[mmerrill99]

As I said, the Intona improves the sound of every system that I have heard it inserted into & from the posted reports of it's use, this seems to be universal. And yes the soundstage & low level detail is where it is audible (I believe they are both intrinsically linked).

So all sorts of theories/excuses etc may be put forth for why it won't work for your system but I have said all along that people are living with noise in their playback systems which they aren't aware of until it is eliminated.

My position on USB cables is that some of them can possibly change the amplitude/spectrum of this noise. It's why I'm suggesting the Intona is the full realisation of this effect.

Anyway, I've put my suggestion forward for anybody who REALLY has an interest in discovering something new about their CA playback systems - take it or leave it - but it is a logical & practical approach to the whole issue.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 
Okay so now I see the rest of the story.  Intona claims to break ground loops and provide isolation.  And they do.  They also created a rather bad ground loop to show that.  Many/most good pieces of gear however are not suffering from that.  Or if they are it may be solvable through other means.  I have not in the few DACs I have measured seen one as poor as their before result except in computer sound cards.  So in a system with no grounding issues the before and after would for sure be a lesser difference, and may be no difference.
 
If your gear isn't suffering from this, it is a logical leap to find the Intona will provide improved sound.  The Intona appears to be a well designed unit doing exactly what it claims.  If you need it good.  I am not convinced it automatically will help your DAC sound better if such grounding/noise issues are not present. I don't think Intona would claim their unit is a panacea sure to improve sound in all cases.

 
 

As I said, the Intona improves the sound of every system that I have heard it inserted into & from the posted reports of it's use, this seems to be universal. And yes the soundstage & low level detail is where it is audible (I believe they are both intrinsically linked).

So all sorts of theories/excuses etc may be put forth for why it won't work for your system but I have said all along that people are living with noise in their playback systems which they aren't aware of until it is eliminated.

My position on USB cables is that some of them can possibly change the amplitude/spectrum of this noise. It's why I'm suggesting the Intona is the full realisation of this effect.

Anyway, I've put my suggestion forward for anybody who REALLY has an interest in discovering something new about their CA playback systems - take it or leave it - but it is a logical & practical approach to the whole issue.

Exactly what is going on here? Both of the pretty little Intona graphs show noise that is either in the -100db range (without Intona) or in the -130 db range. As I've stated over and over in either case the noise is well below the noise floor and cannot be heard by human ears. 

 

[BiggerHead]

THD + noise is -78db in the first and -114 in the second. (It says so in the image) Total is called total for a reason, But you wouldn't even be right if you just looked at just the highest peaks. Even then it's about -85. Now given that the noise peaks are NOT harmonic, that means it will stay there when the music is quiet. So it might mean 85 db below the loudest thing you'd expect to hear, but not only at the same time, but I have no idea what 0 there really means. Still pretty low for sure.

But anyway, there are plenty of cases where people have really heard noise. I don't understand what you're trying to argue about ralph or why. Ok, "good" equipment shouldn't let any noise through. Fine. Is that a scientific finding? I think everything has been said. The only reason I'm posting again is to correct a mis-stated fact.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

THD + noise is -78db in the first and -114 in the second. (It says so in the image) Total is called total for a reason, But you wouldn't even be right if you just looked at just the highest peaks. Even then it's about -85. Now given that the noise peaks are NOT harmonic, that means it will stay there when the music is quiet. So it might mean 85 db below the loudest thing you'd expect to hear, but not only at the same time, but I have no idea what 0 there really means. Still pretty low for sure.

But anyway, there are plenty of cases where people have really heard noise. I don't understand what you're trying to argue about ralph or why. Ok, "good" equipment shouldn't let any noise through. Fine. Is that a scientific finding? I think everything has been said. The only reason I'm posting again is to correct a mis-stated fact.

No one has ever heard "noise" that is at -78db - I repeat NO ONE - EVER.
 
What I'm trying to argue is that part of "caveat emptor" is that is important to have both the knowledge and the ability to differentiate between meaningful information and meaningless information. In the world of high end audio measurements are important but measurements can also be used as a tool of misdirection.
 
Now if a manufacturer is claiming that reducing noise in the inaudible range of -75 db to -114 db somehow has an effect on the sound in the audible range, fine. Then PROVE it with measurements clearly showing the improvements in the audible range. Otherwise limit the claims to things that can be measured but not heard.
 
