[Audio_Empire]

I was talking to a young audiophile friend of mine on the phone the
other day, and it occurred to me that many of his attitudes and
misconceptions are the products of a lifetime of reading high-end audio
rags and drinking the cool-aid that is the high-end manufacturers'
endless advertising hype.

The biggest myth of all, and one that is almost universally accepted by
the non-technical audiophile community is this notion that as an
electrical signal, audio is somehow "special". In other words, it's
apparently OK for the wire carrying the electrical signals that keep the
airliner we're on in the air, and thus keeps us alive to be
garden-variety copper wire, terminated with garden-variety connectors
and held together with ordinary tin solder, but the wire that carries
our music must be single-crystal, oxygen-free copper (or perhaps silver)
sheathed in special dielectrics, terminated with platinum connectors
fixed with special "audio-quality" silver solder and costing thousands
of dollars per foot!

Add to that the fact that acceptable electronics must cost so much that
one would think that they were made from Mil-Spec parts, which they
aren't. (but even then, the parts and other manufacturing costs couldn't
begin to justify the selling price of some of this equipment). Even if
they were made from Mil-Spec parts, that, in and of itself, would not be
any guarantee of better sonic performance. Military and Aerospace
specifications are aimed at enhanced reliability and repeatability, not
at better performance than the industrial grade specimens of the same
parts.

Sure, good engineering will result in better sound, better reliability,
and greater longevity in hi-fi gear as in any other manufactured goods,
but is there really anything in an MSB Diamond Platinum DAC IV plus, for
instance, to justify its $40,000+ price tag? I doubt it. In fact, in a
recent review of Marantz's latest computer/internet audio "appliance"
(NA-11S1), the reviewer observed that the Marantz's built-in DAC was
virtually indistinguishable, sound-wise, from the MSB Diamond Platinum
DAC that he had on-hand at the time. The Marantz, BTW, was priced at
$3499 - less than 1/10th the price of the MSB and not only contained a
very good sounding DAC but was also a computer and Internet music server
to boot!

The idea that components have to cost an arm and a leg in order to
perform at "state-of-the-art" sonic levels is definitely a result of
manufacturer greed coupled with the willing compliance of the audiophile
press who compound the hype by parroting the notion that this stuff is
sonically superior to cheaper equipment even though there is usually
little or nothing in this equipment's design (other than several
thousands of dollars worth of custom metalwork in the component's case)
to indicate that it uses any better quality components or design
criteria than does much similar, but cheaper, gear.

Now, certainly, pride of ownership is a factor in this stuff and
expensive components and "boutique" cables certainly do LOOK the
business, and if one has unlimited financial resources and wants to
purchase a DAC that costs as much as a new Corvette C7, or a pair of
speakers* that cost as much as a new Aston-Martin or Maserati, then by
all means, be my guest. The tragedy here is not that such expensive
equipment exists, but that so many audiophiles are daily frustrated by
their heartfelt belief that one must pay these kinds of prices for great
sound. It just ain't so, gentlemen.

* I'll cut speaker manufacturers a bit of slack here. This is one area
where spending more CAN get you more. A pair of Wilson Alexandra XLF
speakers or Magico Q7s are state-of-the-art speaker systems at $200K and
$165K respectively, but again, a pair of Martin-Logan CLX's and a pair
Descent i subwoofers at under $30K for the lot still probably represents
the most accurate and transparent speaker sound money can buy these
days.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Gary Eickmeier]

Audio_Empire wrote:
I was talking to a young audiophile friend of mine on the phone the
other day, and it occurred to me that many of his attitudes and
misconceptions are the products of a lifetime of reading high-end
audio rags and drinking the cool-aid that is the high-end
manufacturers' endless advertising hype.

Yes yes, we know all that George, and you keep saying it over and over. The
main problem is that most of them don't have a clue as to what causes the
sound that we hear in a room. They have been talked into the "accuracy"
theory of reproduction, so they sit 6 ft away from some monstrosity speaker
aimed at their faces and when it doesn't sound right they are told it is
bacause they haven't spent enough yet on cables made to get all of the
frequencies to the other end at the same time, or speakers that need to be
phase aligned, or drivers that aren't light enough, or there isn't enough
damping in the room, or any of a litany of misguided ideas about sound that
make me cringe.

