Rsbeck, the scientist in me thanks you. I enjoy the logic and your insistance on fundamental scientific principles which are mandatory in every field (besides high-end audio). A refusal to perform an ABX test if possible (or the suggestion to perform a test that isn't even blind) would result in laughter, disbelief and a total lack of grant funding in the "real" world. In short, a career would be over. The insistance of a researcher maintaining the validity of the experimental hypothesis (there is an audible difference) in light of evidence which supports the null hypothesis (there is no audible difference) is known as a type I error and is the cardinal sin in the sciences. The laughter, lack of funding and "career over" would likely result from this scenario as well. So far in this thread, both mistakes have been made.
Sean, trusting one's own senses over sound scientific testing and the results which follow is not an option. This is not Rsbeck vs. you. This is you vs. a solid century of scientific principles, math and logic.
