Thanks but my question was proof of
Choosing opa that shouldn't sound different from specs but where people have preferences
And then find if it's placebo or a not yet measured parameter. I agee it has very small effect on measurements
Okay, see, this is what I don't understand now.. So if you can help me understand, I would appreciate it.
You made a claim, and then you put up a pre-condition, that no one should make a counter claim, or call your claim into question without providing some evidence against your contrarian claim.
It's like me saying: You should really think about praying to God more often, it will make you feel better.. Oh but please if you're going to start talking about God not existing, provide some evidence.
People aren't responsible for, nor can they prove a negative. You're not understanding the mode of thinking rational discourse follows. You have to understand the burden is on you to prove your claims, not the people that say they don't believe you.
I on the other hand provided some parallel experience into the similar realm of object of discussion (opamps in this instance) just as a gesture of goodwill. But then you say, to paraphrase: "Sorry but not good enough, I want proof that they don't sound different, and make sure you take care of placebo, because measurements aren't good enough". So you want us to play in the realm of subjectivity, but when we tell you blind tests confirm this in totality.. you just sail over that claim. This is even before the whole issue of preposterous apologist statements that concede grammatically, but not -actually- when you pay lip service to us by claiming "it has a very small effect on measurements". As if to say we're not totally dumb about the claims we're making.
You may not see it as such, but that last sentence or two in what I quote are actually an insult. Do you understand all forms of audio reproduction today that you enjoy was the total human effort of countless man hours of scientifically laying the basis and understanding for what we know today? You don't get things like opamps, or DACs or AMPs or any of this stuff from the side that are contrarian to our views. None of those people on that other side can de-laminate themselves from the achievements in the scientific field, and throw away the basics of electronics, and audio sciences - to then go on and make products that don't borrow INTENSELY from the achievements made by those in the scientific community.
So when you say the sorts of things you do, you really need to humble yourself and realize measurement instruments exist solely to supersede thresholds of discernability NO ONE has demonstrated that they can match equally as well as aforementioned measurement instruments. Especially at minute differences only afforded to us by those same instruments..
Until you concede this preposterous idea that we supersede these machines (like being able for instance to discern between 10th of a dB of difference, or things of that nature which is a piece of cake for a machine), your whole rationale cannot stand in the slightest, as you are literally creating an affront to basic tenants/tools of how we continue improvements in audio. You're simply never going to have improvments in audio in the present day if you use humans as your calibration tools for instance. Bring 50 golden ears, it's simply not going to happen period. If it was possible it would have occurred, and it would have been wide-spread. Again I repeat.. all this is before the perplexing machinations you have on who is due to do what in the realm of debate, and burden of proof.
