With regards to any field, assuming we even know the right things to measure, measurement and data collection is only the first part of the battle. The significant challenge comes in correctly analyzing and interpreting that data, and I'm sure folks like Dan Lavry, Daniel Weiss, and Michael Ritter would be very interested in any new and well-throughout insights into measurements and interpretation, particularly with how renowned academic departments like Northwestern's Interactive Audio Lab and Stanford's Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics are still at an early understanding of audio reproduction and how the human body processes that input (I say early because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be having these discussions).
If you talk to any programmer who studied at a top program, they will tell you immediately how enormously challenging digital audio is due to how you need a very strong background in multiple subjects: mathematics, statistics, physics, computer science, electrical engineering, etc. That doesn't even touch on biology, psychoacoustics, and other fields that cover the human side of things. Conceptually, digital audio seems really simple. It's a bunch of 0s and 1s on the HDD that goes through some processing and exits as a physical waveform. Where things get difficult is how those 0s and 1s are processed, all of the competing and interfering influences inherent to digital processing, clocking, etc. It's enormously challenging and to be frank, even with the resurgence in audio due to the iPod, your average person does not value music to the degree most of us do, which is why the field progresses much slower than graphics processing, where it's easy and immediately gratifying to experience the difference between different generations of technology. There's a lot of research on how humans tend towards visual stimulation.
I think many of the comments here do a disservice to the challenge intrinsic to digital audio. Granted, there is a lot of snake oil and misinformation out there, but with some research and diligence, it's pretty easy to figure who understands the application, who understands theory, and whose a huckster.
Thanks for people like Beezar, AMB, and Twisted Pear, it's never been cheaper to get a high-quality discrete D/A device. But as great as they are, the <$1k devices I've heard lack something when it comes to the well-engineered high-end devices. It's pretty fascinating reading about the work that goes into Berkeley Audio, MSB, and Weiss' work, and it's just as interesting reading the approach towards more traditional, ladder DACs like the TOTAL DAC (which has been evaluated by a professor of physics and electronics, I think from Université de Paris?). It's cheaper than ever to get good analog output from a digital signal nowadays, but there still remains significant improvements and innovations in the field, with some very intelligent and experienced people working on these problems. If you speak with them and think they're chasing a flying spaghetti monster, I'd be interested to hear why.
Honestly, I'm not sure why some people are so up in arms about this. Some people like and feel that they get a lot of value out of high end D/As. Some people spend money on wine, others on travel, and others on dating. As long as no one is getting hurt, why is this such a big issue? At least with audio, the field is much more scientifically grounded than many other recreational areas. Do we need to quantify and measure a good steak or a cute girl/guy before we can enjoy the experience, too?
[/size]
