[jrebman]

BTW, skeptic James Randi uses a similar argument, though I thought up the green cheese first as far as I know. Randi tells people they can't prove there's no Easter Bunny. And they really can't! But that doesn't mean the Easter Bunny is really possible. This is where the common sense part comes in.

The null hypothesis can cut both ways depending on how you phrase the question, so this leaves this logical construct best left for mental jousting competitions.  Ah, the "aAmazing Randy", now it's all coming clear.  Well, the amazing Randy -- the guy who will offer a million dollars to somebody who can prove one of his skeptical assertions -- is the same guy who refuses to return the calls of a certain physics professor at the University of Texas who is interested in earning a million dollars for a couple hours work.  Ask Mr. Randy why he never calls this professor back or will come to witness what he has to demonstrate to him.

I think the one thing that the professional skeptics never seem to grasp is that while there are certainly plenty of things to be skeptical about, science and our understanding of it deepens and expands all the time whether or not the general public is aware or understands it.

I constantly see references to "this is based on good science that has been established for decades/centuries, etc., and is well known.  To that I can only say that most of this science is based on models that have been refined over time as our understanding, instrumentation, and computational power have increased, but... they are only models and this is what most people fail to realize.  Furthermore, models are models, and incredibly simplistic in relation to reality, and that fact alone should leave the intelligent person with at least a sense that one should keep an open mind about such things.

You seem to assume that people cannot hear differences in cables, break-in, things that don't jive with measurements, etc., but then again you're asking them to have an open mind that these things simply don't exist and that they are fooling themselves.  Did you ever pause to consider that perhaps it is you who is fooling yourself and those who are comfortable with their minds closed to these possibilities?

So, here's where the common sense comes in: can so many intelligent people, many of them (like me) former skeptics about such things have just gone mad and lost their minds, or is it possible that there is some critical mass here that might convince you to perhaps open your mind a bit?  Just a bit?

Personally, I'nm not sure I could buy an acoustic treatment from somebody who says this simply doesn't exist and completely dismisses it out of hand.  No offense, but it raises some question to my mind at least that our ears and auditory perceptions are working in two fundamentally different ways?

There are plenty of things we just don't understand even if it seems we have good 50-year old science to back it up.

Respectfully,

Jim

[gitarretyp]

The null hypothesis can cut both ways depending on how you phrase the question, so this leaves this logical construct best left for mental jousting competitions.  Ah, the "aAmazing Randy", now it's all coming clear.  Well, the amazing Randy -- the guy who will offer a million dollars to somebody who can prove one of his skeptical assertions -- is the same guy who refuses to return the calls of a certain physics professor at the University of Texas who is interested in earning a million dollars for a couple hours work.  Ask Mr. Randy why he never calls this professor back or will come to witness what he has to demonstrate to him.

I'm a grad student in physics at UT. I'm curious as to what professor you're referring.

[Ethan Winer]

Bryan,

> SS measures better than tubes so it must be better. CD measures better than vinyl so it must be better. <

Yes and Yes. No question about it. Unless you like grunge and LP crackling and poor crosstalk etc.

> If they measure the same they must be the same. IMO all bad assumptions. <

If they measure the same they will sound the same. I didn't say that fit and finish is not important, or quality of construction, or flexibility in connection (ie: a receiver that offers XLR inputs in addition to RCA inputs).

> How does one measure a car's comfort?  How do you measure the 'feel' of the road?  How do you measure how a seat fits?  The last is particularly telling. <

I agree 100 percent, and I've made these very same points many times when explaining to potential customers why my company's products are a better value than the cheap knock-offs!

