I'm talking about a peer-reviewed publication. Let's see if your
methodology passes the reviewers.

I really don't care. I didn't post it for publication and I never will.
I
posted it as a general help, just like all help here. If you don't want
to
believe, don't. I truly could not care any less.

My point was that just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. Your
tests have not properly isolated variables, therefore you cannot attribute
the perceived differences to the variable of your choosing.


It would be groundbreaking news.

No, it wouldn't.

Well, considering there aren't any peer-reviewed publications that make
the claims you've made, yes it would.

Sure there are. You just aren't an agreeable peer, that's all. "Peer
review"
is a joke, because your definition of "peer" is "someone who already
agrees with
me." There are *tons* of "peer reviewed" audiophile publications that
make the
claims I have. (Not that I agree with most of them, but the peers of the
author
do.)

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. Whether the results are in line with the reviewer
is irrelevant. In fact, it's not uncommon for competing theories to be
accepted into publication by the same set of "peers".


If you want to know the details of 2 tests that I did (I did many more,
but
these are the only 2 significant ones where I found a difference):

- first was a comparison of Adcom GFA-555 with GFA-545, level matched to
output
voltage. Blind, technically not double blind, but the effect was the
same - I
couldn't see the amps, I couldn't see the tester, and the tester was using
random numbers to hook up the next amp. I named the amp that was being
used in
10 tests, 100% correct.

Even "audiophile" magazines that claim you CAN detect differences never
claim 100%. In fact, someone posted one here recently which based its claim
on a statistical measure that amounted to something akin to 51% correct vs
49% incorrect. I suspect either your test was not adequately controlled or
the equipment was faulty. I see no mention of assurances that both
amplifiers were behaving linearly, for starters.