Surely this is a matter of the emperor's new clothes. That was my point with the doppler shift argument. Another classic example of taking a scientifically established effect and then either playing with the definition, as in this case, or taking it out of the range where it makes a difference.
One must remember, the burden always lies with the party asserting that some effect exists, not with those that say it does not. For effects that exist, proof is possible and done with emperical data coupled with mathematically expressed explanations ( not just reference to mathematical terms - which is more of the same), with no leaps of logic or 'filling in the gaps.' And if the effect exists, it will be published in peer reviewed literature (i.e. peers being scientists and engineers in the field and without a pecuniary interest in whether the effect exists or not, not other dealers in audio gear or others whose sole credential is designing audio equipment). Expect to find explanations in, for example, IEEE journals or journals of that caliber and peer review in the applicable scientific field.
When a scientific term with an exact meaning is applied in a manner that steps outside the accepted scientific definition of the term, one need not go any further. This is a sure sign that there is nothing to argue about. It in essence proves the invalidity of any further proffered explanations in support of the theory. All future explanations are built on a stack of cards that has been toppled.
