All Ears wrote:
-snip-

I am not saying that it is
measurable in a conventional manner, but it sure is audible, at least to
my
ears. Furthermore I would say that it is not slightly audible, but
clearly
and obviously audible.

Great, then it should certainly be conventionally measurable. Have you
tried measuring for difference? You claim to have the equipment to do so.

Nope, Dick has all the fancy stuff, and he cannot hear or measure any
difference...

Sorry, I'd misread the post initially. I thought you'd written that *you*
also had such equipment. But Mr. Pierce didn't claim to have measured the
particular units YOU claim to have heard 'obviously audible' differences
in. Nor has he ever claimed that he cannot hear of measure any
differences *generally*.

I can see that you have access to a lot of serious measuring equipment,
which of course are useful in many situations. It is however my personal
opinion that we must trust what we are hearing, and not blindly trust
that
best technical specifications equals the most realistic and satisfying
sound
or that we can fully explain or understand what happens as the brain
decodes
a sound impression.

You leave out one very important factor: perceptual bias. If you are
doing 'sighted' comparisons, you *aren't* actually trusting your hearing.

--
-S.


You are right, I did not do a blind test, but then again, the difference is
so significant that it would seem foolish to do so...I am not into this for
the science, but merely because i enjoy listening to good music.

If the difference is that significant, it would require an overthrow of
known laws of physics for those differences NOT to be measurable.
Do you realize that?

--
-S.