Unless you have sat in a room and done a blind test where somebody else controls the experiment, this is a totally ludicrous claim to make. Yes, I have heard the difference that power products can make in blind tests. I was also able to pick out when the conditioner was being used and when it was not. So there was obviously an audible difference.
Whether or not you consider the difference to be "better" is subjective. In some cases I thought it was much better.
I understand and can appreciate your point. In my view it's a serious difficulty that's probably never going to be solvable within the limits of internet-based discussion that does not involve scientific studies.
What I mean is this:
- You state you have done multiple blind tests, and if I read your comment correctly, you are saying that in those blind tests you have heard, to a degree of statistical significance, the difference a power conditioner makes and you have also heard differences that other power products make.
- Your claim is what many here would describe as an extraordinary claim. They would describe it as such not because they think it's really, really hard to hear such sonic differences, but rather because there is no plausible or sensible explanation for how a power conditioner could even make any difference in the audible sound, given how a power conditioner works, what it does, and what it does no do. (Unless, as someone suggested above, there's an unusual level of audible interference of a particular kind in the system in the first place.) So the
root cause of people's skepticism isn't that they doubt
you for any personal reason, but rather that your claim simply doesn't seem to add up.
- Given that, there are only two possible explanations: (1) your blind tests were not actually properly blind tests and you are glossing over key details that would allow listener bias to creep in, or (2) our knowledge of electronics, physics, human hearing, and possibly math must be fundamentally wrong or incomplete in a way that does not manifest itself in other areas (like, say computer data transmission or video performance) but somehow only manifests itself in the narrow realm of hi-fi sound product listening.
- Option (1) is pretty much impossible for anyone to articulate without you feeling like they're calling you a liar, a fool, or both - so naturally you take offense, and I understand how you might feel that people are simply hypocrites because they say they are for the scientific method but when you present them with a scientific result they don't like, they refuse to accept it.
- Conversely, option (2) is pretty much impossible for anyone to accept simply based on your assurance that you've done blind tests and you've reliably detected these differences. If that were the standard - "you don't know me, you don't even necessarily know my real name, and this is my first post here but take my word for it" - then there would be no reliable basis for scientific knowledge.
So I see it as an impasse. And the only way to resolve it would be for a researcher to conduct the kinds of blind tests you have gone through and document the procedure and results in a peer-reviewed study. (Really two peer-reviewed studies, since repeatability of results is also key.)
Unless or until that happens, this same pattern is going to be repeated, and the same arguments and slogans will be employed: "your claim of blind tests is not evidence, it's just what you're claiming"; "you say you want blind testing but if you don't like the results you reject them"; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - there's no way these devices can make a difference so the onus is on you to suggest a hypothesis of how they could"; "science is about observation and open-mindedness to what we don't know - how arrogant to think that it's impossible for us to hear things we haven't figured out how to measure yet"; and on and on and on.
I don't have a solution; I just think it's worth trying to understand this as a
communicative problem, so we don't go around and around in circles forever.