http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,711.0.html

So there's a value to performing other tests rather than just sitting down and looking at dyno numbers and gear ratios. Good, thanks for the backup. Since we have entered the world of failed analogies now, what would be the audio engineering equivalent to a hot lap at Laguna Seca?

You know, where an audio device is tested by an engineer in how it performs it's actual function, to render actual recorded music accurately.

If I thought I get enough takers at meets, I'd have the motivation to build a completely automatic ABX switch box, with relays, a screen, and the whole 9 yards but frankly I expect some pretty odd looks and few takers.

I dunno, I suspect a lot of people are curious about shit like this. Take the NPR audio quality thing: not everyone agreed with the method or the validity of the results but a lot of people (here and elsewhere) participated. Maybe it needs to happen so we can start fighting about the testing protocols, and why that is bullshit instead of whatever else just happened. Also, since you apparently have at least three hands, construction and coding should be pretty simple.

LOL! if it's a regular meet, I can see people complaining about meet impressions, noisy settings, peer presure, availability of booze, booth babe distractions, full moon, Jupter and Saturn alignment.

Reading this site, it's easy to get the impression that every single Pirate up here discerns notable differences between DACs. I find it interesting to hear that there are people here who are perhaps less impressed with that idea.  It seems like NwAvGuy and maybe xNor poisoned that well with their rabid arguments. Also, I can understand that these discussions are probably not so interesting to the well seasoned veterans. But for me it's a perspective that I still like to see bandied about occasionally, as long as it doesn't get religious.