mijostyn, thank you for posting our thoughts. I suggest that what the supporters of tweaks/methods I compared preset anecdotal evidence and opinion. I did informal testing, which is entirely different. I agree that if conducted in the industry, it would be a much more tight study. Yes, the numbers could be bolstered by further study, but the grouping of the tweaks/methods is far stronger evidence and cannot be easily dismissed. It does support the contention that a far larger number of tweaks are also likely ineffectual.
I am not concerned about explaining the "why" of the phenomenon involving perception that equipment seems to change performance. As I said, I also experience it and believe it is universal. Studies have been conducted often in regard to adaptation to stimuli, but in this regard audiophiles's egos seem unwilling to accept that their impressions can change over time and that might be the experience, versus the equipment changing.
Will the industry jump on board with this? I doubt it; too much money in sales/reputation riding on the perception that there is audible "profound", "huge" etc. change over time. Many of the industry members believe it themselves to the degree that they wouldn't question their own experience. There is little hope of changing the opinion of someone so overconfident - even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. It is simply too painful for most audiophiles to consider that they really can't accurately tell whether there has been a change in sound quality over time.
