I posted some answers in the other thread. I'm not interested in typing all night on h-f just to untwist users like frenchbat twisting my comments. I exploded the analogy to make it more factual since it was "obfuscating the real issue", and then instead of anyone dissecting it, it continues to "since you reject all science..." and then "since you reject all ABX..." Anyway... Do you think anyone would assert that? I've posted more measurements in the other thread than anyone else, actually. "The AES paper", I have no idea which paper you're referring to. If you want to tell me something like all sound is THD+N, and no one can hear THD+N under 80dB, then you've assumed everything which sound is and defined your own parameters, which is not scientific at all, so I don't need to show you "one person" which can hear a difference within your personal very subjective parameter system. The paper I (apparently) dislike is the Meyer & Moran study which has been contradicted by several other studies such as this one - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398 The thread I linked you to earlier, on the first page in the sixth post EthanWiner says subliminal advertising is a myth, is that scientific? No, it's a subjective iron grid (imho). With intuition, experience and creativity etc., you perceive that subliminal advertising could exist and work, and then with science, you (eventually) discover it - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911011529 Spoiler: %2B Subliminal audio stimuli There were too few studies to complete a meta-analysis on this sub-category (n = 3), however, all studies were similar in that they examined how the brain responds to changes in a subliminal auditory stimulus. The left lateral cerebellum, left superior temporal gyrus and left insular cortex were most significantly activated in response to subliminal auditory changes. However, in one study, repetition of a voice was shown to reduce insular cortex activation (Kouider et al., 2010). Thus, regions associated with speech production (Broca's area), speech comprehension (Wernicke's area) and somatosensory responses seem to be activated independently of conscious awareness. These regions might be particularly susceptible to heightened activation during auditory hallucinations that are perceived to be independent of conscious volition, as experienced by, for example, those with schizophrenia. I'm not saying OPA627 has subliminal performance, however... that is a novel idea. In the O2 thread I asked if anyone has experimented with op-amp's in the O2 yet. I didn't receive any answers so it looks like this so called 'science' is not very keen on experimentation or clarification. I also posted a comment earlier that if there was a Foobar ABX comparator which could select the DAC at random connected via two USB ports into the same amplifier or stereo receiver with a Y cable then that would be a useful tool in comparing the ODAC to other DAC's as not many have the sophistication to set up an ABX (and the interest level seems ghostily low). As per the subliminal advertising evidence you report your experience and ideas first, you look for the data later. If something is not yet evidenced does that render it untrue? I am looking for truths. If I'm not being scentific you can continue on with your pseudo-science DAC (PSDAC). C'ya.