Archimago wrote:
> That's cool Julf. I don't care about the accolades of course.
>
> At least they bother to try some kind of A/B testing and willing to
> publish a comment different from the "obviously better" dogma of the
> evangelical testimonials.
Two words: Sighted Evaluation. Often more
Julf wrote:
> Unfortunately they also wrote "I have to say I found myself rather more
> confident in identifying the cleaner, more focused sound I encountered
> when leaving the iPurifier2 out and putting an AudioQuest JitterBug
> between the PC and USB cable", without publishing any comparative
Archimago wrote:
> At least they bother to try some kind of A/B testing and willing to
> publish a comment different from the "obviously better" dogma of the
> evangelical testimonials.
Unfortunately they also wrote "I have to say I found myself rather more
confident in identifying the cleaner,
That's cool Julf. I don't care about the accolades of course.
At least they bother to try some kind of A/B testing and willing to
publish a comment different from the "obviously better" dogma of the
evangelical testimonials.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
Just finished the most recent issue of Hi-Fi News & Record Review, the
only Hi-Fi magazine I still read (mainly because they actually do stuff
like spectrograms of hi-res recordings). They had a test of the iFi
Audio USB iPurifier2, an active USB signal conditioner/buffer. They show
eye-pattern