> you totally dismiss basically all measurable characteristics of wire as unimportant at audio frequencies. So then even the things that ARE measurable don't matter? <

This is the "absurd extreme" part. We have Wire A that at a length of 20 feet is perfectly flat to 100 KHz. Then we have Wire B that is flat to 1 MHz for the same length. So why should I care that Wire B can pass 1 MHz better than Wire A when I can't hear to even 1/5 as high as Wire A works to? Or let's say we have Amp A that has 0.001 percent total distortion and noise, and Amp B is only half that. Who cares when any speakers you hook them up to have 100 times more distortion? Now, when all else is equal I'll take the device with better specs. But often all else is not equal, and Wire B that's good to 1 MHz costs $2,000 where Wire A can be bought for $10. So even though they do not measure the same (at absurd frequencies), they still sound the same. And that's all that matters, no?

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Scotty,

> Ethan, in your experience what electronic components in a stereo system have altered the sound staging or imaging when they were exchanged for component that had the same function within the context of the system? Or more simply, what electronic components in the stereo system matter when it comes to sound staging or imaging. <

As far as I can tell, no "electronic" components can affect imaging unless they have an obviously deficient frequency response as I explained yesterday. (Or have extreme noise as Dan explained.) Stereo imaging is mainly a function of the difference in phase and arrival times from each speaker to each ear. This is why placing absorption at the first reflection points is critically important in order to obtain good imaging. Otherwise the phase and times are totally screwed up by all the reflections in the room.

Of course, electronics can and do have phase shift. But unless it's a terrible design, or the wrong capacitor was used in one channel but not the other, or one capacitor is defective, the two channels will track each other closely enough to not matter audibly.

This is why when the subject turns to "imaging" and "sound stage" I inevitably ask if someone has acoustic treatment in their room. An untreated room has poor imaging almost by definition. And this is where my comb filtering article becomes even more relevant. Since most people - even hardcore audiophiles - have no acoustic treatment at all, it follows that most people who believe that power cords matter etc are really being tricked by comb filtering.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Jim,

> Ask Mr. Randy why he never calls this professor back or will come to witness what he has to demonstrate to him. <

I too would like to see more about this. Do you have a link?

> models are models, and incredibly simplistic in relation to reality, and that fact alone should leave the intelligent person with at least a sense that one should keep an open mind about such things. <

What does that have to do with the subject at hand? We're not talking about a computer simulation of a power amplifier. At least I'm not. I'm talking about hard data that is easily measured and whose results are known valid to many decimal places.

> You seem to assume that people cannot hear differences in cables, break-in, things that don't jive with measurements, etc., but then again you're asking them to have an open mind that these things simply don't exist and that they are fooling themselves.  Did you ever pause to consider that perhaps it is you who is fooling yourself and those who are comfortable with their minds closed to these possibilities? <

Sorry, no, that never occurred to me. If some people really could tell a difference between power cords etc they could do so reliably in a blind test. But as soon as people can't see which wire is which, all of a sudden they can't tell any more. That's all the evidence I need to know that the scientific method has the upper hand in this debate.

> So, here's where the common sense comes in: can so many intelligent people, many of them (like me) former skeptics about such things have just gone mad and lost their minds, or is it possible that there is some critical mass here that might convince you to perhaps open your mind a bit?  Just a bit? <

Yes, absolutely. All you have to do is present some hard evidence of what you claim. If you do that, I promise I'll pay close attention!

> Personally, I'nm not sure I could buy an acoustic treatment from somebody who says this simply doesn't exist <

Now, see, this is exactly why I wish this forum had a per-post option to not include a signature. What you are saying is incredibly unfair - and untrue - and is obviously calculated to get me to back down from my position. The kind of person who tailors his beliefs to his audience at the time is called a politician. I am not a politician.

I have no idea who you are or who you work for, or if you own your own business that sells a product or service. But it would be silly for me to conclude you are incompetent in your business just because you don't know a lot about the science of audio. You are not the first to try to cast doubt on my products or my acoustics knowledge because you don't like what I have to say about replacement power cables. I really wish you'd stick to arguing the facts. We'll both look better for it.

