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?
