When you claim that a product makes an objective difference, you open yourself up to that claim being questioned. When you're only argument is your subjective perception, then you should get used to people questioning the claims.nevernamed wrote:You should limit yourself to speaking only about yourself and your own perception.
In other words, you don't have any references to share. I didn't think so. High end manufacturers don't like blind tests, they generally reveal that people can't tell the difference and that's not good for sales.In this forum, which is informal to say the least, there isn't any possibility at all of presenting a case study.
The differences between DACs are subtle at best. When people claim that there is this night and day difference then you are opening yourself up to criticism of your claims. This is especially true when you make attempts to link a bunch of subjective perceptions to a device for which you have zero evidence that any technical merits of the device would lead to such differences in perception. No blind tests, no links to papers that describe how particular features yield specific measurable differences, etc.
I can accept that you like it and even that you can hear differences. I'm not convinced that what you're hearing isn't bias, but that's neither here nor there really.
I also don't think that your advice, like most audiophile type advice, is useful to the typical KVR reader really. I think that the general claim that high end technical leadership leads to diminishing returns is valid and that the pareto optimal position is where it's interesting to talk about differences that can be heard/measured.
Here's an example of bias. It's called the McGurk effect. You can HEAR it, I can HEAR it, but there is no difference. If you weren't told about what you were hearing, there is no way that your brain could distinguish between an actual difference or bias. You ACTUALLY HEAR a difference.
