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.

Right, which is why I'm offering citations (from peer reviewed
publications - not editorials) for everything I say. Just be specific about
what you want cited.

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.

If by "correct perspective" you mean people who know how to conduct tests
that are designed to minimize assumptions, then I agree.

Stereo gear
reviewers happen to believe in their methodology and logic, even if you
don't.

But they're demonstrably wrong when they refuse to implement the proper
controls. This is logic 101.

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.

Exactly correct. That's why we need to control for testers' competency,
equipment malfunction and calibration. Now you're getting the idea!

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.

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. 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 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.

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?