So how would any white paper back up audible perceptions?

So.... you understand that internet studies cannot be trusted, but you want me to send you one backing up my point?

I'll have a go at that one. Have you ever said, about your customers: "They don't know what they want, we tell them what they need." ? You see, "close to perfect" sound is pretty darn boring. The customer wants a great experience. Proven by Dr. DRE. So manufacturers use measurements to build a...

Two possibilities exist here, you have never heard a good tube amp, or you have tin ears. Those are actually the only two possibilities.

Again, sound beyond what humans can hear? What is the point?

Or perhaps just perceptions of what they hear at that moment.

So you aren’t discussing sound at all. Yet some say I am in the wrong forum. Things that make you go hmmmmm?

LOL, a Syke debate? Hilarious. Is it that hard to admit that measurement techniques are imperfect?

So finally we have a poster who refines his point. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I also know that measurement techniques are both imperfect and incomplete.

He trusts his eyes to read the tape, does he not?

As hominem attacks like yours are a clear indication you cannot debate your point if not an outright admission of defeat.

So it seems as though the folks pressing the purely scientific way of selecting electronic equipment allege that differences are imperceptible to the human ear/brain. If so, why bother? What is the point?

Yet the sole purpose of the peice of equipment is to produce sound pleasing to your ears. Crazy right?

So why do many tube amps measure worse than solid state, while sounding better?

Actually no, the question is whether or not one should trust ones own ears over some graph.