Why is long term listening better for evaluating components?

[bleedink]

I think there is something to be said for 'musical' memory when one listens to particular tracks. For example, that song that may have played the first time you kissed will likely carry its own inherent set of psychological triggers that may effect the way one perceives the track. Further, listening in its own right is an artform of sorts. It requires one's full attention to perceive the sorts of minute details we audiophiles crave--I would say if one were engaged in casual listening that one would likely fail to notice the signature of the recording studio where the music was made, but would become aware of it with a bit more attention-or even with the awareness that it is possible to hear such a thing. Most people who are not into audio like we are, seem to give somewhat of a blank look when you talk about hearing the space where the recording took place. I, at one time, thought computer speakers were perfectly fine, as were low bitrate mp3s. I'd previously really only known the sound of cassettes and the internet revolution got me back into music. But it was a while before I could pick out the sort of things folks on here like to talk about: transients, attack, dynamics...So for myself it takes me a while to really determine not only the subtle differences between one component and another I really had to learn to listen to appreciate it. I still go back and forth with using different DACs with different material. It wasn't until recently that I realized my AVRs DAC was much more compressed sounding than the external one I'd used. At first it actually seemed to sound better, clearer, and more defined than the other one. But this was a trick. It really was just louder, slightly more compressed, and I was really hearing what a lot of people hear when comparing tracks--the louder one sounds more compelling--AT FIRST. It is only when I listen to the compression for say 15, 20 minutes that my ears start to tell me something might be amiss. Going back to the more relaxed one, it seemed as if I weren't hearing the details I thought I'd been hearing. Really it was just a matter of it being a natural extension of the music's dynamics, and not something that was added to the sound after it arrives in the device. When I turned the volume up a bit I was hearing something that was completely different. Different space between instruments, a wider stage, and music tended to be more 'toe tapping'. If I were a more casual listener, or hadn't given what seemed inferior at first a better, longer listen, I'd have been like most consumers--I'd have picked the more compressed sounding of the two. I think that's interesting to note. I know a lot of people on here would pick some of this out immediately. I figured we need an amateur voice on here to balance things out.

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I think long term listening allows you to follow up on things that may not be originally obvious. Sometimes, there are things that simply become apparent with different music, or things that your awareness simply misses at first. With "adequate time", you can let those issues develop, focus on them, and then see what (if anything) exacerbates or ameliorates them.

[Paul R]

Is it your opinion that you are not overly active on Hydrogen Audio, or is that a fact? Where should one draw the line? I think you misuse the word fact to some degree or another. The the word "fact" has at least five valid meanings. Just in English.

 

Perhaps a dictionary is a better source than Wikipedia.

 

[h=2]fact[/h]   [fakt] Show IPA

noun1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears haveno basis in fact.

2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travelis now a fact.

3.a truth known by actual experience or observation;something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plantgrowth.

4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened:The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event orcircumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect orconsequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

 

 

 

 

 

I am assuming that by "fact", you are here referring to the claim that I somehow was "in the middle of several of the more acrimonious debates over [at Hydrogen Audio]". I am glad to hear that you didn't give that claim much credibility. On the other hand, you did state "it was my understanding you are, or were, quite active on Hydrogen Audio", an equally false statement, unless you consider 30 messages in total, ever, to be "quite active".

 

 

 

Agree. And in the case of my activity on HA, it is something anyone can verify in about 5 seconds.

 

 

 

I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that a) it is inappropriate to question any claims, and b) that it doesn't matter if something is true or not?

 

I guess part of my confusion hinges on the word "fact". When Alex stated that the audible effects of burn in is not because the owner's brain adapts, I would define that a claim. A fact, on the other hand, is according to one widely accepted definition, "something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience via proof. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments, mathematical facts by logical proofs.". So for a claim to become a fact, proof is needed, and I would view it as perfectly acceptable to ask if any proof exists.

 

This should not be confused with an opinion - "in general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. [...] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

 

If opinions are presented as such, as in "I think vinyl sounds better than CDs", I agree it would be inappropriate to question that. We all have the right to believe and feel whatever we want, as long as it is understood that that is our own, subjective view.