--Ethan

[bpape]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Ethan.  Better specs do not equate to better sound - sorry.  See the distortion wars of the 1970's.  Also, just because a tube preamp might be down say 2db at 20kHz where a SS one isn't doesn't make the SS one better.  The key IMO to the difference between tubes and SS is WHERE the distortion is.  Even vs. odd order harmonics at the same distortion level will sound different.

As an example, I'll put an Audio Research SP-10 up against a Bryston pre that measures a whole lot better any day.  They're both good pieces but the AR will smoke it in smoothness, imaging, etc. - all the things you can't measure.

Bryan

[rollo]

Pez,

> I have heard numerous speakers with horrible off axis meausurements have a wonderful soundstage. I've heard speakers with pretty much ruler flat response that sounded horrible and have all kinds of sonic abberations off-axis. And yes I have heard an amp image poorly that measures well. <

Normally at this point in the conversation I'd ask if you have any acoustic treatment in your room, especially absorption at the first reflection points. But I want to avoid appearing as a shill for the acoustic treatment industry so I won't ask you that.

--Ethan

  Ethan,
 you just did in a stealth way
   rollo

[rollo]

>I have no idea who you are or who you work for, or if you own your own business that sells a product or service. But it would be silly for me to conclude you are incompetent in your business just because you don't know a lot about the science of audio. You are not the first to try to cast doubt on my products or my acoustics knowledge because you don't like what I have to say about replacement power cables. I really wish you'd stick to arguing the facts. We'll both look better for it.<

Ethan,
          I don't believe anyone is saying you are incompetent.Far from the truth you are a very smart man with years of experience.
    However I as well would find it difficult dealing with some who is not open minded to MY [customer] beliefs.
    One day I went to a highly respected audio salon to audition new speakers.The salesman trashed my existing equip and some of opinions of my choice of components.Did not appreciate it one bit.He lost a $20000 sale.I have ears and know what is good for me,he would not listen to my concerns because well he just knew better.His reasoning being he was an electronics engineer.Probably to smart for his own good IMO.
    So in essence all I am saying is be more considerate of what we hear as opposed to what you measure.
rollo

[jrebman]

Ethan,

First of all, I do not have the name of the UT prof. -- I heard this on a local radio show about 4 or 5 years ago when Randy was in town and speaking at CU Boulder.  The station gave equal time to a scientist on the faculty and he pointed out a few flaws and errors of omission in Randy's arguments and then mentioned the Prof at UT, but I don't recall that he mentioned a name.  If I had time to pursue this I might be interested to know, but since so much of what Randy says seems so sensational and arrogant, I just don't have a lot of motivation to follow up on it.

To answer your other main question: no, I have nothing to sell to you, either in terms of products or philosophy.  You are of course entitled to your opinions, and regardless of how effective your products are, it just doesn't qualify as rigorous science to me.  If you don't understand what I'm saying about models, than I'm not going to be able to explain it to you in a few sentences, but I am most definitely not speaking of computer modeling.  Though interestingly enough, your methodologies and test instruments that you cite are in the same camp as the computer modeling that you seem to distrust.

The only thing I think I would like you to take from all of this is summed up nicely in a quote from a notable physicist who told his first year students something to the effect of "Half of what we teach you is wrong -- we just don't know which half." And that should at least open the possibility that measurements taken with even the most sophisticated of today's instruments can't even begin to approach telling the entire story of the reality of what's happening with the device under test.  Said another way, reality is far too complex to measure with an instrument.

What this all boils down to is that you can't tell me that my perceptions, repeatable as they are, are not valid because I can't provide "scientific" measurments to back them up, and the corollary to that is that you can't "prove" you have the answers because you have some very basic and incomplete measurements of an incredibly complex system.

At one point in history there was entrenched belief system, based on the best "science" at the time that said that the sun and planets revolved around the earth.  Then somebody came up with some new instrument and a new hypothesis and figured out an experiment to confirm that, which he did.  And despite constant ridicule and worse, he and the people who opened their mind to the possibilities and let go their grip on the safe and familiar eventually prevailed to the point where the science was redefined.

