First, we don't want to keep checking there. You are a member here with industry tag no less. Sending us there is violating our rules.
Second, we have made simple requests of you which you keep denying. Instead, you wrote another missive which we did not ask for which took a lot more work.
We have all tried very hard to not question your personal motives. The fact that you don't want to cooperate with us is an objective fact and barrier to verifying what you have done is correct. For heaven's sake, you can't even be bothered to save a couple of files to be shared here.
As to not getting paid, what do you need money wise to do what we are asking you? For example, provide captured outputs of HPA4 for each input? If money is what motivates you to remove doubt regarding your work, we may be able to do that, as distasteful as that would be.
1) Insofar as it was a violation of ASR’s rules to point to my article, then the first post of this thread and everything that follows — including copying and pasting graphics from my article — is a violation, too.
2) You have not “tried very hard not to question my personal motives.” You have personally said “I find no logic in any of this other than fear of us finding something you didn't consider. Either you are in search of truth here or you are not.” You’ve also let ad hominem attacks such as “Would you trust a social scientist (an oxymoron right there, for me at least) to use instrument-based methods to check the volume matching or indeed do anything with kit convincingly?” stand from the first page of this thread. Moreover, you insinuated without evidence that my box was an older unit, despite my explicitly having said it wasn’t.
3) I actually reached out to you, as well as at least one other person in this thread for advice before I began my testing. In fairness, the advice was about level-matching, but at the time you raised no concerns about the ABX box’s transparency.
I also posted in the “Are Measurements Nothing or Everything” master thread about purchasing the ABX box and planning to conduct blind tests. I did so because I’m honest and wanted accountability regardless of the outcome.
Again, no one raised any concerns about the box’s transparency. Had you or anyone else said anything then, perhaps I’d have decided the box wasn’t good enough and abandoned the project. Instead, I bought a better DMM, went to great lengths to level-match precisely, and conducted ABX tests, since I wanted to resolve my own doubts about DAC audibility.
4) I don’t know why you took my plain statement of fact — that responding to requests on ASR is not my job and that I have an actual job, along with a personal life — to be a request for compensation for my services. It wasn’t. I was simply saying that I don’t have the time or desire to continue responding here. Indeed, had I known that posting in this thread would create the expectation that I continue responding indefinitely, I would’ve never started. I value my time far more than I value money. To that end, if you or anyone wants to make me an offer I can’t refuse for the box itself, you can investigate it to your heart’s content. I’m unlikely to accept any offer, but perhaps I should, since the emerging consensus here is that the box itself is flawed.
5) My article was straightforward and even-handed. I’m not claiming “My wife ran into the room agog at the difference between DACs” or “The heavens opened and I heard music like I’d never heard before.” I reported hearing small differences that may or may not be of value to others. I’m not trying to score points for either “side” of the silly “subjectivist” versus “objectivist” debate. I love music and audio, and I want to bring more people (particularly young people with limited budgets) into the hobby. That’s why most of my reviews are of affordable IEMs. I don’t want to fight with strangers online about something that should bring joy. Life’s too short.
6) To be clear, this will be my last post in the thread.
