Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you cite,
and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded analog
audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the region, and
compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the audio signal into
CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio signal. We found no
audible difference, using a variety of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles as our listeners.


Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

What are they?


I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.
Sample - did you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I
lapse into stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle
aged men? Who by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose
hearing is possibly past its best?!