Following the conversation on CA forum, seems like folks think this is same old, same old arguments between the objectivist and subjectivist camps. It is not so and at least with me.
The typical objectivist argument would have been to just dismiss the value of Iso Regen and laugh and any claim otherwise. This is not what we did and is not the type of forum ASR is. I created this forum so that when we say something is not effective, we can point to actual data that can be replicated and viewed as being so. That is why you see all the data, investment in time and money to produce such evidence. And oh, if a device shows value, we show that too. In other words, we investigate the validity of our own claims as much as the other side.
Now that we have done that on the objective side, I like to also see what progress we can make on the subjective front. That is why I asked for the exact setup that has created the wonderful results folks are raving about. I like to recreate that -- on my dime again -- to see if we take those variables, something remains or not.
If what is left is the difference between two ears, we can even go after that. For example, I have shown that despite my aging ears, I am very good (trained) listener and able to find even the smallest differences in blind tests. Here is an example of archmiago's test of redbook vs high-res file that I passed:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-i.html
Note that this was a much higher standard than what Archimago asked about which was for someone to run the test and vote. They could have easily listened once, voted randomly and still get it right.
Importantly the above test was done on my laptop with my etymotic headphones.
I like to see people try to see if they can pass the above test. If they cannot, then I don't want to hear that they can hear better than others. They simply cannot and are not critical listeners as to be able to hear differences that may evade the best instrumentation.
So the excuse put forward by Firedog doesn't hold:
I have done it and my work stands and pretty concrete evidence of passing such tests. I would have easily passed that test in front of 1000 people watching me do it.
Note that the test had signal processing countermeasures to make all but impossible to pass it using computer analysis. And I did not resort to any such methods.
So just as having the instrumentation and experience to use them to analyze products, I am offering the same in subjective analysis in controlled testing.
Actually it does -- very much so according to accepted audio science. By your logic we should not prescribe any medicine to anyone because no test shows that it works for people outside of the test.
But sure, we may not be able to get 100% there but by trying, we can get much closer to it than not attempting. If we duplicate their audio setup and with skilled listeners we can't hear the difference, then it would put their statements in fair amount of doubt.
Bottom line here is to make progress and do so with data.