Thanks, it just popped into my head.

With your question on my opinion of Psychoacoustics being relevant in this case, not really. Psychoacoustics really isn't thinking you hear something that is not there or cannot be measured, it is more the art of masking or removing sounds that are not alledgedly in the audible range or are buried by a louder sound producing the same frequency.

EXAMPLE, remember "Minidisc" and Digital Compact Cassette, "DCC" (Not DAT), in the mid to late 90's? These two formats were based on Psychoacoustics. Both held less than half of the information available on a CD, but yet they were able to play the same minutes of identical music as a CD. This was achieved by removing the information that was alledgedly measured to be out of the audible range and any other information that was being masked by louder sounds on the same frequency. Minidisc only used 40-50% of the information as a CD, DCC 20-35%. As you know, both of these formats failed miserably. Audiophiles claimed the sound was compressed, artificial sounding and a step backwards in technology. Most people could not tell the difference. The reason that this was even attempted was that each format was compact and recordable.

Now, were these so called Audiophile's really AJA's, we will never know because I do not believe the format was ever taken seriously enough for a formal blind side by side against CD. I personally thought that they sounded like crap, but I might be being an AJA myself because I never did a blind side by side.