Below is an excerpt from another forum that I came across. It seemed particularly relevant (or funny at least) to the various discussions that are going on here... I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate to post a link so I just cut and pasted it. I do not make any claims to having been witty or smart enough to come up with this on my own... :o

We could apply this checklist to many threads and cut down on overall system posts!!



You claim that an

( ) audible
( ) measurable
( ) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:

( ) upsampling
( ) non-oversampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) reversing “polarity” of resistors
( ) ultra fast recovery rectifiers
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware
( ) using exotic materials in cabinet
( ) bronze heatsinks
( ) violin lacquer
( ) $500 power cords

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:

( ) the placebo effect
( ) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

You will try to defend you idea by:

( ) claiming that your ears are “trained”
( ) claiming immunity to psychological/physiological factors that affect everyone

else

( ) name-calling
( ) criticizing spelling/grammar

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:

( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) quantum mechanical effects
( ) resonance
( ) existentialism
( ) nihilism
( ) communism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:

( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
( ) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:

( ) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
( ) trepanation

I like it!

:D LOL, this looks like a template for every other thread here :)

Someone asks a question, someone answers it, and 5 minutes later there are 6 pages of "you're an idiot!" and "you don't understand" mixed in with equal parts snake oil and ancient mystic energy fields :p

Think I might just link to this thread the next time the "argument clinic" opens up......with your kind permission of course :)

:D LOL, this looks like a template for every other thread here :)

Someone asks a question, someone answers it, and 5 minutes later there are 6 pages of "you're an idiot!" and "you don't understand" mixed in with equal parts snake oil and ancient mystic energy fields :p

Think I might just link to this thread the next time the "argument clinic" opens up......with your kind permission of course :)

Permission granted... although, like I said, I'm not the original author... but I don't think he would mind either. :)

About time someone put somthing like this together.
I can clean up alot of those bogus threads.