[spdif-usb]

Well, if you listen to a sound signature for a long period of time without there being made any changes to it then, one way or another, you'll obviously grow accustomed to it. To be able to predict whether you'll still love what you hear after that, you could come up with all sorts of ingenious ideas. A crystal ball, perhaps. Unfortunately however...

On a more serious note, I still think audio is part science, part subjectiveness, and being able to compare sounds on lots of timescales is not necessarily always a bad thing, since listening is something that often happens on lots of timescales also. In the land of Hobbits and Orcs, it took a while until Treebeard came to his decision of walking to the South.

[esldude]

I use a Tact room correction unit. As mentioned earlier, I can store correction curves and switch between them.

 

I described how comparing curves in short term switching seemed useful. But long term listening was needed to determine which curves most let the emotion of music speak most strongly.

 

Now the Tact doesn't have the best user interface. It has happened several times. Take a correction curve, alter it some, save it then compare over a few days. Develop a preference for one vs the other. Then once you know which you like, pull up the curves and find.....oops, didn't save the changes properly and I have been comparing two curves which in fact are the same curve. Meaning I subjectively perceived a difference and developed a pretty good preference for one vs the other over days or even weeks. Only to find there in fact wasn't a difference. And subjectively it is the same experience as changing cables or various other things.

 

Now comparing the two curves right next to each other, as in switch between them real-time, which with the Tact takes a fraction of a second, I would perceive them as the same. Even if I thought them altered or even if altered in small enough values. Quick switching seems more consistent and able to discern smaller genuine differences than long term listening.

 

Yet, yes, when the curves were in fact different, different enough to perceive in quick switching, it takes days to determine which you prefer. To determine which speaks emotionally the truth with the majority of what you listen to. But there is clearly a zone, where the differences are either not there or so close to being the same you cannot perceive them, yet long term listening will have you developing serious preference for one over the other. It is an artifact of human perception.

 

I also have done this with other Tact owners. They too would end up with preference and explanations along with descriptions of the differences when in fact they were comparing two identical curves.

 

Now I could work on other explanations for this. But it simply fits with DBT based results and measurements. And I am sure some of you will say the Tact processing must not be very transparent. You would be very wrong on that count. It very much puts you far closer to the source. While surely not perfect, it is a significant step at removing another veil or three, to correcting room/speaker anomalies, to putting you far closer to the source material itself. Genuine differences in material and other parts of your system are in far finer, more easily discerned relief. Different recordings sound more different.

 

So my opinion, informed by these and other experiences, and knowledge, is that to determine what speaks to you emotionally requires more time. Some of it genuine differences, and some of it to simply convince yourself to trust it. The smallest differences are discerned most finely with quick switching. Long term listening is about reasoning by emotion, not to be dismissed and necessary for fullest satisfaction. The finest discrimination is with shorter direct A/B comparisons.

 

Further what previously were preferences in interconnect, speaker cable, amplifiers, DACs, etc. etc. seem to subjectively be very much exactly like minor response changes in the corrections curves. The Tact allow you to draw your own curve with precision. Very marginal differences like a decibel spread over two or three octaves often sounds subjectively very much like switching between junk cable and the good stuff. Even if the good stuff is really doing this, the alteration of curves is cost-free and offers more choices.

 

There really is a wonderful level of transparency available in modern moderate equipment. Working at these levels of digital compensation is far more rewarding and liberating.

 

Admittedly I had these preconceptions and experiences in mind when I posted this thread. I intended to read without critique whatever anyone else had to say. I intended to only ask questions to illuminate someone's ideas if I wasn't sure. But so far, other than saying I find it better because it is better or some childish personal bickering about positions, I have been disappointed in nothing new offered here.

 

It is a new world. The DSP available allows things not more than dreams a couple decades ago. Relinquish your prejudices, revel in the capabilities of what is now on offer for very low cost, and explore what you want without being burdened by the expensive hardware requirements of the past. A rational, reasonable approach puts one in a position to develop the most emotionally satisfying musical system ever available at a price lower than ever before in history of musical reproduction.

[bhobba]

Relinquish your prejudices, revel in the capabilities of what is now on offer for very low cost, and explore what you want without being burdened by the expensive hardware requirements of the past. A rational, reasonable approach puts one in a position to develop the most emotionally satisfying musical system ever available at a price lower than ever before in history of musical reproduction.