Look around, from all accounts it appears we are on the verge of another such shift in our understanding, and I'm quite confident that one day we will have some more definitive answers to these things we so pointlessly argue about today.  See Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" for a more thorough treatment of the subject.

I've said all I'm going to on this except that I'm quite happy living on the fringe as that's where all the interesting things seem to be happening -- today, as they always have been.

Respectfully,

Jim

[Ethan Winer]

Guys,

Look, I'm here to discuss the science of audio and offer my opinions on what matters and what doesn't. If y'all don't like my opinions that's fine! This thread asks if cables can break in and the answer is No. If any of you prefer to think cables can change sound over time, even though no electrical change can be measured, that's fine too. Everyone is entitled to an opinion!

But so far I've seen a lot of faulty logic such as using James Randi as a Straw Man, or believing that the nature of distortion that's 80 dB down matters. Since two of you now are trying to intimidate me into not giving my opinion by turning my statements you disagree with into reasons people shouldn't buy my company's products then, okay, you win. Please do break in your speaker and power cables, and please do buy gear that is intentionally not flat and has intentionally high distortion. I am certain your listening enjoyment will be greater.

> computer modeling that you seem to distrust. <

I never said anything of the sort!

> from all accounts it appears we are on the verge of another such shift in our understanding <

Yes, and I like to think my comb filtering article is a very big leap forward in that regard.

--Ethan

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi

[Kevin Haskins]

Why is it that people are attacked for their opinions that are based upon sound measurements and science?   Come on guys... give Ethan a break.   He has entered into a topic than he has absolutely nothing to gain from.   He has offed his professional opinion based upon years of work.

There are several ways to be close minded.

In terms of science and measurement and their falability part of engineering is understanding what can and cannot be reliably measured.   I'm 99.999999% certain that all a transducer can react to is the input signal.   It can only be represented by time & magnitude.   It is certainly safe to say that if you cannot measure a difference in those that it doesn't make a difference in the end result.    Hearing is a terribly poor method of testing things.   It introduces an one of the most complex objects in the Universe (the human mind) into the equation hense anything you can do to remove that variable is a good thing in terms of reliability.   

[rollo]

Why is it that people are attacked for their opinions that are based upon sound measurements and science?   Come on guys... give Ethan a break.   He has entered into a topic than he has absolutely nothing to gain from.   He has offed his professional opinion based upon years of work.

There are several ways to be close minded.

In terms of science and measurement and their fallibility part of engineering is understanding what can and cannot be reliably measured.   I'm 99.999999% certain that all a transducer can react to is the input signal.   It can only be represented by time & magnitude.   It is certainly safe to say that if you cannot measure a difference in those that it doesn't make a difference in the end result.    Hearing is a terribly poor method of testing things.   It introduces an one of the most complex objects in the Universe (the human mind) into the equation hence anything you can do to remove that variable is a good thing in terms of reliability.   

 

Kevin,
          Hearing is what this hobby is based on by the consumer.We hope that the manf. does all the testing required to bring a good product to market.
          I can not believe that a company that sells equip dismisses hearing as valid.Do you think or believe when someone buys your product he measures it or inserts it in
 his/her system and listens to the results?
         I have never heard from an audiophile,Did you measure that new blah blah?No,They say,Did you HEAR that new  CDP etc.
         So measure away and when you have want you want do you listen to it or just sell it from the measurements you are happy with?
        I am not being cute here or funny or critical here.I feel this is a legitimate question.As far as Eathan is concerned he has a rep on other circles which is not good.Why can't offer his opinions just as opinions without being insulting or demeaning.
rollo

[The_KiD]

I am breaking in a Silver Digital Cable as I write this and it just sucks.. Got the XLO Burn in CD on Repeat in my Transport..

I hate the Waiting.. LOL..

