WTFPLAY

[Sukie]

The number of tests being done here cover a very minimal subset of the total number of parameters that determine a signal's behavior. Simple. You don't have enough tests to conclusively say the full performance of the device with relation to reproduction of a real sampled signal of recorded music. At best all that is being done here is a few static/steady-state tests, most of them at fixed amplitude, barely anything correlates to real transients, while music is quite transient and significantly varying behavior in frequency and amplitude with time. And you certainly can't associate weights to parameters on what is the most audible and discernible and what is indiscernible unless you understood cognition limits properly.

Also where's the official certification and citations to call your club to be "scientific". It's just a claim in the air.

Tl,dr: You can't conclude things, especially relating to audibility limits, with the limited set of measurements being done here.

I'm sorry but you have singularly failed to answer any of the points/questions/objections that have been raised. You just seem to be repeating claims that because everything that can be known might not yet be known then we can't reasonably conclude anything. That is absolute nonsense in all walks of academic life, not just scientific.

I still don't know what the hell cognition has to do with the performance of audio equipment. I don't know because you won't answer.

Looks like between this and the jitterbug, you've got your work cut out for you

@BDWoody's spot on. If you're going to pick a fight over measurements then the Jitterbug really isn't going to get you far.

 

[Reddy]

I forgot..... for audiosciencereview readers a process-heavy audio player is the best

 

[manueljenkin]

my previous favorite was extrem reduced win server in ram with fidelizer pro and mqn player.

Have you tried playpcmwin? For a windows based music player I found it to sound pretty nice.