 

Sorry mate. The best sounding gear can not be duplicated with digital gimmickry.

 

I heard the Killer DAC again last Saturday - divine - it may have the edge on my current reference DAC and am really looking forward to when mine is built. Its a joke comparison comparing it to say the NAD 390DD which I own and am very positive towards - but there is gear out there that leave that and similar stuff so far behind - well as I said its a joke.

 

Anyone who thinks that I suspect needs to get out and hear more gear. Just my view - but one based on being fortunate enough to hear a lot of true high end stuff over the last few years.

 

Thanks

Bill

[bhobba]

Just as an example of my comment above take my speakers. They are lined with steel and have other measures to even reduce resonances further. They are the deadest things you can imagine. Because of that the attack on the guitar strings etc are startling - so startling it takes awhile to adjust to it. No amount of digital processing can ever duplicate that. Thats just one example - tons of other stuff like the natural fast sound of Duelund Capacitors are like that as well - you simply can not duplicate what they do elsewhere.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Julf]

Is it your opinion that you are not overly active on Hydrogen Audio, or is that a fact?

 

Sheesh. The fact is that I have, during the whole time I have been registered on HA, posted exactly 30 postings. That is a verifiable fact, that satisfies 4 of your 5 different definitions, and would probably satisfy the fifth one as well if I sued you for defamation.

 

So that is the fact. But do those 30 messages imply being "overly active"? That is a question of opinion, but I think most rational people with experience with internet forums would not consider 30 messages "overly active".

 

I think you misuse the word fact to some degree or another.

 

I'd love to hear how so.

 

Anyway, I have no idea what my activity or not on HA has to do with the validity of long term listening as a means of evaluating recordings and equipment...

[Julf]

Quite simply, the Killerdac is bullshit.

 

I am assuming you are using that word purely as a technical term

[Paul R]

Oh, that's simple, in a case like this you are incapable of seeing how the word was used and appear to take personal offence, and secondly, you have no qualms about berating other people with facts, so long as such "facts" are in agreement with your perceptions and predjudices.

 

In fact, I did not slander you or defame you in the least. You choose to take the facts as they were related to me in an emotional and reactive manner. Indeed, you immediately jumped on the question of whether those facts were true or not, even when it is, as you say, easily proven whether they are not.

 

And further, I already told you that you were the authority on whether something like that was true or not. I do not dispute you. Even further, I told you I was not convinced at all of the facts as they were related to me when they were related. (And for rthe record, I made my skepticism unmistakably clear to the person doing the relating.)

 

Still you insist on reacting emotionally.

 

Perhaps you might consider other people feel the same way when you start beating on them about certain facts? It has just occurred to me that, as unaware and innocent as I believe your behavior to usually be, there are certain similarities here you might ponder.

 

 

Last post from me on this subject, you can have the last word, purely out of politeness, if you feel the need to clear up or expand on anything.

 

 

Sheesh. The fact is that I have, during the whole time I have been registered on HA, posted exactly 30 postings. That is a verifiable fact, that satisfies 4 of your 5 different definitions, and would probably satisfy the fifth one as well if I sued you for defamation.

 

So that is the fact. But do those 30 messages imply being "overly active"? That is a question of opinion, but I think most rational people with experience with internet forums would not consider 30 messages "overly active".

 

 

 

I'd love to hear how so.

 

Anyway, I have no idea what my activity or not on HA has to do with the validity of long term listening as a means of evaluating recordings and equipment...

[Julf]

Perhaps you might consider other people feel the same way when you start beating on them about certain facts? It has just occurred to me that, as unaware and innocent as I believe your behavior to usually be, there are certain similarities here you might ponder.

 

Ah, thanks, now I understand the intent of your somewhat obscure and disjointed argumentation (and yes, that is a subjective opinion). I suggest we get back to the thread topic, unless you feel that there are more areas where the poor, helpless and downtrodden "other people" need defending...

[Paul R]

I'm not sure how there is much discussion about it. Some people will choose to use only rapid A/B testing, other's long term testing, and yet others will choose a combination of both. All are perfectly valid, none necessarily better than the other in a purely objective sense.