This will continue until they learn something about the differences between
live sound and "hi-fi." How live music puts sound into a room vs how "hi-fi"
does it. I have spoken about this many times here, but no one quite gets it.

See me after class.

Gary Eickmeier

[Robert Peirce]

I cut the whole message because I would have had to quote too much. I
have a couple of observations. First, so-called "pro" gear is really
good stuff at 1/10th or even 1/100th or 1/1000th of the price of
"audiophile" products. Second, Hsu's system of two subs and a pair of
bookshelf speakers costs way less than $30K and sounds fantastic.

I spent 20 years with a pair of Apogee Divas driven by a Classe DR-6
preamp and two DR-9 amps. I finally settled on a DVD player to play CDs
and a VPI Super Scout Master with a Shelter MM cartridge for vinyl. I
could hear differences in various TTs. Not so much in various CD
players. The DR-6 had an excellent MM phono input.

For the last couple of years I have been using a TC Electronics Impact
Twin driven from a Mac Mini using iTunes, along with Pure Music and Pure
Vinyl feeding the amps of a pair of Hsu ULS-15s and one Classe DR-9
driving the Hsu bookshelf speakers. I am using cheap balanced lines in
place of expensive RCA interconnects.

I use the mic inputs on the Impact Twin along with Pure Vinyl to
digitize vinyl at very high bit rates, probably more than I need. Pure
Vinyl/Pure Music also allow for the use of computer based filters to
tune the room. Try that in analog.

I haven't added it up, but I probably have much less than $10K in this
system, not counting the VPI TT, which I still own and which cost more
than the rest of the system.

Okay, I'm old and my ears aren't what they used to be, but I can't say
the old system really sounded that much better than the new and the old
system cost five times what I paid for the new, and that was in 1990
dollars versus 2011!

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

I cut the whole message because I would have had to quote too much. I
have a couple of observations. First, so-called "pro" gear is really
good stuff at 1/10th or even 1/100th or 1/1000th of the price of
"audiophile" products. Second, Hsu's system of two subs and a pair of
bookshelf speakers costs way less than $30K and sounds fantastic.

I agree with you about pro-gear. One can get some excellent performing
amplifiers (especially) from vendors like Peavy and Crown, and
Behringer at really bargain prices. Makes one wonder why the high-end
amps cost so much?

I've heard the HSU horn speakers with an HSU sub and I agree that they
sound fantastic - especially for the money. BUT (and this is a big
but) they are not in the same ballpark as the transparent and hyper
accurate Martin Logan CLX (with suitable subwoofers) or with the sheer
amount of sound produced by the Wilson Alexandria XLF (I think a
speaker system that could combine the transparency, accuracy and low
distortion of the M-L CLX with the dynamic range and the ability to
load a room with bottom end like the Wilson Alexandra XLF would be
pretty close to the ideal loudspeaker).

I spent 20 years with a pair of Apogee Divas driven by a Classe DR-6
preamp and two DR-9 amps. I finally settled on a DVD player to play CDs
and a VPI Super Scout Master with a Shelter MM cartridge for vinyl. I
could hear differences in various TTs. Not so much in various CD
players. The DR-6 had an excellent MM phono input.

VPI turntables are VERY good, I agree. I used to have a pair of Apogee
Signatures, and aside from the fragility of the "cabinets" (the
speakers were VERY heavy, and if you tried to move them by grabbing
the MDF cosmetic surrounds, those surrounds would break) I thought
they sounded excellent (great bass). Alas, a piece of magnet came
loose inside and one of them started to rattle - so I sold them.

For the last couple of years I have been using a TC Electronics Impact
Twin driven from a Mac Mini using iTunes, along with Pure Music and Pure
Vinyl feeding the amps of a pair of Hsu ULS-15s and one Classe DR-9
driving the Hsu bookshelf speakers. I am using cheap balanced lines in
place of expensive RCA interconnects.

Boutique cables are the biggest rip-off in audio. The companies
selling these useless money-pits should be prosecuted for fraud!

I use the mic inputs on the Impact Twin along with Pure Vinyl to
digitize vinyl at very high bit rates, probably more than I need. Pure
Vinyl/Pure Music also allow for the use of computer based filters to
tune the room. Try that in analog.

Can't be done too easily.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

I was talking to a young audiophile friend of mine on the phone the
other day, and it occurred to me that many of his attitudes and
misconceptions are the products of a lifetime of reading high-end audio
rags and drinking the cool-aid that is the high-end manufacturers'
endless advertising hype.

