I have no problem with you posting it in every relevant thread ... once. However when your only response to disagreement or comment is to post it again (or quote it) then it's rude and unproductive. I'll point out that I never disagreed yet you still had to quote again to refute my post.
I subscribed to The Audio Critic beginning with Issue #1 back in around 1977. By 1980 I had the first eight or so but left them in an anechoic chamber when I was testing some of the worlds best speakers (the original B&W 801, the first Sound Lab electrostats, and the Beveredge Model 3). I'd read TAC while waiting for graphs to finish, I believe in science and measurements too (and I blew away my acoustics class with my final project :~). Actually I think Peter made the comments you quote in one of those original issues of the late 70's and then reprinted them in the issue #24 you reference, that doesn't make them any more or less relevant.
I admit it's been a while since I read TAC, is there another back story or study to what you post or just these words? "In controlled, double-blind listening tests, no one has ever (yes, ever) heard the difference in two amplifiers"
- Here Peter is saying in essence that (as of 1977, 1994, ?) he is aware of every (yes, every) double-blind listening test ever taken - and he knows the results. So we just take his word that everyone checks in with Peter after doing a test to let him know what happened?
"with high input impedance" (important to make the amp easy to drive), "low output impedance" (important to make the amp insensitive to speaker load and give it high damping factor), "flat response" (amplify all frequencies equally), "low distortion" (hmm, THD & IM? Peter used to talk about TIM and SID too but you don't hear about them much anymore), "low noise" (quiet background), "when operated at precisely matched levels (+/-0.1 dB)" (one can't be louder), "and not clipped" (sufficient wattage to drive the speaker).
- Not much to pick at here other than being a bit vague, and I did want to make it clear why these things are important. There used to be some great speakers (typically electrostats) that would really test low output impedance (the Bevs got down to about a half an ohm at high freqs), high efficiency speakers really put noise specs to the test. I don't know what the toughest speakers to drive are these days; but great, revealing speakers must be part of the discussion when talking about amps, and in the end the synergy between amp, speaker, and room is one of the most significant parts of the reproduction chain.
I guess I'd wonder how you know that every amp that gets discussed here meets all these requirements with the speakers and room in question?