Any time any analysis without clearly listing testing condition and equipments is scary to me - it reduces credibility even if the test has been conducted perfectly. A few years ago a newcomer DAC/amp brand made big splash among HFer community when they published hugely superior data over the competitions, using Audio Precision (AP) audio analyzer no less, but otherwise no real testing condition was mentioned - AP is generally regarded as THE gold standard of testing thus the result must be very creditable, right? Wrong. At least two of the competitors were baffled by how poorly their DAC/amp performed in those published test and they each conducted their own independent tests and finally arrived to the conclusion that their DAC/amp were tested in poor condition (for example, one competition were only able to reproduce the poor result when its battery powered DAC/amp has less than 5% of battery left, just barely able to power on). At the end, no real apology was issud by the newcomer and the whole incident was purposefully fainted out from public eyes. Now I am not implying there are foul play in the LDAC testing, but the basic principal of any scientific testing is repeatablity, otherwise any conclusion that draws from such testing can be merely luck, if not miracle. In order to be able to retest any claim, knowing the test equipment and condition is a must. If not, no third party will be able to repeat what they have tested on the LDAC, nor able to reach the same conclusion they have. Again, I am not saying their conclusion has problem, just how they chose to deliver it that is problematic.