If people look and listen, there are saner heads to be read. The internet
means that you are no lnger lost in any competition you are in with someone
who buys ink by the barrel.

Furthermore, one can put together a decent education in audio and
electronics through the university level with a little googling.

The biggest myth of all, and one that is almost universally accepted by
the non-technical audiophile community is this notion that as an
electrical signal, audio is somehow "special". In other words, it's
apparently OK for the wire carrying the electrical signals that keep the
airliner we're on in the air, and thus keeps us alive to be
garden-variety copper wire, terminated with garden-variety connectors
and held together with ordinary tin solder, but the wire that carries
our music must be single-crystal, oxygen-free copper (or perhaps silver)
sheathed in special dielectrics, terminated with platinum connectors
fixed with special "audio-quality" silver solder and costing thousands
of dollars per foot!

And the corolaries that amplifiers, preamps, DACs, loudspeakers, etc., are
"special".

Add to that the fact that acceptable electronics must cost so much that
one would think that they were made from Mil-Spec parts, which they
aren't. (but even then, the parts and other manufacturing costs couldn't
begin to justify the selling price of some of this equipment). Even if
they were made from Mil-Spec parts, that, in and of itself, would not be
any guarantee of better sonic performance. Military and Aerospace
specifications are aimed at enhanced reliability and repeatability, not
at better performance than the industrial grade specimens of the same
parts.

For example, high end audiophiles turn their noses up at electrolytic
capacitors, while there are such things as mil-spec electrolytic capacitors
and I've seen them in use.

Sure, good engineering will result in better sound, better reliability,
and greater longevity in hi-fi gear as in any other manufactured goods,
but is there really anything in an MSB Diamond Platinum DAC IV plus, for
instance, to justify its $40,000+ price tag?

Or a DAC costing $4,000 or $400, or even more than some costs $40.


The idea that components have to cost an arm and a leg in order to
perform at "state-of-the-art" sonic levels is definitely a result of
manufacturer greed coupled with the willing compliance of the audiophile
press who compound the hype by parroting the notion that this stuff is
sonically superior to cheaper equipment even though there is usually
little or nothing in this equipment's design (other than several
thousands of dollars worth of custom metalwork in the component's case)
to indicate that it uses any better quality components or design
criteria than does much similar, but cheaper, gear.

* I'll cut speaker manufacturers a bit of slack here. This is one area
where spending more CAN get you more. A pair of Wilson Alexandra XLF
speakers or Magico Q7s are state-of-the-art speaker systems at $200K and
$165K respectively, but again, a pair of Martin-Logan CLX's and a pair
Descent i subwoofers at under $30K for the lot still probably represents
the most accurate and transparent speaker sound money can buy these
days.

I dunno about that. There is good evidence to suggest that there has been
considerable progress in the price/performance of speakers, and that high
end speakers are just as overpriced as high end speaker cables.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

I was talking to a young audiophile friend of mine on the phone the
other day, and it occurred to me that many of his attitudes and
misconceptions are the products of a lifetime of reading high-end audio
rags and drinking the cool-aid that is the high-end manufacturers'
endless advertising hype.

If people look and listen, there are saner heads to be read. The internet
means that you are no lnger lost in any competition you are in with someone
who buys ink by the barrel.

Furthermore, one can put together a decent education in audio and
electronics through the university level with a little googling.

The biggest myth of all, and one that is almost universally accepted by
the non-technical audiophile community is this notion that as an
electrical signal, audio is somehow "special". In other words, it's
apparently OK for the wire carrying the electrical signals that keep the
airliner we're on in the air, and thus keeps us alive to be
garden-variety copper wire, terminated with garden-variety connectors
and held together with ordinary tin solder, but the wire that carries
our music must be single-crystal, oxygen-free copper (or perhaps silver)
sheathed in special dielectrics, terminated with platinum connectors
fixed with special "audio-quality" silver solder and costing thousands
of dollars per foot!

And the corolaries that amplifiers, preamps, DACs, loudspeakers, etc., are
"special".

