Tom said

Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
been
documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
responsibility.
The former is.


I said


The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either.

Tom said


Actualy they were all replications of each other

No they weren't. The equipment, the rooms and the protocol were different in
each test. They certianly weren't replications fo each other.

My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
Stewart.

Well. there goes the claim that no test produced an audible difference. If all
the tests in question have accurately reported the equipment, room and sound
sources used then they are all replicable. I think Stewert's tests fall under
that criteria.

Tom said


That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
remain anecdotal.


Sorry but this new criteria of tests having to be "replicated" to be more than
anecdotal is nonsense. You can make your own rules of evidence up as you go
along but you won't have any established scientific basis for your claims. As I
said before, many long term scientific tests have not been "replicated" but are
considered to be good, valid scientific tests.

I said

Doesn't
matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has
documented
his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.


Tom said

Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that
basicallt
showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by
operating
fault or high output impedance
were sonically transparent....so why do we need
any more evidence on this matter???????


I said

And this emotional outburst has what to do with my post? How many of those
tests were "replicated?" If that is the new criteria you are pushing for
tests
to be valid then it seems you may have very little evidence on the issue at
all. that would be cause alone for more testing I would think. If you don't
want to test any more then don't.

Tom said


What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything
that
appears to support your position without scrutiny.

Then there is a problem with your perception.

Tom said


You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?


I'm not buying any bridges or your personal rules of evidence.