Cheers,

KiD

[Kevin Haskins]

Kevin,
          Hearing is what this hobby is based on by the consumer.We hope that the manf. does all the testing required to bring a good product to market.
          I can not believe that a company that sells equip dismisses hearing as valid.Do you think or believe when someone buys your product he measures it or inserts it in
 his/her system and listens to the results?
         I have never heard from an audiophile,Did you measure that new blah blah?No,They say,Did you HEAR that new  CDP etc.
         So measure away and when you have want you want do you listen to it or just sell it from the measurements you are happy with?
        I am not being cute here or funny or critical here.I feel this is a legitimate question.As far as Eathan is concerned he has a rep on other circles which is not good.Why can't offer his opinions just as opinions without being insulting or demeaning.
rollo

I think that measurements are a very good tool to get at what we are hearing without introducing an amazingly complex variable called the human brain.   There is no way around it that hearing impressions are difficult to engineer with.   Engineering has to do with manipulating physical things, using known physical properties to obtain a given result.   Outside of Earl Gedees (who has been chased off by audiophiles) I know of nobody doing really good metrics to tie physical measurements to subjective experience.   Even then the only thing you can correlate is based upon groups of listeners.    Anything else is too vague to design around.

I certainly listen to the equipment that I design.   I do "reality" checks against my pre-conceived notions to try and remove my personal bias.   There is only so much you can do though.   Its not like I can listen to my product for thousands of hours and then figure out exactly what needs to be changed to improve it.   What we hear is terribly difficult to translate into physical properties that we can manipulate at the physical level. 

In terms of Ethan, he will have to speak for himself but I find that his "disrespectful" responses usually are because he refuses to believe something that can not be proven with physical testing methods or objective measurements and compared with what we know about human hearing.    I find that a reasonable position but there are many who do not.   There is no way to have a meaningful conversation with people who  fundamentally differ on how to discern the truth. 

[rollo]

Kevin,
          Hearing is what this hobby is based on by the consumer.We hope that the manf. does all the testing required to bring a good product to market.
          I can not believe that a company that sells equip dismisses hearing as valid.Do you think or believe when someone buys your product he measures it or inserts it in
 his/her system and listens to the results?
         I have never heard from an audiophile,Did you measure that new blah blah?No,They say,Did you HEAR that new  CDP etc.
         So measure away and when you have want you want do you listen to it or just sell it from the measurements you are happy with?
        I am not being cute here or funny or critical here.I feel this is a legitimate question.As far as Eathan is concerned he has a rep on other circles which is not good.Why can't offer his opinions just as opinions without being insulting or demeaning.
rollo

I think that measurements are a very good tool to get at what we are hearing without introducing an amazingly complex variable called the human brain.   There is no way around it that hearing impressions are difficult to engineer with.   Engineering has to do with manipulating physical things, using known physical properties to obtain a given result.   Outside of Earl Gedees (who has been chased off by audiophiles) I know of nobody doing really good metrics to tie physical measurements to subjective experience.   Even then the only thing you can correlate is based upon groups of listeners.    Anything else is too vague to design around.

I certainly listen to the equipment that I design.   I do "reality" checks against my pre-conceived notions to try and remove my personal bias.   There is only so much you can do though.   Its not like I can listen to my product for thousands of hours and then figure out exactly what needs to be changed to improve it.   What we hear is terribly difficult to translate into physical properties that we can manipulate at the physical level. 

In terms of Ethan, he will have to speak for himself but I find that his "disrespectful" responses usually are because he refuses to believe something that can not be proven with physical testing methods or objective measurements and compared with what we know about human hearing.    I find that a reasonable position but there are many who do not.   There is no way to have a meaningful conversation with people who  fundamentally differ on how to discern the truth. 