 

Of course, if you want to discuss the subjective value of each technique, alone or in combination, opinions might be interesting.

 

-Paul

 

P.S. I do not think many of us are poor or downtrodden, or need defending of any sort, though the supposed "facts" bandied about often do. Especially the "facts" touted as "objective" facts, which are often thinly disguised subjective judgements of imperfectly observed phenomena. Sometimes not even personally observed, just second, third, or even fourth or fifth hand observations. I think I shall take to calling those kinds of facts "gasbag facts." -PR

 

Ah, thanks, now I understand the intent of your somewhat obscure and disjointed argumentation (and yes, that is a subjective opinion). I suggest we get back to the thread topic, unless you feel that there are more areas where the poor, helpless and downtrodden "other people" need defending...

[Julf]

I think I shall take to calling those kinds of facts "gasbag facts."

 

Would the following be a "gasbag fact"?

 

Last post from me on this subject, you can have the last word, purely out of politeness, if you feel the need to clear up or expand on anything.

[Paul R]

I would call that a comment on A/B testing, you obviously seem to want to call it anything to justify another nasty crack. You would seem to be invulnerable to the effects of normal politeness.

 

-Paul

 

 

Would the following be a "gasbag fact"?

[Julf]

I would call that a comment on A/B testing

 

This?

 

I do not think many of us are poor or downtrodden, or need defending of any sort, though the supposed "facts" bandied about often do. Especially the "facts" touted as "objective" facts, which are often thinly disguised subjective judgements of imperfectly observed phenomena. Sometimes not even personally observed, just second, third, or even fourth or fifth hand observations. I think I shall take to calling those kinds of facts "gasbag facts."

 

OK, it is of course a comment on A/B testing, if you say it is...

 

You would seem to be invulnerable to the effects of normal politeness.

 

Yes, I am, when wordings that normally are associated with politeness are used to sugarcoat nasty cracks, arrogance and conceit. But, once again, this thread is not supposed to be about my personality traits, be they objectionable or not... Could we get away from all the gasbagging and back to the subject of long term listening?

[Paul R]

Yes, I am, when wordings that normally are associated with politeness are used to sugarcoat nasty cracks, arrogance and conceit. But, once again, this thread is not supposed to be about my personality traits, be they objectionable or not... Could we get away from all the gasbagging and back to the subject of long term listening?

 

I bow to the master on this one.

 

I was basically referring to the never ending argument of people throwing "facts" around to prove that this or that kind of testing is the only kind of valid testing. If you want to take it as a personal crack, well then, if the shoe fits...

[Julf]

If you want to take it as a personal crack, well then, if the shoe fits...

 

I know my knowledge of the English language and grammar is limited, so I tend to read statements containing the word "you" as directed towards me. But that is of course a personal limitation I have.

[Jud]

Yet, yes, when the curves were in fact different, different enough to perceive in quick switching, it takes days to determine which you prefer. To determine which speaks emotionally the truth with the majority of what you listen to. But there is clearly a zone, where the differences are either not there or so close to being the same you cannot perceive them, yet long term listening will have you developing serious preference for one over the other. It is an artifact of human perception.

 

Yes, I agree with both of your points here. The first point would be hard for me to disagree with, since I think I was the person who brought it up in this thread. :-) And the second, yes, it definitely accords with the various quirks of our subjective experience in everything from optical illusions to wine tasting to listening "preferences" (in quotes, since a preference for one of two identical items is to my mind illusory rather than real).

 

Further what previously were preferences in interconnect, speaker cable, amplifiers, DACs, etc. etc. seem to subjectively be very much exactly like minor response changes in the corrections curves. The Tact allow you to draw your own curve with precision. Very marginal differences like a decibel spread over two or three octaves often sounds subjectively very much like switching between junk cable and the good stuff. Even if the good stuff is really doing this, the alteration of curves is cost-free and offers more choices.

 

Well, I'd be more cautious here. In terms of differences among amplifiers and DACs, and even possibly cables, I would look to distinctions in speed (transient response) and various forms of noise and distortion (not sure whether all are commonly measured and in specs) at least as much as the frequency response changes you are discussing. So there may be *analogous* differences in sound, but I'm not at all sure they're *identical* (i.e., a product of frequency response).

