[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Yes it does. It's going to take more than quotes from adherents
to a methodology that I believe is wrong-headed to make me
a believer in this form of audio testing.

That appears to be mission impossible.

You seem to have already taken the position that everything we know about
the thresholds of hearing for the various kinds of audible differences are
wrong and/or that there are other explanations for audible differences.

See, no one has proven
to me that DBT testing of audio equipment covers all of the
bases.

IOW, according to you DBT has to be perfect but we already know that nothing
is perfect.

In fact, I'm more than reasonably sure that it doesn't.

In your own eyes, yes.

There are things that a few seconds of listening before
switching to the alternate DUT will rarely, if ever, uncover.

Says you and forget about sceince.

For instance, Many characteristics also require the RIGHT kind of
source material.

Finding the right few seconds of program material is required, and we've
known that for about 4 decades.

Like I said before, you'll not uncover differences in
dimensionality and image specificity (one of the main differences
that I find in DACs)

Interesting that your all-important crteria is hearing differences among
DACs when science says that even mid-grade DACs are overkill for audio.

using source material that was multi-miked in
a studio using 8, 16, 32, and more channels. Because such studio
recordings don't have ANY image specificity.

Ignores all the DBTs that have been done with minimal-miced music, which are
numerous.

It just goes on and on...