Add to that the fact that acceptable electronics must cost so much that
one would think that they were made from Mil-Spec parts, which they
aren't. (but even then, the parts and other manufacturing costs couldn't
begin to justify the selling price of some of this equipment). Even if
they were made from Mil-Spec parts, that, in and of itself, would not be
any guarantee of better sonic performance. Military and Aerospace
specifications are aimed at enhanced reliability and repeatability, not
at better performance than the industrial grade specimens of the same
parts.

For example, high end audiophiles turn their noses up at electrolytic
capacitors, while there are such things as mil-spec electrolytic capacitors
and I've seen them in use.

Of course there are. Electrolytic capacitors are de riguer for power
supplies and the like. Couldn't do without them. But a mil-spec 100
microFared, 50 Volt electrolytic capacitor is the same 100 microFared,
50 Volt electrolytic capacitor as it's commercial equivalent. It just
has been tested (and guaranteed) over a wider temperature range and
under rigorous vibration and other other environmental tests that the
commercial version of the cap hasn't been subjected too.

Sure, good engineering will result in better sound, better reliability,
and greater longevity in hi-fi gear as in any other manufactured goods,
but is there really anything in an MSB Diamond Platinum DAC IV plus, for
instance, to justify its $40,000+ price tag?

Or a DAC costing $4,000 or $400, or even more than some costs $40.

Well, now you're going too far. Many DACs DO sound different (and some
better) than others - even in a bias controlled test. However, my
point is that these differences are not necessarily tied to the unit's
cost. I.E. a $4000 DAC doesn't, by virtue of its cost, necessarily
sound better than a $400 DAC. In my experience, however, DACs
utilizing stereo D/A chips generally "sound" better (and by that I
mean that there are aspects of their audio performance, such as
soundstage or bass presentation that they do do differently than other
designs) than do DACs that "time-share" a single D/A converter chip
and those utilizing dual-differential D/As can sound better yet, but
I've found no hard-and-fast rules there, either.

The idea that components have to cost an arm and a leg in order to
perform at "state-of-the-art" sonic levels is definitely a result of
manufacturer greed coupled with the willing compliance of the audiophile
press who compound the hype by parroting the notion that this stuff is
sonically superior to cheaper equipment even though there is usually
little or nothing in this equipment's design (other than several
thousands of dollars worth of custom metalwork in the component's case)
to indicate that it uses any better quality components or design
criteria than does much similar, but cheaper, gear.

* I'll cut speaker manufacturers a bit of slack here. This is one area
where spending more CAN get you more. A pair of Wilson Alexandra XLF
speakers or Magico Q7s are state-of-the-art speaker systems at $200K and
$165K respectively, but again, a pair of Martin-Logan CLX's and a pair
Descent i subwoofers at under $30K for the lot still probably represents
the most accurate and transparent speaker sound money can buy these
days.

I dunno about that. There is good evidence to suggest that there has been
considerable progress in the price/performance of speakers, and that high
end speakers are just as overpriced as high end speaker cables.

I do know about "that" and I can tell you that if you can find a pair
of speakers that are as transparent and as accurate as the M-L CLXs
for less money or if you can find another pair of speakers that can
produce the sheer volume of a symphony orchestra in full song, or
pressurize a room with low end like the Wilson Alexandra XLFs AT ANY
PRICE, I'll eat my hat! Because as many high-end speakers as I have
heard, I haven't come across such a puppy!

Sure, the proliferation of computer modeling has narrowed the gap in
performance of a lot of mid-priced speakers where many of them sound
as good as or perhaps better than so-called state-of-the-art designs
of just a few years ago. But the really high-end speakers do things
that lesser speakers simply can't do, and you don't need a DBT to hear
it either. It is immediately apparent when one is in the presence of
such designs.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Of course there are. Electrolytic capacitors are de riguer for power
supplies and the like. Couldn't do without them. But a mil-spec 100
microFared, 50 Volt electrolytic capacitor is the same 100 microFared,
50 Volt electrolytic capacitor as it's commercial equivalent. It just
has been tested (and guaranteed) over a wider temperature range and
under rigorous vibration and other other environmental tests that the
commercial version of the cap hasn't been subjected too.

Not always. In the equipment I worked with electrolytic capacitor usually
meant something with tantalium in it. While small tantalium capacitors are
common, finding parts of 1,000 uF and up are not very common.

Sure, good engineering will result in better sound, better reliability,
and greater longevity in hi-fi gear as in any other manufactured goods,
but is there really anything in an MSB Diamond Platinum DAC IV plus,
for
instance, to justify its $40,000+ price tag?