 

There really is a wonderful level of transparency available in modern moderate equipment. Working at these levels of digital compensation is far more rewarding and liberating.

 

Again, I'd be a bit more cautious. I agree that there are components offering unprecedented value for money, especially in the digital realm. (My two current DACs together cost about a third of what my former DAC did. They also sound better.) And digital room correction can certainly alter sound to a greater degree than changing various components. But that doesn't necessarily mean it gets you closer to the truth. If, for example, the primary difference between two amplifiers is that one does a better job of reproducing transients, the fact that a large frequency response change is more readily apparent doesn't mean it results in better sound than the smaller change that occurs when substituting the better amp. The frequency response change may in fact make the system response in the room less correct, less true to the recordings played through the system. Digital room correction is a great hammer, but not every audio problem is a nail. One has to guard against falling in love with it the same as one guards against falling in love with a particular component's sound in preference to the actual sound of the recording.

 

Admittedly I had these preconceptions and experiences in mind when I posted this thread. I intended to read without critique whatever anyone else had to say. I intended to only ask questions to illuminate someone's ideas if I wasn't sure. But so far, other than saying I find it better because it is better or some childish personal bickering about positions, I have been disappointed in nothing new offered here.

 

Oh, dunno - yes, there's been some of the usual tiresome back-and-forth, but some good stuff too. Guess I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy. :-)

 

It is a new world. The DSP available allows things not more than dreams a couple decades ago. Relinquish your prejudices, revel in the capabilities of what is now on offer for very low cost, and explore what you want without being burdened by the expensive hardware requirements of the past. A rational, reasonable approach puts one in a position to develop the most emotionally satisfying musical system ever available at a price lower than ever before in history of musical reproduction.

 

Again I agree regarding capabilities and price, but once more urge caution in thinking that DSP is the solution to all ills audio systems are heir to.

[esldude]

My apologies to bhobba and the forum.

 

Comments I made to one of his posts was very tasteless and uncalled for. I am sorry I sent that comment in. Wish I could undo it.

 

I'll see if I can get Chris to remove it.

[sandyk]

"It is a new world. The DSP available allows things not more than dreams a couple decades ago. Relinquish your prejudices, revel in the capabilities of what is now on offer for very low cost, and explore what you want without being burdened by the expensive hardware requirements of the past. A rational, reasonable approach puts one in a position to develop the most emotionally satisfying musical system ever available at a price lower than ever before in history of musical reproduction....-Dennis"

 

" Again I agree regarding capabilities and price, but once more urge caution in thinking that DSP is the solution to all ills audio systems are heir to.....-Jud "

 

IMO, no amount of digital "Trickery" can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Neither do I believe that you can apply post digital processing, whether in software or hardware , without at least some mild degradation of the original source material .

The high end DAC makers can rest easy. (smile)

Alex

[esldude]

 

Well, I'd be more cautious here. In terms of differences among amplifiers and DACs, and even possibly cables, I would look to distinctions in speed (transient response) and various forms of noise and distortion (not sure whether all are commonly measured and in specs) at least as much as the frequency response changes you are discussing. So there may be *analogous* differences in sound, but I'm not at all sure they're *identical* (i.e., a product of frequency response).

 

Well, I wasn't saying these differences are only minor response variations. It wasn't something I expected. But they do very much sound subjectively like changing some of those components. Has the same character when you make change in the EQ. Makes one wonder if at least sometimes maybe that is all that makes amps or other components sound just a bit different. Certainly amps and the uneven speaker impedance could cause one to vary just a bit vs another in response. Even if the other attributes were the same this may explain some of it. The feeling I get is many more heard differences are nothing more than wideband minor frequency shifts. They get attributed to other things. But I don't have definitive evidence of that usually being the case.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, I'd be a bit more cautious. I agree that there are components offering unprecedented value for money, especially in the digital realm. (My two current DACs together cost about a third of what my former DAC did. They also sound better.) And digital room correction can certainly alter sound to a greater degree than changing various components. But that doesn't necessarily mean it gets you closer to the truth. If, for example, the primary difference between two amplifiers is that one does a better job of reproducing transients, the fact that a large frequency response change is more readily apparent doesn't mean it results in better sound than the smaller change that occurs when substituting the better amp. The frequency response change may in fact make the system response in the room less correct, less true to the recordings played through the system. Digital room correction is a great hammer, but not every audio problem is a nail. One has to guard against falling in love with it the same as one guards against falling in love with a particular component's sound in preference to the actual sound of the recording.