I should state that in the case of the measurements being discussed in this thread, it is not the manufacturer who is making these claims but the poster, "mmerrill99", and we are all still waiting for some real PROOF, not "I and others clearly heard an improvement". Got it?

 

[mmerrill99]

THD + noise is -78db in the first and -114 in the second. (It says so in the image) Total is called total for a reason, But you wouldn't even be right if you just looked at just the highest peaks. Even then it's about -85. Now given that the noise peaks are NOT harmonic, that means it will stay there when the music is quiet. So it might mean 85 db below the loudest thing you'd expect to hear, but not only at the same time, but I have no idea what 0 there really means. Still pretty low for sure.


But anyway, there are plenty of cases where people have really heard noise. I don't understand what you're trying to argue about ralph or why. Ok, "good" equipment shouldn't let any noise through. Fine. Is that a scientific finding? I think everything has been said. The only reason I'm posting again is to correct a mis-stated fact.

No one has ever heard "noise" that is at -78db - I repeat NO ONE - EVER.

What I'm trying to argue is that part of "caveat emptor" is that is important to have both the knowledge and the ability to differentiate between meaningful information and meaningless information. In the world of high end audio measurements are important but measurements can also be used as a tool of misdirection.

Now if a manufacturer is claiming that reducing noise in the inaudible range of -75 db to -114 db somehow has an effect on the sound in the audible range, fine. Then PROVE it with measurements clearly showing the improvements in the audible range. Otherwise limit the claims to things that can be measured but not heard.

I should state that in the case of the measurements being discussed in this thread, it is not the manufacturer who is making these claims but the poster, "mmerrill99", and we are all still waiting for some real PROOF, not "I and others clearly heard an improvement". Got it?

Like Biggerhead, I'm simply posting this to correct false & incorrect statements made by you. I know anything I say you will disregard - I'm posting this so that readers will not be led astray by your own misunderstandings which you present with such arrogance & air as if you know what you are talking about.

I know you have stated that all this stuff is above your level of knowledge & it's interesting that you keep on posting & further demonstrating this fact. It's also quite ironic that you are demanding "real PROOF" when you patently demonstrate that you wouldn't recognise any such "PROOF".

So here is a a quick lesson in FFTs - they don't show the true noise floor because of their mode of operation - there is such a thing as an FFT gain which has to be accounted for.
A rough calculation for the true noise floor involves the number of points used in the FFT which in this case is 65536 - so the FFT gain is roughly = 10 log(65536/2) which works out at 45dB
This means that the true noise floor is 45dB higher than what's seen plotted in that FFT.
Looking back at the graphs we can now get a better idea of the plotted noise floor - the plot without the Intona in-line shows between 0Hz & 5Khz the FFT "grass" is @-100dB so the real noise floor is 45dB higher than this i.e about -55dB@LF & @5KHz the FFT plot shows -115dB which is a real noise floor of about -70dB@5Khz

The plot with Intona in-line shows an FFT floor of -135dB which translates to a real noise floor of -90dB

Please try to learn something about these issues before you post in such bullish & accusatory way

Alternatively, you don't need to understand any of this - you could, of course, get a listen to a system with/without Intona & make a judgement but I don't envisage this will happen. It seems your desire to misunderstand & resist any learning is paramount in your belief system

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Like Biggerhead, I'm simply posting this to correct false & incorrect statements made by you. I know anything I say you will disregard - I'm posting this so that readers will not be led astray by your own misunderstandings which you present with such arrogance & air as if you know what you are talking about.

I know you have stated that all this stuff is above your level of knowledge & it's interesting that you keep on posting & further demonstrating this fact. It's also quite ironic that you are demanding "real PROOF" when you patently demonstrate that you wouldn't recognise any such "PROOF".

