Backing away a bit from the personal attacks...
Originally Posted by purrin
To say that a specific set of measurements (for example: FR, THD at 1kHz at a some reference level, 19/20kHz IM, noise floor, and a sprinkling of a few others) for two pieces of equipment, if they are near perfect or below the threshold of human audibility, will indicate that said two pieces of equipment sound the same, may not necessarily be true. This is because these types of measurements are too narrow in scope. Another argument is that these types of measurements are based on steady state signals, but that can be an entirely another topic.
"may not necessarily be true" -> I can agree with that, sure.
But I ask you this: have you ever seen an amp or DAC do spectacularly in FR, THD (at a few different test levels and frequencies scattered around), IMD (various tests), etc.—thus seemingly indicating extremely low linear distortion and nonlinear distortion—and also do significantly worse with any other kind of audio signal you run through it?
Does the "not necessarily be true" part actually exist in practice? How often? By how much? e.g. THD+N at -100 dB, -98 dB for another test...then suddenly craps its pants with -63 dB in some IMD test of your choosing, or even with real music.
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils
No it's certainly not. A real scientist doesn't assert conclusions, they ask questions. A real scientist then looks at all data with an open mind and follows the truth wherever it leads them.
You have already made a conclusion and will find facts to support that conclusion. Which is not science, it's religion.
As a general statement, isn't part of "real science" evaluating claims, especially given the context of previous research? Sometimes you've just got to throw out some claims, bad data, whatever else, to find the relevant information—the open mind you call for helps you sift through these things. That's what happens in peer review. Also important is to ask the right questions, which I believe some people are doing (and some are not); IME some are guilty on both sides, if you want to call it that.
Edited by mikeaj - 8/1/12 at 12:55pm