Albrecht

Hi, @TheComputerAudiophile You are understood, and you are correct. I will stick to his work. Thanks

Since when are criticisms of someone's (poor) published scientific investigations constitute a baseless attack? Especially when you do the same to published reviews and reviewers in say Audiostream for example. Pot meet Kettle. If reading a well reasoned opposing viewpoint offends you so much, - you can block my posts. And, - likely, - (as a self proclaimed troll), - that sounds like a wise course, - since my content is just so much for you to "endure."

Sorry, What I wrote was poorly said. What I should've wrote was even his objective evaluations are cursory and poor in the context of a lack of a number of testing samples. "Blind listening fails to show an ability to tell the devices apart in playback." Yes, - they are out of context by design.

Did not claim a scientific foundation, - a reasoned critique of bad science does not make it a scientific investigation of (an alleged) scientific investigation.... And... it is possible to conduct a good scientific investigation into subjective phenomenon by engaging in good and thorough scientific methodologies. To conduct NO thorough comparative (subjective) tests while drawing subjective conclusions, -- will lead any investigator to point out that the investigations are indeed poor and conclusions will be drawn on the basis of insufficient evidence.

TFW: there's no cogent argument against your position and your critic resorts to bad, sarcastic memes....

Not a scientific one.

I am not conducting any testing when I am criticizing Archimago's poor testing methodologies. I know that I am not "refuting" anything. ""trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated."" (I also dispute that Archimago does any objective evaluations). That is not true, - actually patently false. It is ABJECTLY impossible to predict how an objectively evaluated component will sound with 6 others, in a room, without actually being there. For example, A Meitner DAC would make a significant difference to a $350 Sony in a system with commensurate components and make NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever when plugged into the auxillary input of a Sharp boombox. Archimago's tests are equivalent to plugging Meitner's into boomboxes.... the essence of bad science.

Whenever he concludes through bad tests that different digital file players do not sound different, - he's making a statement about the performance of ALL digital file players.....

I don't think so, - if you do not believe that you can have good tests and bad tests, - then you cannot have a scientific investigation.

1. Archimago would never do so, - because his intention is to deceive and rig the tests to his desired outcome/conclusions. 2. It isn't only about the test equipment, - but 1. above, - and the choice of what is being measured. 3. The performance (accurate or pleasing sound) of a system, and even individual components cannot be determined by any series of measurements. When we judge performance, - it is a SUBJECTIVE judgement. I am not making any claims. And, - what we hear through our SUBJECTIVE experiences and the SUBJECTIVE goal of those experiences occur throughout an entire system in a room. No MEASUREMENT or series of measurements on ANY one piece of audio gear will reflect the sum total of the experience of a system in a room. When you conduct a cursory jitter measurement of a DAC's chips, - it has no bearing on the quality of the speaker in a system, - or that speaker's performance. It's possible to use a great DAC in a boombox. How the violin ends up sounding in a system, isn't due entirely to the DAC.

Yeah, - there are several unreasonable anti-science/anti-reason naysayers here.... who will not be swayed, and/or refuse to listen.

Hi, Yes, - and this is why any "objective" testing is going to not be representative. It's why the review magazines always have as the main part of their review subjective testing, - (Not enough comparisons though), - as there are no adequate objective tests, (or body of tests), that in any way represent what one is hearing...

And that refutation comes quite frequently from folks who are conducting better tests. The fact that Archimago uses cheap software tools and conducts no tests on high performance "high-end" equipment; then draws conclusions about that equipment is contradiction enough. There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced, when criticizing the testing METHODOLOGY, - which is of course, - conducting tests on low-fi equipment, - and making the false conclusion that those tests apply to ALL equipment.

Me too, - Archimagos tests are so blatantly unrepresentative, - & such bad science, - that they are "faith based tests."

Many trues above: Archimago's work is best summed up as "psuedo science" through straw man tests that are always designed to produce a pre-determined outcome.