There might be some ‘technical’ issues/concerns with the details of the ABX tests he did, but to be positive, let say it’s a good ABX test…
The part I’m questioning is what he uses the ABX test for: he demonstrates that, granted his young age, exceptional hearing, a treble boost applied to an already bright HP… he can hear the difference between two filters mimicking two different DAC reconstruction filters. That’s not done with two different DACs but with two different files, same DAC/Amp/HP.
He then concludes that, since every reconstruction filter is (slightly) different from DAC to DAC, there are always audible differences between DACs.
That’s a long intro… but it’s also because he has a convoluted way to “demonstrate” his point! Why didn’t he choose two random, but transparent, DACs and perform an ABX test between the two using his standard test playlist? He has an ABX relay-based switch board and I’m sure he’s competent enough to do just that type of type of test (he showed the board in the video). Why did he choose this convoluted demonstration path instead? Is it because he would fail the two DAC test, leading to a different conclusion?
That’s what puzzles me… Not the ABX test itself, but the underlying purpose and use of an ABX test for what appears to be a GoldenSounds agenda.