"MZ" wrote in message
...

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.

No, you're only going to believe the evidence you choose.

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.

This is an internet forum. This is not a scientific journal. I have now
"published" the results here.

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 have. You just don't like them.

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?

Who says I didn't implement proper controls? How would you know? And your
analogy is absurd. For one thing, the likelihood of being deceived when there
is no intent to deceive is very small compared to when there is intent. For
another, why would you trust your own eyes when watching your test equipment?
Relying on "peer review" in that case is about as reliable as relying on your
fellow magic show observers.