"Why isn't this debate about science" - Metro4
Simple, because it is not science that is at play. It is science in the service of music. Music is art. Art is human expression. If you think that the sophistication of electronic science matches the complexity of musical sounds (art), you don't understand art.
"The onus of proof ALWAYS falls on the person making the claim, not the other way around" -Metro4
Really? In my universe (and that of many here) it is you (and others here) that are making the claim; the claim that there is no difference. YOU prove it; if proof must be provided. Prove that there is no difference. Why does it bother you that some of us trust our ears? Why does it bother you that some of us perhaps have more sensitive hearing (by way of nature or training) in certain specific ways than others do? Why do you think that we have learned all that there is to know about the science of sound as it relates to sound and it's reproduction?
Simple, because it is not science that is at play. It is science in the service of music. Music is art. Art is human expression. If you think that the sophistication of electronic science matches the complexity of musical sounds (art), you don't understand art.
"The onus of proof ALWAYS falls on the person making the claim, not the other way around" -Metro4
Really? In my universe (and that of many here) it is you (and others here) that are making the claim; the claim that there is no difference. YOU prove it; if proof must be provided. Prove that there is no difference. Why does it bother you that some of us trust our ears? Why does it bother you that some of us perhaps have more sensitive hearing (by way of nature or training) in certain specific ways than others do? Why do you think that we have learned all that there is to know about the science of sound as it relates to sound and it's reproduction?