pfarrell;372268 Wrote: > Again, you mis-state my position. Look for DBT in my postings. There > are > no demands for them. DBT is one option for doing tests. Its not the > only > one. The only use of the term "DBT" in this thread in a message > written > by me was one that you, Pat at- wrote. Put your rants against DBT > somewhere else
If I have mis-stated your position, then I misunderstood you. It is not, and was not, my intention to do so. Your insistence that you can not imagine that it is audible sounds (bad pun, sorry!) too close to the ABT/DBX "You can't prove it because you don't use our methods!" camp for me to clearly understand your entrenchment. So, let's see if we can talk the same language for a change. Assuming we both have no use for DBT, ABX, or any other tedious method, what method would you deem to be acceptable? Look, if it didn't make a difference, then why would my company (and probably a lot others) spend a lot of time trying to find out how low it needs to be? Because we like to waste time and money? "We" don't sell magical jitter-reducing gimmicks. We just go to great lengths to minimise it in our own designs. 15 years ago, "we" really didn't think it made that much of a difference. 100 pSec...................hell, had to be close enough. Why bother going lower? We went lower and heard the difference. That is all that I can say about the matter. Pat -- ar-t http://www.analogresearch-technology.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ar-t's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13619 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56425 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
