Great. Good that that finally came across. That is really the most important bit of the whole rebuttal, really.
I my view I factor in how other people will interpret what they read. Because the way things are worded in this paper is very deliberate.
It is not. I have no problem with him describing the test conditions, and I already said as much. Far from it. What I object to is his reasoning that these components are in any way necessary for the experiment.
That's fine. The debate is about the method used in the experiment and the conclusions derived from it. These things are clearly invalid.
You don't have to answer the "proper sound system" question obviously. I wasn't expecting that
I do however expect it (or something) from him. Because he makes the claim, and even cites his own paper as evidence.
Most definitely
I don't know. And if it does, I don't know by what mechanism(s). The paper surely didn't bring us closer to an answer. An attempt yes, just a very bad one. Eventually, my position on the matter is of no consequence anyway. Me having a position doesn't bring me any closer to the truth. What is important is to look at what the paper tells us, and that is exactly nothing.
Fully agree that the type of system needed is not the main question. But in the paper, it is a carefully crafted straw man built by the author to promote his high-end bullshit fetish. He does this in multiple papers, and it's a clear pattern with a clear motive.