Nrchy: I agree with your statements about measureability not being the end-all in audio. I do believe that any difference which can be heard *could* be measured, if only an adequate test existed, and also the corollary that although measurement might not reveal any differences, differences might nonetheless still be audible. I am comfortable with viewing this inconvenience as being not at all contradictory to the scientific aspect of the art.
As for the supposed gap between the weight we might accord to 'facts' and 'theories', two things: 1) 'Facts' can be found to be incorrect or incomplete, same as theories, and 2) facts in isolation don't necessarily tell us very much about how the world works when taken outside of the conceptual 'big picture' provided by theories.
In any case, the demand for the preponderance of evidence falls to the party making the assertion for a new way of looking at the world before it falls to skeptics for possible refutation. Corona's claims can't be specifically refuted when they're not being specifically laid out in the first place, and this he knows very well. Merely stating there could be a lot we don't yet know about the world doesn't make his leaps of apparent illogic any more convincing, absent his presenting some sort of persuasive argument and evidence to support his claims.
If this is denied - as I fully expected and have found it to be - based on vague assertions of market propriety, then he still *could* perhaps deserve to be taken seriously *if* he were able to demonstrate that his product is clearly superior to those not possessing his secret alleged technology. But without a good faith attempt to educate us on why we might expect this to be so, it just goes with the territory that many potential customers won't feel he has earned that chance.
Oh, and BTW, exploration and science may not have changed the universe, only helped explain it, but they sure as hell have changed our world, for better or worse.
