Originally Posted by CatTerror
I been from a science community of chemists, physicists, etc, from way back so I believe I am qualified to add my 2cents worth.
Asking someone for a scientific evidence is not scientific in itself. The scientific process involves finding out the answers thru experimentation.
Doognam's claims are:
1. Severe capacitive loading due to 470pF. What exactly does he mean?
I searched the internet and found out that he could be right. But that does not mean that he is right because I lack the maths needed to solve them myself. Maybe, it is not important so we go to the bottom line (next claim).
2. Improved 4520 sound after removing the 470pF. This is easy to verify with just a couple of units and decent amplifiers and speakers.
So a simple experiment is required to find out whether or not his claims are true without need to attack anyone.
Does anyone volunteer to perform the needed experiment/s to answer the question or questions that were raised due to
How much is an unmodified 4520 nowadays - maybe all those that are interested to know the answers can chip in - or those selling them to contribute for science and goodwill.
In the scientific communities you have worked in, when someone makes a claim, are they not expected to provide evidence to substantiate the claim? Or do they simply present the claim and then expect others to provide the evidence? If on a project to evaluate the makeup of the moon I say it is made of green cheese, would that be taken on face value without corroborating evidence, or would I simply say it and, when questioned as to how I had come to that conclusion, would I simply say "well it's up to you guys now to find the evidence that I am right or wrong - my work here is done.
BTW, it is far far from 'easy' to evaluate the sonic differences between one unit and another and most certainly the worst way to do it is the way you describe. Proper blind ABX testing would be needed, and as you will know from your involvement with scientific communities, it is far from trivial to set these up in a way which will ensure valid results.
But listening tests are not needed in this case. The claim was that the introduction of certain components, in a certain place, could lead to (ill defined) audible problems with the Denon 4520. It was claimed that the removal of these components would result in "superior sound". Given that everything audible can be measured, the easiest and most reliable way to verify, or disprove, the claim would be to measure a unit with the components in place, and then to measure it again with the components removed. If the two sets of measurements were identical then there can clearly be no difference in the resulting sound. If the two sets of measurements were different, then one would need to analyse the differences and determine if they would result in audible differentiation between the units. For example, if the differences only existed at >20kHz, then no audible differences would result. However if the differences existed at 5kHz-8kHz, then it is possible, likely even, that audible differences would result.
The above is the kind of scientific rigor that a science forum might demand of members who post controversial and important claims. If no such evidence is forthcoming, then the proper way to proceed is to ignore the claim being made, just as my claim as to the composition of the moon would, rightly, be ignored.