So here is a a quick lesson in FFTs - they don't show the true noise floor because of their mode of operation - there is such a thing as an FFT gain which has to be accounted for.
A rough calculation for the true noise floor involves the number of points used in the FFT which in this case is 65536 - so the FFT gain is roughly = 10 log(65536/2) which works out at 45dB
This means that the true noise floor is 45dB higher than what's seen plotted in that FFT.
Looking back at the graphs we can now get a better idea of the plotted noise floor - the plot without the Intona in-line shows between 0Hz & 5Khz the FFT "grass" is @-100dB so the real noise floor is 45dB higher than this i.e about -55dB@LF & @5KHz the FFT plot shows -115dB which is a real noise floor of about -70dB@5Khz

The plot with Intona in-line shows an FFT floor of -135dB which translates to a real noise floor of -90dB

Please try to learn something about these issues before you post in such bullish & accusatory way

Alternatively, you don't need to understand any of this - you could, of course, get a listen to a system with/without Intona & make a judgement but I don't envisage this will happen. It seems your desire to misunderstand & resist any learning is paramount in your belief system

And you are still wrong because the normal human hearing range (I'm sure that for audiophiles the hearing range is way, way, way better, in fact, superhuman!) is approximately 0 db. So the graph was no good, no problem you'll just come up with some calculation that you left out the first ten times you made reference to the information. You have got to be kidding, right?
 
Lots of pretty graphs, lots of fancy numbers, lots of complicated calculations and all of it MEANINGLESS.
 
What I do understand is when someone is blowing smoke. Smoke and mirrors is all that you have to offer.
 
And I am still waiting for your proof that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about . So I'll ask again: Are you an electrical engineer? Do you have an degree or have you ever studied electronics at a college level or above?
 
What I do know is that you have just enough knowledge and Google skills to be dangerous and I will continue to call BS on all your BS.
 
I am really tried of you trying to prove me wrong again and again and each and every time you try you always manage to show how little YOU actually know.
 
Proof - measurements at the analog output of the DAC clearly showing a change in the audible to humans signal. Is that so hard to understand?
 
I would offer to throw you a rope to help you climb out of the hole that you insist on digging for yourself but I am enjoying this way too much.
 
[Mod Edit] Personal attacks removed

 

[spruce music]

 
And you are still wrong because the normal human hearing range (I'm sure that for audiophiles the hearing range is way, way, way better, in fact, superhuman!) is approximately 0 db. So the graph was no good, no problem you'll just come up with some calculation that you left out the first ten times you made reference to the information. You have got to be kidding, right?
 
Lots of pretty graphs, lots of fancy numbers, lots of complicated calculations and all of it MEANINGLESS.
 
What I do understand is when someone is blowing smoke. Smoke and mirrors is all that you have to offer.
 
And I am still waiting for your proof that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about . So I'll ask again: Are you an electrical engineer? Do you have an degree or have you ever studied electronics at a college level or above?
 
What I do know is that you have just enough knowledge and Google skills to be dangerous and I will continue to call BS on all your BS.
 
I am really tried of you trying to prove me wrong again and again and each and every time you try you always manage to show how little YOU actually know.
 
Proof - measurements at the analog output of the DAC clearly showing a change in the audible to humans signal. Is that so hard to understand?
 
I would offer to throw you a rope to help you climb out of the hole that you insist on digging for yourself but I am enjoying this way too much.

Are we confusing db SPL with db FS?  Let us say you have a system that can play 110 db spl in your room.  You have things set so that 0 db FS on a digital file will playback at 110 db SPL.  So -78 db FS noise will result in 32 db SPL in the listening area.  You would need a quiet room and undamaged hearing, but that is probably something you can hear. I would expect playing anything other than silence will mask that level of noise.  It however can't be said such noise is never going to be heard.   It also would be heard over headphones more easily.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 
Are we confusing db SPL with db FS?  Let us say you have a system that can play 110 db spl in your room.  You have things set so that 0 db FS on a digital file will playback at 110 db SPL.  So -78 db FS noise will result in 32 db SPL in the listening area.  You would need a quiet room and undamaged hearing, but that is probably something you can hear. I would expect playing anything other than silence will mask that level of noise.  It however can't be said such noise is never going to be heard.   It also would be heard over headphones more easily.

So -78 db FS will end up being around 32 db SPL which is still well below ambient noise levels. Sure 32 db is greater than silence but normal ambient noise levels would almost completely mask any sound at 32 db SPL. And as you said when playing anything other complete digital silence whatever was being played would mask the noise. In addition, when the gain of the analog stage is set so that the noise at -78db becomes audible any other sound on the recording would just about shatter one's ear drums. So again I ask - how is this level of noise, whether with or without the Intona, important when playing back audio? I fully understand that there are other areas besides audio where a device like the Intona would be useful but I just can't see (or hear) it as useful with respect to audio. Pretty analogous to jitter - it can be measured, it can reduced but either way it cannot be heard by human ears.
 