 

kevin,
           Ok you have a good point.However I will say again the consumer[most of them] use their ears.Even if the component measures well it still must sound good to sell.When someone modifies a component with different caps,they substitute caps because they sound different.That difference will determine if the cap stays or goes.Now why does the cap sound different? Can this be measured and what would you measure?I know from personal experience that a Mundorf Supreme oil in paper sounds different than a V cap in the same circuit.Could you shed some light on this for me?
    Thanks man
rollo

[Kevin Haskins]

kevin,
           Ok you have a good point.However I will say again the consumer[most of them] use their ears.Even if the component measures well it still must sound good to sell.When someone modifies a component with different caps,they substitute caps because they sound different.That difference will determine if the cap stays or goes.Now why does the cap sound different? Can this be measured and what would you measure?I know from personal experience that a Mundorf Supreme oil in paper sounds different than a V cap in the same circuit.Could you shed some light on this for me?
    Thanks man
rollo

All very good points and good questions to ask.   I've had subjective opinions on various capacitors myself.   ICW, one of the companies I represent, is doing a research project that they are sponsoring at the local university.   They have a doctoral student doing it for thesis work.    I know they hope to present something in an AES paper.   

I don't know the answers to all your questions but I would pursue the project in maybe two different ways.   I'd do a subjective component of the research project where I tested groups of listeners for preference.   This is the tricky one.... you would need to do a large enough group to get a meaningful sample and you would need to educate the listeners (and take hearing test to comb out unqualified participants).   Then over a period of trial periods I'd try to get meaningful subjective data and see if I could tie it via standard deviations to a given capacitor.   It would be a good idea to us extreme examples (good quality caps along with cheap electrolytic, Mylar, etc... ) to try and make the differences as audible as possible.   A "no result" is meaningful but ideally we want to explore what the capacitor does to the signal to change the subjective impressions.

The other testing I'd do would be detailed electrical & mechanical analysis of capacitors while subjected to various input signals.   This is much easier to study than a subjective listening evaluation because you don't need groups, just test set-ups to evaluate mechanical & electrical limits.   Basically we could shake the piss out of a capacitor & perform various electrical test to see if we can see a difference in the output signal.    I'm very sure this has been done by any number of manufactures of capacitors and hence the conclusions that there are no meaningful differences in most well-designed parts.    The ones that might introduce differences are those for which they intentionally (or unintentionally) distort the input signal.    That would be a very good explanation for why they sound different.

[rollo]

Kevin,
          Now THAT is an explanation buy a professional.
   I understand the science is important to the engineer and listening is subjective to the scientist. Got that. Sales are generated by what we believe we hear, so by disagreeing with what someone hears can only cause arguements and loss of sales.
      thanks rollo
 

[bwaslo]

A few comments to some previous comments (got some spare time tonight)....

"What this all boils down to is that you can't tell me that my perceptions, repeatable as they are, are not valid because I can't provide "scientific" measurements to back them up".

No one can tell you your perceptions are invalid, any more than he can tell someone who "hears" voices in his head that he doesn't hear them.  That person's experience is what it is.  But that doesn't mean that others have to accept what perceptions he reports.  And, after all you, too, might just be "hearing things" as far as some others are concerned.  Or the guys who don't hear what you do might just be biased against hearing it.  That's the trouble with hearsay and testimonials -- they don't mean much except to the person who says them.  You need not give more than a perception report testimonial, but you can't expect everyone to consider it fact, or even be interested!.

The problem with the statement in quotes above is that it seems to show offence to a claim I don't really notice people (at least reasonable people) making.  "Objectivists" (if that's what they should be called) don't ask you to prove yourself nor to become expert in making measurements -- they just say that they aren't convinced by scattered listener reports.  Most of these unconvinced folks also have listened to these types of things and didn't hear what is being reported.  All that is really needed to settle something like this is some EVIDENCE.  Something that can be repeatable to others, or that you show you can repeat, or that can be tested in your absence, as something more than just an opinion or testimonial. 

I'm not at all sure that all of the tweaks, enthusiasm for cables and special parts aren't real (though I suspect many aren't).  I just need access to actual evidence, because I can't research nor test based on opinions, they are not evidence (how many people swear by astrology?) nor testable.  I would, as many audio engineers would, absolutely LOVE to discover and research a new audio phenomenon, a new type of distortion, something people can hear that isn't explained by current measurements, etc.  That's the kind of stuff careers are made on!  All it would take would be a demonstration of an unexplained phenomenon, or something that could be tested.  It should be *so easy* for someone to set up a table at an audio show, or AES convention, and demonstrate detection of one of the unexplained phenomenon through only their hearing. 

