If the difference was, as you say, a major improvement, then yes - not only would it be measurable, but repeatedly identifiable.
I'm surprised you miss the relevance of my comment.
I can fully understand you not giving a damn whether or not a difference is measurable, but surely you expect it to be repeatable (If neither measurable nor repeatable, then how it could be an astonishing, major improvement is beyond me (and I know I won't be alone).
Possibly not, but if you read my original post correctly you would understand that I was in no way claiming '
my difference' to be a fact! To most reasonable people it would be clearly be understood to be the
subjective impression of 2 different sets of ears. Yes, if I were trying to sell you a product by stating a measurable fact, I would feel obliged to back it up with factual measurement. WE noticed the difference - in our listening environment with my kit and I totally accept that others (with different environments, and ears
🤣) might not share that. Precisely why I stressed that it was a SUBJECTIVE view and assuredly not a scientifically measurable fact! If I didn't make that blindingly obvious enough, I apologise.
I totally take your point about placebo, but - even medically - if you
think something is making you feel better, that might well do the job whether it makes sense
measurably or not! I'm sure many consultants would concur. Life is all about personal perceptions and not everything has to be scientifically provable to be worth something.
I also accept that the use of the word 'astonishing' was perhaps a little hyperbolic
😉, but in terms of actual cost vs system cost it was, let's say, very surprising. I will continue to let my trusted ears (and budgetary considerations) to be the judge of any future 'improvements', however illogical some might think that to be
🤣.