I should note that Intona is not making any claims with respect to audible improvements, mmerrill99 is.

 

[spruce music]

 
So -78 db FS will end up being around 32 db SPL which is still well below ambient noise levels. Sure 32 db is greater than silence but normal ambient noise levels would almost completely mask any sound at 32 db SPL. And as you said when playing anything other complete digital silence whatever was being played would mask the noise. In addition, when the gain of the analog stage is set so that the noise at -78db becomes audible any other sound on the recording would just about shatter one's ear drums. So again I ask - how is this level of noise, whether with or without the Intona, important when playing back audio? I fully understand that there are other areas besides audio where a device like the Intona would be useful but I just can't see (or hear) it as useful with respect to audio. Pretty analogous to jitter - it can be measured, it can reduced but either way it cannot be heard by human ears.
 
I should note that Intona is not making any claims with respect to audible improvements, mmerrill99 is.

Well just what I said.  That level would be audible.  If you had things setup so maximum possible peaks were 110, then average levels for many recordings would be in the mid-90 db range.  Quite loud, but not beyond what can be listened to at times.  So there is a chance of some audible effect.  Quite small, perhaps effectively none when music is playing.  In the second graph with things pushed down much further there simply is no question noise is a non-factor.   I also earlier noted the before performance was very poor and not typical. 

 

[mmerrill99]

I should note that Intona is not making any claims with respect to audible improvements, mmerrill99 is.

Of course "armchair designers" can deny just about anything which doesn't suit their myopic world-view - this denial is really becoming ridiculous.

I have the slight advantage over you that I've heard the Intona on a number of playback systems & none of them had a ground loop noise issue that was audible - yet they all audibly improved in the area of sound stage & low level detail retrieval.

Intona don't make a direct statement that the Intona improves audio but the link I gave is their answer to the question "Would the isolator improve the sound quality?"
You can pretend that they have not made a claim in their answer but we all know that this is just a clever way to lead the reader to a conclusion without stating it explicitly - it's called marketing speak (or politician's speak)

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 
Well just what I said.  That level would be audible.  If you had things setup so maximum possible peaks were 110, then average levels for many recordings would be in the mid-90 db range.  Quite loud, but not beyond what can be listened to at times.  So there is a chance of some audible effect.  Quite small, perhaps effectively none when music is playing.  In the second graph with things pushed down much further there simply is no question noise is a non-factor.   I also earlier noted the before performance was very poor and not typical. 

Exactly! In fact Intona has the two graphs labeled as follows:
 
"Following measurements are showing a typical ground loop issue (first image), cured by galvanic isolation (second image):"
 
So if there is no ground loop issue to start with then what?
 
By the way, if what if the average listening levels were in the 60 to 70 db SPL range? Well then the "noise" would now be down in the 10 to 20 db SPL range (and I am being generous here) and well below the ambient noise level.
 
I know that several of us have asked this many times but if the system does not have a ground loop issue and also does not have any RF issues then what improvements would be gained by changing the USB cable?

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Of course "armchair designers" can deny just about anything which doesn't suit their myopic world-view - this denial is really becoming ridiculous.

I have the slight advantage over you that I've heard the Intona on a number of playback systems & none of them had a ground loop noise issue that was audible - yet they all audibly improved in the area of sound stage & low level detail retrieval.

Intona don't make a direct statement that the Intona improves audio but the link I gave is their answer to the question "Would the isolator improve the sound quality?"
You can pretend that they have not made a claim in their answer but we all know that this is just a clever way to lead the reader to a conclusion without stating it explicitly - it's called marketing speak (or politician's speak)

Okay so you heard the Intona on a number of playback systems and the Intona produced improvements "in the area of sound stage & low level detail retrieval" which is very convenient since sound stage and low level detail retrieval are both audiophile phrases that have little real world meaning or relevance and, more importantly in the case of sound stage, cannot be measured. I would imagine that low level detail retrieval can be measured and even heard (think of the sound of a tiny triangle being played during an orchestral crescendo), in which case a nice double blind listening test would easily prove whether this is true or not. Or perhaps when you speak of low level detail you are referring to the quietest sounds on a given recording? Please clarify so we may better understand the kind of improvements that you are referring to.

