How does the explanation of the success/repeatability/predictive power of
controled listening alone testing differ from those apologists for
astrology, medical diagnosis by reading head bumps, telekinesis and a very
long list of other schools of explaining physical reality when faced by
emperical contridictions? The below seems always, and is diagnostic of, a
last ditch attempt to hold onto long held beliefs whose empirical support
has fallen away? If the below school of explanation for the failure under
listening alone for many beliefs to to be sustained, it must differentiate
itself convincingly from esp and other such expressed reasons why their
models also fail and which use selfsame kinds of explanations therein.

"problem is, they have never verified that the tests themselves don't
throw
the user into a different evaluative mode whereby the ear-brain construct
that turns sound into hearing musice doesn't lose track of what is going
on
(in other words, loose a musical frame of reference as one would have when
doing ordinary evaluative testing.) The objectivists simply ignore
thisinconvenient fact, and instead insist that since this type of testing
is
used in other fields and in audiometric measurement (simple
two-dimensional
signal testing), it has been proven.

Look at it this way:

1) Everybody who thinks amps or cd players sound somewhat different is
wrong
and suffering from bias and delusion, or
"