Why are digital streaming equipment manufacturers refusing to answer me?


I have performed double blind tests with the most highly regarded brands of streamers and some hifi switches. None have made any difference to my system on files saved locally. I have asked the following question to the makers of such systems and almost all have responded with marketing nonsense. 
My system uses fiber optic cables. These go all the way to the dac (MSB). Thus no emi or rfi is arriving at the dac. On top of this, MSB allows me to check if I receive bit perfection files or not. I do. 
So I claim that: if your dac receives a bit perfect signal and it is connected via fiber optic, anything prior to the conversion to fiber optic (streamers, switches, their power supplies, cables etc) make absolutely no difference. Your signal can’t be improved by any of these expensive pieces of equipment. 
If anyone can help explain why this is incorrect I would greatly appreciate it. Dac makers mostly agree, makers of streamers have told me scientific things such as “our other customers can hear the difference” (after extensive double blind testing has resulted to no difference being perceived) and my favorite “bit perfect doesn’t exist, when you hear our equipment tou forget about electronics and love the music”!
mihalis
Its incorrect because its wrong. Your whole premise is false. Its not anyone's responsibility to explain to you why they hear something. Maybe its nothing more than they have learned to hear something you have not. Did you ever think of that? 

Not that it matters. Again, no one owes you any explanation. Not only wires, I can tell the difference between lots of things- wire on the floor vs elevated, wire going one way vs another, warmed up vs cold, on springs vs cones, on and on. And on.

But anyway, I can tell you why nobody replies. It was clear to me in the first 6 words: "I have performed double-blind tests". Because here's the thing. And I know this is hard to believe but think about it a minute you just might get it. When the difference between two things is so readily apparent you hear it immediately, why would you then put yourself through all the incredible time and effort to perform even one double-blind test? To prove to yourself what you yourself already know you heard? Why? 

You know the answer: you only do the test when you can't hear any difference in the first place. 

That is why double-blind testing is so illogical. They ones who can hear will never do it. And the ones who can't never will hear a difference anyway. All double-blind testing can do is activate another audio canard, the expectation bias.

I really do hope that one day you somehow develop listening skills and are able to hear differences between things like this. Seriously. I do. But until then, and for as long as you stay on this unproductive course: You go, girl!
Your blind tests prove one thing only: that YOU cannot hear any difference. Your ears, and with YOUR equipment/ in your room. Simple.
I had a similar experience when conducting ABX testing with amps (with all other pieces of electronics, I was able to select the proper item -cables and components - far better than 50% of the time). The only component that was not discernible in level matched ABX was the amp, which was shocking to me! The most bizarre aspect was that it was not possible to score well in ABX even when the amps being compared were SS vs. tubed! 

These results were written up by myself for Dagogo.com, as I reviewed the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator. It was a fascinating experience, and I'm glad I took the time to explore it. Van Alstine agreed with my results, even with the aspect of the difficulty of distinguishing between amps in ABX. 

However, and this is critical, the similarity between amps was only when conducting ABX. Apart from that particular condition, or when reverting to normal usage in an audio system, the differences reasserted themselves. Therefore, I concluded that: 1. ABX is not necessary to establish differences between gear, 2. It does not represent real world conditions of listening, and has quite limited applicability to it, and finally, 3. That we have phenomenal ability/sensitivity to perceive minute gradations sonically, but poor short term acoustic memory. It took a LOT of concentration in a custom room with very low noise floor to conduct the ABX testing with accuracy.  

Consequently, after conducting my own exploration, I am content to spend less time thinking about ABX, and more time building better audio systems through very active, hands on methods.

Finally, I have done comparisons as well with DACs that were said to not yield differences of upstream components due to them being "bit perfect", etc. However, I did not find that to be the case. Whether they would be similar to amps, or not, in ABX testing, I do not know.  :) 
I expect the op is trolling, but even if they are not, the op should know they will get keyboard warriors jumping in to insult their hearing, their equipment, etc. however, I am sure the op knows that not one valid explanation will be coming.  The people most likely to be able to offer you an explanation for a difference will also be the ones that will read the ops post, and say "obviously", because absent electrical noise, and absent bit errors, there is no reason for one streamer to sound different from another unless they are manipulating the signal.  I am not opposed to them manipulating the signal, more power to them if people like the result.  Of course, the data interface is not the only place that noise can get in, but most high end servers are more power hungry than small servers, and EMI requirements (if met) only start at 9KHz or 150KHz leaving lots of room for grunge on the line.

Nope, when you use fiber optic, assuming no bit losses, which is very very easy in the home, then all those other things really don't matter.  However, you are attacking peoples preferred view of how things work, so you know what the results are going to be.