 

[mmerrill99]

Of course "armchair designers" can deny just about anything which doesn't suit their myopic world-view - this denial is really becoming ridiculous.


I have the slight advantage over you that I've heard the Intona on a number of playback systems

Okay so you heard the Intona on a number of playback systems and the Intona produced improvements "in the area of sound stage & low level detail retrieval" which is very convenient since sound stage and low level detail retrieval are both audiophile phrases that have little real world meaning or relevance and, more importantly in the case of sound stage, cannot be measured. I would imagine that low level detail retrieval can be measured and even heard (think of the sound of a tiny triangle being played during an orchestral crescendo), in which case a nice double blind listening test would easily prove whether this is true or not. Or perhaps when you speak of low level detail you are referring to the quietest sounds on a given recording? Please clarify so we may better understand the kind of improvements that you are referring to.

Soundstage is very real & has very real world relevance. Maybe not to headphone listeners so much (except for binaural audio) but to everyone who uses speakers, soundstage is a feature of a system working as it should & producing the illusion that is possible with a two channel stereo replay system (as long as such soundstage is on the recording).

You do understand that width & depth are natural features of real world soundscapes, right? You do understand that localisation of the source of a sound is a feature of our natural hearing in the real world? You do understand that ITD & ILD are the how sounds are localised laterally (ITD = interaural Time difference ILD=Interaural level difference). You have heard of binaural audio which is all about soundstage? Soundstage depth is a lot more difficult to isolate to particular elements within the soundfield as it is thought to be a result of the non-linearity of the outer ear's interaction with the sound field

What I mean by low level detail is that some sounds which were heard as a single amorphous sounds, such as cymbal brushing, are no longer amorphous with the Intona - they now have an inner texture to them - in other words the brushing has detail not heard before. Similar with applause - it can sound like an uninteresting noise but with Intona, it becomes interesting because there is now inner detail to it, just like it is in real world listening - some claps are high in pitch, some lower, some fast, some slower - in real world listening, applause isn't a noise, it has detail within it.

Same applies to bass but is harder to describe. In fact, all through the frequency range, the timbre of the instruments become more realistic

[Mod Edit] Unnecessary personal attack removed

 

[mmerrill99]

Of course I expect you to deny my reports of what's heard just as I expect you to do the same with other listening impressions of the Intona from this forum

Posts like this:

The most noticeable improvement from the Intona is the top end, cymbals especially are more natural sounding. (I have worked in bands and done a little recording) Generally from the lower midrange up, everything is MUCH clearer - with many details (sometimes entire elements) present that went unnoticed previously, for example Joni Mitchell, "Court and Spark", "Peoples Parties", it is now possible to immediately understand each lyric with her phrasing and pacing - and thus better to naturally follow her story line, you feel more like you are there with her.. Also - previously the beginning passages on Genesis "Duke", the cymbal play was mostly a wash of various intensity and tones, but my system could not resolve the sounds into individual cymbal play... with the Intona now it is possible to identify the various cymbals, positions and stick work.

Soundstage height/width/depth initially seemed pretty much the same - but after some evaluation with more spacious recordings, I noticed the soundstage actually deepened around 100% to the rear, and 10% to the front and sides, height stayed pretty much the same. Also pertaining to soundstage is the added detail which focuses the elements positions within the soundstage and also adds elements that I have not noticed previously. For soundstage depth example, if you try the first song on Alan Parsons Project "I Robot", previously the choir parts stopped at my front wall (about 1 meter from the rear of the speakers), these same parts now have the effect of being back from the speakers up to 3 meters (minimum) with the elements and their movements very clearly defined.

My reason for suggesting that the Intona should be listened to & measured is because I expect that those who try this will hear an undeniable improvement in sound but yet won't be able to measure any "audible" difference with/without Intona in-line. Of course those who live by measurements will suffer from negative placebo effects i.e they will not hear any difference even though those in the same room who are not similarly afflicted by nocebo will hear differences

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Soundstage is very real & has very real world relevance. Maybe not to headphone listeners so much (except for binaural audio) but to everyone who uses speakers, soundstage is a feature of a system working as it should & producing the illusion that is possible with a two channel stereo replay system (as long as such soundstage is on the recording).

