On May 11, 6:41=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
I said in my last post that I would only respond to any actual science
you brough to the conversation. I have decided to let the rest of your
new comments stand on their own to demonstrate the utter lack of audio
content not to mention the utter failure to bring any actual science
to the conversation about the scientific support for the belief in
amplifier transparency. All the obfusecation, ad hominem and other
logical fallacies speak for themselves so I will let them stand on
their own sans comment. I leave them in so as to not be accused of
snipping or ignoring them. I am only responding because you did
actually cite one reference so I will respond to that.
Short memory, Scott?
Who wrote: "Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
considered peer reviewed science."?
Except it did 
This one seemed to be obvious to anyone...
Fletcher, H. and Munson, W.A. Loudness, its definition, measurement and
calculation. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 5, 82-108 (1933)
Alas an actual citation of some real science. OK now lets take this
papaer and it's contents and now show a corolation to amplifier
transparency. Please show how the contents of this research supports
the belief in amplifier transparency. Clearly it does not in any way
directly say anything on the subject of amplifier transparency. So you
still need to show how this supports that belief.
So what? That's exactly your misrepresentation (now clearly stated) of mi=
ne or
others position... could there be amplifiers which are not transparent? O=
f
course, there certainly could be, gosh, some SET stuff has distortions in=
the
range of 10%.
Nope, I do not. But here we're discussion Carver challenge *you* introduc=
ed into
this thread. Carver challenge demonstrates just that it's possible to mak=
e two
completely different amps sound the same.
Otherwise, Carver challenge has little to do to amp transparency, but it =
was
neither me, nor anyone else but *you* who introduced that. You introduced=
that
to create a strawman, to sidetrack the discussion or what?
Really? Carver challenge was test of two amplifiers:
Conrad-Johnson Premier Four & Carvers prototype one.
Now you introduce also Carver's final product. But OK.
Err, what? At least two of them were similar down to -70dB.
Err, where was the claim of transparency?
Strawman, again.
See above few paragprahs of yours.
There you have it. Nothing new. No citations of actual scientific
literature that establishes the thresholds of human hearing. No new
peer reviewed published papers with listening tests of amplifiers. No
varifiable measurments of actual amplifiers driving a real world
speaker load. Nothing. Oh we do have an acknowledgment that SETs may
actually not be transparent.
I will, in conclusion, once again concede a point. All amplifiers are
transparent except the ones that are not.
If any of you want to wave the science flag again be prepared with
some actual science to back it up or be prepared to be called on it.
Unless you can bring something new in the way of actual scientific
support for the belief in amplifier transparency or unless you can
show the corolation between that belief and the one paper you have
cited I think we are actually done here.