My, we're both sneery and certain about everything, aren't we?
I can't speak for you but I certainly am, especially so when I believe someone is talking nonsense.
The affects of vibration are readily comprehensible to anyone with a mind that's even half open
It seems to me that some people's minds are so open that some important bits may have fallen out.
I believe you're massively overestimating the effect vibrations might have on a transformer, but that is neither here nor there, because it doesn't explain this...
"The improvements are many, in that bass is deeper and tauter and stereo separation is clearly improved "
This is the part I was ridiculing, and yes, my reply was perhaps a little childish and dismissive, but you say this, then go on to state...
My background was the physical sciences, and I built an electrostatic speaker as an A level project, so I have more than an inkling about how to be objective and analytical.
When you clearly aren't being 'objective and analytical' in any way that would hold up in scientific circles.
Apart from possibly the loose lead anecdote, you didn't perform a single blind test, far less an ABX test, so how can you possibly consider the tests to be reliable?
There are many ways to test your hypothesis. I guess the simplest way would be to record and compare waveforms at varying volume levels, both with and without the lead weights, but if you do insist on using your ears, then to remove expirimenter expectancy from the equation, an absolute minimum of multiple blind tests would be necessary, (but preferably ABX tests), before your conclusion could be considered to be unbiased.