This made so much sense that I just wanted to give everyone a chance to read it again:
Peter wrote:
"But in cases where money is changing hands, I believe the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who stand to profit."
If someone says that they hear something and another says they don't, I don't think the burdon of proof is on the second person at all. I would ask "Was it under controlled, double-blind conditions?" If not, I refer you to Bren's post. Haven't we all, at some point, thought we heard a difference at a time when we expected to based upon a change, only to realize that the change hadn't been made in the way we thought? I have.
JohnK is a man of science, logic and, in my opinion, principals. All he is saying is: "Where's the proof"?
It is soooo easy to hear what you WANT to hear. Until I sit down in a double-blind test and hear a difference, I think it's silly. If another person sits down in a double-blind test and statistically, DOES pick the "correct" power cord more often, than I will believe there's a difference. But otherwise, let me say in a non-PC way: "It's crap".