 

I agree with you on this. I have a feeling there may be more nails than is usually believed, but certainly not all problems are this.

 

It also sometimes isn't appreciated that the majority of speaker response variations when fixed with simple EQ also fixes the phase of the signal. Not all, but most dips in or peaks in response when fixed will result in a corrected phase as well if those response variations are minimum phase. In some cases where an amp is rolling off early due to a tough speaker load, fixing that with EQ does make that amp put out a final result closer to the better amp that doesn't have that roll off.

 

 

Again I agree regarding capabilities and price, but once more urge caution in thinking that DSP is the solution to all ills audio systems are heir to.

 

Well don't get the wrong idea. I don't think $100 components equal the good stuff. What I have in mind is that the difference in $2000 amps and $20,000 amps may be smaller than it used to be. And some $2000 amps of current offerings may be more like $5-10k amps of a decade ago in performance.

[esldude]

IMO, no amount of digital "Trickery" can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Neither do I believe that you can apply post digital processing, whether in software or hardware , without at least some mild degradation of the original source material .

The high end DAC makers can rest easy. (smile)

Alex

 

Oh come now Alex,

 

I never said you could make anything good no matter what you start with. I do wonder if people realize how much good digital trickery can do. While certainly there is a cost to any DSP, and the more of it the more the cost, it isn't all that much if used judiciously and often very cost effective. Certainly the better quality you start with the less need for processing there is. So maybe you cannot make a $1k speaker sound like a $100k speaker. But you can improve it in an obviously beneficial way that seems subjectively very large for pretty much nothing if you have the ability to do the DSP.

 

Just playing around I have made some car two-way coaxial 6x9 speakers sound way above and beyond what I ever thought possible from them. No they didn't match my high end rig, but you would need to spend a bit of cash to equal them for basic sound quality and transparency in an unaided speaker. Frequency response problems interfere with basic subjective transparency much more than is generally appreciated. Now in the case of the 6x9 speakers, you had to play them at pretty gentle levels because of the amount of processing. Other wise you over burden them in some areas creating distortion. But within that moderate volume they were greatly aided by the digital trickery. I would estimate them about 400% better subjectively with the DSP.

[sandyk]

In some cases where an amp is rolling off early due to a tough speaker load, fixing that with EQ does make that amp put out a final result closer to the better amp that doesn't have that roll off.

 

Hi Dennis

Any amplifier that is even 1dB down at 20kHz into a 4 ohm load is quite mediocre. Surely you aren't talking about digital equalisation at >20kHz ?

Regards

Alex

[esldude]

Hi Dennis

Any amplifier that is even 1dB down at 20kHz into a 4 ohm load is quite mediocre. Surely you aren't talking about digital equalisation at >20kHz ?

Regards

Alex

 

I agree it is quite poor. But if you fix it the result is better. EQ to around 20 khz, not so much above it. Though one could do that if you are using material at higher sampling rates. And most recordings have very little power at those frequencies of course.

 

Also many tube amps with output transformers when used with electrostats have a resonant peak following a 15-20k dip. Flattening that out with EQ can be helpful for a better result. Though the problem is actually a less than stellar amp design. Again, not as good as a good design, but some patching up can ameliorate the end result.

 

Of course my main speakers are around 3/4 of an ohm at 20 khz. With some amps I put a 1 ohm resistor in series. I cannot hear 20 khz any way. So making the amp happy up there is a good thing in some cases.

[bhobba]

I am assuming you are using that word purely as a technical term

 

Yea a DAC he has never heard he thinks is bull. What a wonderful open mind and obvious very wide experience with audio gear he has. I suspect it's this same experience that allows him to assert the gimmickry of a TACT will give 'the most emotionally satisfying musical system ever available at a price lower than ever before in history of musical reproduction.'

 

Like I said I think he needs to hear more gear - a lot more gear.

 

Thanks

Bill