You do understand that width & depth are natural features of real world soundscapes, right? You do understand that localisation of the source of a sound is a feature of our natural hearing in the real world? You do understand that ITD & ILD are the how sounds are localised laterally (ITD = interaural Time difference ILD=Interaural level difference). You have heard of binaural audio which is all about soundstage? Soundstage depth is a lot more difficult to isolate to particular elements within the soundfield as it is thought to be a result of the non-linearity of the outer ears interaction with the sound field

What I mean by low level detail is that some sounds which were heard as a single amorphous sounds, such as cymbal brushing, are no longer amorphous with the Intona - they now have an inner texture to them - in other words the brushing has detail not heard before. Similar with applause - it can sound like an uninteresting noise but with Intona, it becomes interesting because there is now inner detail to it, just like it is in real world listening - some claps are high in pitch, some lower, some fast, some slower - in real world listening, applause isn't a noise, it has detail within it.

Same applies to bass but is harder to describe. In fact, all through the frequency range, the timbre the instrument becomes more realistic

I understand how sound stage "works" and claiming improvement in sound stage really has no merit since sound stage can be effected by a simple turning of one's head. On the other hand, I do think that low level detail is something that can benefit from the lowering of the noise floor of the playback system. However, in the case of the Intona we have no idea of how the noise floor of a sytem with no ground loop and no RF noise would be affected. Lowering already inaudible noise to even lower levels does not necessarily mean that the will be audible improvements.
 
What you are describing with respect to low level detail is very similar to the effect that low bit rate lossy compression produces, e.g. the sound of a tambourine may sound like a cymbal or just something like a cymbal and as the bit rate is increased the sound will become better defined until it clearly sounds like a tambourine and not something else.
 

Of course I expect you to deny my reports of what's heard just as I expect you to do the same with other listening impressions of the Intona from this forum

Posts like this:

The most noticeable improvement from the Intona is the top end, cymbals especially are more natural sounding. (I have worked in bands and done a little recording) Generally from the lower midrange up, everything is MUCH clearer - with many details (sometimes entire elements) present that went unnoticed previously, for example Joni Mitchell, "Court and Spark", "Peoples Parties", it is now possible to immediately understand each lyric with her phrasing and pacing - and thus better to naturally follow her story line, you feel more like you are there with her.. Also - previously the beginning passages on Genesis "Duke", the cymbal play was mostly a wash of various intensity and tones, but my system could not resolve the sounds into individual cymbal play... with the Intona now it is possible to identify the various cymbals, positions and stick work.

Soundstage height/width/depth initially seemed pretty much the same - but after some evaluation with more spacious recordings, I noticed the soundstage actually deepened around 100% to the rear, and 10% to the front and sides, height stayed pretty much the same. Also pertaining to soundstage is the added detail which focuses the elements positions within the soundstage and also adds elements that I have not noticed previously. For soundstage depth example, if you try the first song on Alan Parsons Project "I Robot", previously the choir parts stopped at my front wall (about 1 meter from the rear of the speakers), these same parts now have the effect of being back from the speakers up to 3 meters (minimum) with the elements and their movements very clearly defined.

My reason for suggesting that the Intona should be listened to & measured is because I expect that those who try this will hear an undeniable improvement in sound but yet won't be able to measure any "audible" difference with/without Intona in-line. Of course those who live by measurements will suffer from negative placebo effects i.e they will not hear any difference even though those in the same room who are not similarly afflicted by nocebo will hear differences

Unfortunately I don't feel that either of the two "impressions" that you cited have any merit since the reader has no idea of any of the hundreds of other factors that might account for these impressions have been well controlled. Were the levels properly matched? Who are the people writing these statements? What was the equipment being used? Did the "before" Intona playback system have a ground loop and/or RF issue? Plus they are sighted listening impressions and are therefore filled with lots and lots of expectation bias. By the way this not "sneering" but rather just simply stating that without clearly defined parameters and controls these types of listening impressions are just not valid as proof of anything.
 
Look this entire site, save for this little "Sound Science" sub-forum, is chock full of posts just like the two impressions quoted so I ask why do you feel that it necessary to post in this section and tell us how misguided our belief in measurements and double blind tests is? We know that we are on the outside looking in the audiophile world and I do believe that most of us are fine with that.
 
I do like the way you are able to call BS on some marketing claims and on some politicians. On that issue we have lots of common ground