Why isn't it "so easy"??

Since it is apparently not so easy (I've read arguments suggesting that pressure on listeners might affect hearing ability for these things), I've even taken time to write a program (freeware, which I've described earlier in this thread) to help find changes in audio signals.  If you have something that you are sure is making a change you can hear, please feel free to document it with the program  -  that might be some evidence that can make someone's career (maybe mine!), but opinion isn't.

"Now why does the cap sound different? Can this be measured and what would you measure?I know from personal experience that a Mundorf Supreme oil in paper sounds different than a V cap in the same circuit."

That would be a good one to test with a set of DiffMaker recordings.

"I'm 99.999999% certain that all a transducer can react to is the input signal.   It can only be represented by time & magnitude."

And if it can't, I think that the last 0.000001% of certainly can be filled in by checking what is changed in just the *sound* in the signal.... again, please try these things with my difference extraction program.  If the effect it isn't evident in the time and magnitude, nor in the sound from the recording as it might change passing through the equipment, then where the heck else could it be? 

[Kevin Haskins]

Kevin,
          Now THAT is an explanation buy a professional.
   I understand the science is important to the engineer and listening is subjective to the scientist. Got that. Sales are generated by what we believe we hear, so by disagreeing with what someone hears can only cause arguemen ts and loss of sales.
      thanks rollo
 

Thank you.    That is true... I'm not taking a real popular sales approach.     Your really much better off agreeing with people even if you don't.   I've just never been able to completely stomach that approach though. 

I think its important to be open minded about what is and is not audible though.   I cannot refute a lot of things that people report they hear simply because I don't have time to go around refuting them all.   I think many are ill-conceived but that is from my perspective.    I have things that I practice in terms of choosing components that isn't 100% logical or based upon some engineering principle.   An example is a new driver that I just finished the development cycle on.   My final choice of cone/spider/suspension I choose was based upon how it sounded.   The measurements where good also but there could have been a couple things where we could have tried to improve linearity.   I decided I didn't want to mess with it because it sounded so good as it was.     Sometimes something sounds really good and I don't know why.   In this circumstance I didn't want to mess with the mojo. 

What is odd about audio engineering is that I don't know too many fields where my illogical choice is rewarded by consumers!   I'm much more rewarded for pretending to be an audio guru who uses his mystical hearing capabilities to discern the magic formula to produced sound.   Its much more like alchemy than chemistry.   Alchemy was practiced by the Shaman, Chemistry by the scientist. 

[Kevin Haskins]

"I'm 99.999999% certain that all a transducer can react to is the input signal.   It can only be represented by time & magnitude."

And if it can't, I think that the last 0.000001% of certainly can be filled in by checking what is changed in just the *sound* in the signal.... again, please try these things with my difference extraction program.  If the effect it isn't evident in the time and magnitude, nor in the sound from the recording as it might change passing through the equipment, then where the heck else could it be? 

Got me... maybe it could be audio pixies or gremlins.   The signal we can measure with a great deal of certainty.  The loudspeaker-room is where stuff gets really ugly.   You start getting all kinds of problems at that interface.   Its awefully hard to look at something that makes virtually no change at the input to the loudspeaker and imagine it having such a profound effect on the output.   You can measure the output and there is no change but someone hears a change.   What do you say?   Can I say with 100% certainty that they are not hearing something?  Nope... all I can do is look at the measurements, try to listen myself (although I cannot try to verify every claim made) and come up with an explanation that makes sense.    Often times to be honest I come to the conclusion that people are just fooling themselves.    That isn't something people like to hear though and it is offensive to many.    Your best off not getting into the argument in the first place.

Whats up with your freeware.   Point me to a link so I can take a look at it.