"Rob" wrote in message
...
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.

Again, you're turning me off with your endless hair-splitting. If you want
an endless discussion of semantics, I suggest you find an appropriate Usenet
group. There are at least 3 Usenet groups with semantics in their names.

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.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think that yo would
naturally find a lot of people in a group of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to distinguish
sonic differences?

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that the people involved
were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the youngest were in their
20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio engineers, and audiophiles.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.