Basically, you not actually making a point, you are just using about 10 logical fallaciesYou make me laugh here....Sorry...And you are like the virgin pure of any of these sinsn ?
You never accused a doctorate researcher you never studied, accusing him to be incompetent even if i proved with a recent book that what he claimed was right ?
Do you realize that some people read this thread also and some can think by themselves?
By the way like i said in a preceding post i never question your competence in audio at all , i question your judgement here.... It is not the same thing.....
I will resume all i say in 2 words and suppress any arguments to the simplest one...Then all these 10 logical fallaciies you accused me of using will collapse into one argument only and more, to only a question?
Numbers are not perception and never will be....
Are you ok with that?
Yes or no ?
But beware if numbers are not equal to perceptions even if the designed tool can help to mimic perception then perhaps the claim of Anton COULD make sense...Some perception may exist without for NOW any electronical or electrical known explanations....And perhaps none at all if we appeal to only electrical tools...
Then asking for a blindtest on the spot instead of being sincerely interested in this experiment and trusting his sincerity is just a way of dismissing it without listening at all....
Then using the mother of all the fallacies i will use the sophism....
I will give you an example of sophism...
All perception must be reduced to a measurable fact
Anton claim he listen difference non measurable,
Then is is impossible...His claim is an illusion or a fraud...
The problem is that the premises are false...Or impossible to demonstrate...
Why not listening him and discussing instead of saying what he say is complete gibberish?