What is there to discuss about that component when evidence is lacking from a poster to support their position? On the other hand, audio and human principals don't need specs to discuss why it would sound the same, or different, for that matter? Posts are put forth from a rather weak position, a biased observation. What more is there to discuss then? It is meaningless to discuss flawed perception without those audio and human principals of know science?
Exactly. What is there to discuss? The poster may be totally incorrect, but without any information or evidence regarding the specific pieces at hand, it is just as dubious for you to be making any statements of fact about those claims. Why not at least identify the factors that contribute to audible sound differences and show that those pieces could not be different based on those specific criteria?
Assumptions? Hardly. The body of evidence goes back 30+ YEARS. not sure what you are trying to assume.
You don't even know what assumptions I'm talking about. Again, there you go assuming.
No. It is meaningless to closed minds(yes, those claimed open minds are really closed) and some, who want to know what is in the real audio world and audio science, they will research the cited papers and draw their conclusions. The others, whose belief system is so fragile, well that is what you see.
It is good to see you hold yourself in such high regard. Perhaps you are the one with the closed mind. At the very least, it is very narrow. Of course, you'll never see it that way. Do you even realize that I don't have a problem with your underlying beliefs. I simply think that the way you go about things is rather simple minded.
Only when testable claims are made anyhow. And why not? Should pseudo science be allowed to flourish unchallenged??? That is why that green pill to improve car gas mileage is racking in $20+ million. Or, the billion $ market for magnet therapy. Am I supposed to just pass on it???
No psuedo-science should not go unchallenged. But when challenging it, you should rely on facts and evidence. That would require you to do more than just cite papers that support a general position.
That in itself is a problem. You may place too much weight on personal experience of dubious quality and value. My personal experience is that a bucket of water bends metal pipes and the air straightens them out.
You really don't get it do you? you need to take your blinders off from time to time. All I'm saying is that if someone comes in and says A sounds different than B, unless you are going to point relevant statistics about those amps (that establish there is no audible difference), or are going to give us evidence (i.e. freq. resp. graphs) based on your testing of those amps, you are excercising no more scientific rigor than the person making the original claim. I'm not placing any weight on personal subjective opinions.
