My "anecdotes" are based on my hearing abilities.
You continually ignore that you are not superhuman, and that your "hearing abilities" are fallible. You really can imagine hearing differences. You really, really can!
No amount of "expertise" can get around these biases. It’s why scientists themselves - those MOST in a position to be aware of their biases - use methods to counteract the influence of their biases.
I’ve dismissed most tweaks I’ve tried or heard/experienced because of the lack of significant differences or no differences heard. All your above named audio tweaks I’ve dismissed after trying them (green pens) or hearing them elsewhere, in and out of a room/system.
Then what about all the audiophiles who claimed the DID hear differences with those tweaks that you have "tested and dismissed?" Are they right that they work, or are you right that they don’t work? What do have to offer beyond a form of he-said/she-said approach to these problems?
I have repeatedly stated that everyone has their own listening bias. This does not negate relevant claims of differences heard.
Yes, as you have seen I have argued that here and on ASR. The fact that there is some noise in the system - listening bias - does not mean our perception is entirely unreliable.
HOWEVER, when you want to be REALLY SURE your conclusion is true or well justified, THEN it makes sense to account for the variable of human error in your method! And even more: the more a claim edges in to the "extraordinary" category: that is the more that it would seem at odds with what relevant experts in engineering or the relevant science understand to be unlikely, it makes sense to be MORE cautious about how you are drawing your conclusions.
That’s why the claim someone added more salt to their recipe changes the flavour doesn’t immediately demand rigorous evidence, but if they say they’ve built a perpetual motion maching in their backyard..sorry...a group of guys saying "It’s true, I seen it with my own eyes" will hardly do. It’s going to have to pass much more rigorous lines of evidence. The people who are IGNORANT of the relevant physics and THINK they saw a perpetual motion machine really DON’T have just as much of worth to say about the claim as relevant experts, even if they don’t have a grasp of their own ignorance on the subject.
This is what Amir has to deal with all the time. Most audiophiles are simply not very technically informed, and can’t really evaluate the plausibility of the technical claims made by high end audio companies. So what they have just their "experience listening" which has the problem of perceptual bias. And if they think they hear a difference, well that’s enough to show the claims made for the product are true!
This really is a problem of people who just don’t know what they don’t know. Many audiophiles just aren't in a position to understand when a claim made for a product is bullsh*t or very dubious. And until some level of intellectual humility arrives, as in "hmm, maybe I shouldn’t be as confident as I am, and maybe someone with expertise does have something to teach me..." then this cycle will never be broken, and the expert will be cast as the dogmatist or ignorant.
And so it goes...