"My system has great imaging!" "I can hear sound coming from beyond my speakers." "The depth image in my system goes back at least 20 feet." Yes, we audiophiles are proud of our imaging (footnote 1), and we've worked hard to get it. My back is still aching from the last time I tweaked my speakers until the image was <I>just right</I>.

It is always a matter of great interest when a difficult question, in this case the audibility of differences between amplifiers, is put to an empirical test. When the question is tested by such intelligent, knowledgeable, and unbiased investigators as <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/">John Atkinson and Will Hammond</A> (see the July issue of <I>Stereophile</I>, Vol.12 No.7, p.5, the interest is even greater. Unfortunately, when the test turns out to have been flawed by errors in design and in use of statistics, as was the case here, the disappointment is also even greater.

It is always a matter of great interest when a difficult question, in this case the audibility of differences between amplifiers, is put to an empirical test. When the question is tested by such intelligent, knowledgeable, and unbiased investigators as <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/">John Atkinson and Will Hammond</A> (see the July issue of <I>Stereophile</I>, Vol.12 No.7, p.5, the interest is even greater. Unfortunately, when the test turns out to have been flawed by errors in design and in use of statistics, as was the case here, the disappointment is also even greater.

It is always a matter of great interest when a difficult question, in this case the audibility of differences between amplifiers, is put to an empirical test. When the question is tested by such intelligent, knowledgeable, and unbiased investigators as <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/">John Atkinson and Will Hammond</A> (see the July issue of <I>Stereophile</I>, Vol.12 No.7, p.5, the interest is even greater. Unfortunately, when the test turns out to have been flawed by errors in design and in use of statistics, as was the case here, the disappointment is also even greater.

It is always a matter of great interest when a difficult question, in this case the audibility of differences between amplifiers, is put to an empirical test. When the question is tested by such intelligent, knowledgeable, and unbiased investigators as <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/">John Atkinson and Will Hammond</A> (see the July issue of <I>Stereophile</I>, Vol.12 No.7, p.5, the interest is even greater. Unfortunately, when the test turns out to have been flawed by errors in design and in use of statistics, as was the case here, the disappointment is also even greater.

It is always a matter of great interest when a difficult question, in this case the audibility of differences between amplifiers, is put to an empirical test. When the question is tested by such intelligent, knowledgeable, and unbiased investigators as <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/">John Atkinson and Will Hammond</A> (see the July issue of <I>Stereophile</I>, Vol.12 No.7, p.5, the interest is even greater. Unfortunately, when the test turns out to have been flawed by errors in design and in use of statistics, as was the case here, the disappointment is also even greater.

It is always a matter of great interest when a difficult question, in this case the audibility of differences between amplifiers, is put to an empirical test. When the question is tested by such intelligent, knowledgeable, and unbiased investigators as <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/">John Atkinson and Will Hammond</A> (see the July issue of <I>Stereophile</I>, Vol.12 No.7, p.5, the interest is even greater. Unfortunately, when the test turns out to have been flawed by errors in design and in use of statistics, as was the case here, the disappointment is also even greater.

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?