Or a DAC costing $4,000 or $400, or even more than some costs $40.

Well, now you're going too far. Many DACs DO sound different (and some
better) than others - even in a bias controlled test.

Yes. In this point in life, the point where DAC chips are sonically
transparent lies about a dollar a channel or less.

For example, I ended up with a motherboard sound facility that produced no
output, so an external card was the easiest solution. For less than $30 I
obtained an audio interface that per independent tests was the equal of an
audio interfact that cost me $399 in 2001.

However, my
point is that these differences are not necessarily tied to the unit's
cost. I.E. a $4000 DAC doesn't, by virtue of its cost, necessarily
sound better than a $400 DAC. In my experience, however, DACs
utilizing stereo D/A chips generally "sound" better (and by that I
mean that there are aspects of their audio performance, such as
soundstage or bass presentation that they do do differently than other
designs) than do DACs that "time-share" a single D/A converter chip
and those utilizing dual-differential D/As can sound better yet, but
I've found no hard-and-fast rules there, either.

Your distaste for the kind of DBT that professionals use is well known.

I dunno about that. There is good evidence to suggest that there has
been
considerable progress in the price/performance of speakers, and that high
end speakers are just as overpriced as high end speaker cables.

I do know about "that" and I can tell you that if you can find a pair
of speakers that are as transparent and as accurate as the M-L CLXs
for less money or if you can find another pair of speakers that can
produce the sheer volume of a symphony orchestra in full song, or
pressurize a room with low end like the Wilson Alexandra XLFs AT ANY
PRICE, I'll eat my hat! Because as many high-end speakers as I have
heard, I haven't come across such a puppy!

Given your track record with blind, level matched tests, how would you know?

Sure, the proliferation of computer modeling has narrowed the gap in
performance of a lot of mid-priced speakers where many of them sound
as good as or perhaps better than so-called state-of-the-art designs
of just a few years ago. But the really high-end speakers do things
that lesser speakers simply can't do, and you don't need a DBT to hear
it either. It is immediately apparent when one is in the presence of
such designs.

True for subwoofers, but even there the price performance has migrated
downward. In the 1980s there simply were no subwoofer drivers with 30 mm
Xmax. Today, one can obtain such a thing and get change from $400. Of
course with the usual markups and accessories such as built-in power amp,
the street price of the installable system is still $2,000. But that is
chump change by high end audio standards.

[Audio_Empire]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Of course there are. Electrolytic capacitors are de riguer for power
supplies and the like. Couldn't do without them. But a mil-spec 100
microFared, 50 Volt electrolytic capacitor is the same 100 microFared,
50 Volt electrolytic capacitor as it's commercial equivalent. It just
has been tested (and guaranteed) over a wider temperature range and
under rigorous vibration and other other environmental tests that the
commercial version of the cap hasn't been subjected too.

Not always. In the equipment I worked with electrolytic capacitor usually
meant something with tantalium in it. While small tantalium capacitors are
common, finding parts of 1,000 uF and up are not very common.

Many electrolytics are tantalum, but certainly not all. many are
aluminum, especially the bigger ones. But tantalum or aluminum have
nothing to do with Mil-Spec vs commercial spec or their prices.

Sure, good engineering will result in better sound, better reliability,
and greater longevity in hi-fi gear as in any other manufactured goods,
but is there really anything in an MSB Diamond Platinum DAC IV plus,
for
instance, to justify its $40,000+ price tag?

Or a DAC costing $4,000 or $400, or even more than some costs $40.

Well, now you're going too far. Many DACs DO sound different (and some
better) than others - even in a bias controlled test.

Yes. In this point in life, the point where DAC chips are sonically
transparent lies about a dollar a channel or less.

For example, I ended up with a motherboard sound facility that produced no
output, so an external card was the easiest solution. For less than $30 I
obtained an audio interface that per independent tests was the equal of an
audio interfact that cost me $399 in 2001.

However, my
point is that these differences are not necessarily tied to the unit's
cost. I.E. a $4000 DAC doesn't, by virtue of its cost, necessarily
sound better than a $400 DAC. In my experience, however, DACs
utilizing stereo D/A chips generally "sound" better (and by that I
mean that there are aspects of their audio performance, such as
soundstage or bass presentation that they do do differently than other
designs) than do DACs that "time-share" a single D/A converter chip
and those utilizing dual-differential D/As can sound better yet, but
I've found no hard-and-fast rules there, either.

