming from the
speaker. I never said you lied about your "tests". In fact, I said that
I'm sure you think you heard a difference. But guess what? Your test
equipment (ears) is very inaccurate. I've tried to demonstrate this to you
by explaining to you how the human auditory system works and what
bottlenecks it faces, but you haven't paid attention to it. (by the way, if
you disagree with any of those comments, I can back each and every one of
them by papers or texts - just say the word)

You see what you see, and
it's reliable.

No, it's not. You've never experienced optical illusions? Does the
waterfall effect really mean that the picture hanging on the wall is moving?
After all, that's what your visual system is telling you.

Then again, I could drag out your silly "magic show" analogy.
If you can't see reliably what's going on in a magic show, then how can
you see
reliably what's going on with your test equipment?

Because the readout on your test equipment is not an illusion or slight of
hand trick. Magic shows rely on these things. Surely you're not going to
suggest that david copperfield really did saw a woman in half, are you?