Man, you are tedious. While technically correct, you are also wrong. You don't need trained ears to hear differences. I never said that. Also, many people may not have the sensitivity in hearing to even hear the subtle, measurable differences in DAC. What I said was: "So, to sum up, a trained ear might be able to distinguish, and prefer, and describe, the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations (e.g., different DACs). Objectively, not all DAC implementations are the same. Measurements often prove this." I will expand this a little since, by your comments, I'm not making my point as well as I should (or you are just trolling, I cannot tell). A person with sensitive and trained ears may very well be able to distinguish, and prefer, and describe, the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations that are so subtle, that without trained and sensitive hearing, a person may not be able to distinguish and describe those variations. For example, there are clear measurable differences between a Bimby and a Gumby. I cannot hear the differences (other than the volume). I built a switch box and A/B tested (blind and sighted). Others claim to be able to, even in a blind test. The voltage is not the same coming out of the DACs, so the testers were able to determine that one was slightly louder, yet they described the sound from the slightly quieter DAC consistent with the variation in measurements. I'm a believer is science, but not dogma. This is at the sound science forum, not the sound dogma forum. Expectation bias is real, and it obvious in this industry. That doesn't mean there aren't people that can hear the subtle differences in measurable variations. DAC implementations, unless identical, often have subtle, measurable, variations that some people can hear, describe and prefer. Those with sensitive hearing are more likely to hear these variations. Those with sensitive hearing and trained ears are more likely to be able to hear and describe those variations. The is all I am saying. If you are agreeing with me, then ok. If not, I am not understanding what you are saying.