Your distaste for the kind of DBT that professionals use is well known.

That's only because it seems to often yield little useful information.
For instance, two DAC units that sound identical in a bias controlled
DBT, when connected to another system with more resolving power clearly
showed that one had much better and tighter bass than the other. The DBT
didn't show that because the system used didn't have great bass itself.
In another similar test of DAC units, two otherwise identical sounding
DACs yielded very different soundstage and imaging results when
connected to a system that imaged well. I agree that all modern DACs
sound acceptable, but differences in imaging, bottom-end performance and
even top-end performance do exist and will only show up on a DBT when
the system used for the DBT is of sufficient resolving power to
highlight these aspects of performance. Otherwise, they go by unnoticed
and leave the test participants with the incorrect conclusion that
everything sounds the same.

I dunno about that. There is good evidence to suggest that there has
been
considerable progress in the price/performance of speakers, and that high
end speakers are just as overpriced as high end speaker cables.

I do know about "that" and I can tell you that if you can find a pair
of speakers that are as transparent and as accurate as the M-L CLXs
for less money or if you can find another pair of speakers that can
produce the sheer volume of a symphony orchestra in full song, or
pressurize a room with low end like the Wilson Alexandra XLFs AT ANY
PRICE, I'll eat my hat! Because as many high-end speakers as I have
heard, I haven't come across such a puppy!

Given your track record with blind, level matched tests, how would you know?

Given your track record of not recognizing good audio performance when
you hear it, how would you?

Sure, the proliferation of computer modeling has narrowed the gap in
performance of a lot of mid-priced speakers where many of them sound
as good as or perhaps better than so-called state-of-the-art designs
of just a few years ago. But the really high-end speakers do things
that lesser speakers simply can't do, and you don't need a DBT to hear
it either. It is immediately apparent when one is in the presence of
such designs.

True for subwoofers,

True for all types of speakers.


but even there the price performance has migrated
downward.

Like I said. Modern modest-priced speakers can perform at levels of
performance undreamed of 20 years ago.

In the 1980s there simply were no subwoofer drivers with 30 mm
Xmax. Today, one can obtain such a thing and get change from $400. Of
course with the usual markups and accessories such as built-in power amp,
the street price of the installable system is still $2,000. But that is
chump change by high end audio standards.

By $400, I take it you are talking about the raw drivers? If so, I
concur.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...


Your distaste for the kind of DBT that professionals use is well known.

That's only because it seems to often yield little useful information.

That would probably be due to differences in one's definition of "useful
information"

For instance, two DAC units that sound identical in a bias controlled
DBT, when connected to another system with more resolving power clearly
showed that one had much better and tighter bass than the other.

Perfect example of faulting DBT procedures when the problem might have been
at a higher level - the choice of system used for the evaluation.

Apparently someone has been reading a book where it is written in stone that
DBTs can only be done in inadequate systems, and more specifically never the
system at hand. ;-)

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the test in the second system was
bias-controlled, so we appear to have a surreptitious raising of the
perceived merit of a sighted evaluation over the DBT.

In short, I see evidence of overwhelming false logic, bias and denial in the
above comments.

The DBT
didn't show that because the system used didn't have great bass itself.

Not at all the fault of the DBT, yet it is apparently being presented here
as a global limitation of DBTs.

In another similar test of DAC units, two otherwise identical sounding
DACs yielded very different soundstage and imaging results when
connected to a system that imaged well.

Same mistake, just different systems and different related system parameter.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio_Empire wrote:

I agree that all modern DACs sound acceptable, but differences in
imaging, bottom-end performance and even top-end performance do
exist and will only show up on a DBT when the system used for the
DBT is of sufficient resolving power to highlight these aspects of
performance. Otherwise, they go by unnoticed and leave the test
participants with the incorrect conclusion that everything sounds
the same.

Of course you have to partner the DAC with high-quality components for
any test. But without the DBT, the test participants will be left
with the incorrect conclusion that the units sound different. Better
still, your claim that some system has better "resolving power" can be
tested with a DBT. (With proper blinding, statistical controls, etc.
This should go without saying, but often needs to be repeated.)

Andrew.