Van Alstine?

I came across an older review of a Van Alstine Omega IV DAC as examined by engineer David Rich--go here to read it for examples of some truly heinous audio engineering:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf

Permanently turned me off of Alstine stuff. I always thought it a bit Mickey Mouse anyway. When someone has been doing something as long as Van Alstine has, they become pretty set in their ways.

Tony,
I wish this was so, but read the review--it's quite unbelievable, and evidences a seriously lax approach to basic audio engineering that would have little to do with whether you're building a DAC or an amp. I sure hope Van Alstine is better than that--Van Alstine's whole schtick is one of calling BS on the high-end's values while offering "real" values, and that much of what is done is unnnecessary. That Omega DAC was a rip-off.

Boy, you have *no idea* who you're criticizing, do you? Have you looked at David Rich's audio credentials (M.Sc., Ph.D. EE)? Are you really not familiar with The Audio Critic? Peter Aczel? Nothing? No bells?

If actual, objective proof of a component's terrible build quality isn't enough to sway a true believer, well, then, nothing will. That DAC was a Yugo being sold as a BMW. No need to drive it.

Let us know when you can distinguish between two different amplifiers that measure the same--or even differently. This has never been debunked: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

Well, anytime you fellers want to prove it by conducting any type of a/b test, go right ahead. It's been done countless times before, all with the same result.

By the bye, noone ever said all amplifiers sound the same.

Note carefully: Not everything sounds the same, but whatever audible differences exist as shown by a/b, x/a/b, a/b/x, or another valid protocol testing are easily explained by measurements and design.

As it is none of you fellers can say anything about that fun Stereo Review test, can you? None of the golden ears who participated could reliably identify differences between the cheap receiver and the $12K Futtermans--and that was a high output Z tube amp....

Deering, pretty silly and pointless analog, don't you think? Can you tell the class why that is so?

Again, you're still not able to come up with any valid reason why the golden-ears who partook in the Stereo Review test couldn't tell differences. You simply stating that you can is obviously invalid and sufficient only for self delusion.

Note how the golden ears in sighted testing noted all sorts of major differences, using typical audiophile gobbledigook, and once unsighted, they completely lost it. I LOVE that aspect of the test.

No need; it has been proven time and again that folks can't even tell differences between vastly different amplifiers, exactly like the Stereo Review test. Not even the self-proclaimed golden ears. Have you read the test yet? It's not going to bite you.

If you're newish to hi-fi, say within the last ten years, you wouldn't know about the exhaustive research done into this by all sorts of degreed folks and audiophiles throughout the 70s and 80s. We have forgotten about it in the never ending barrage of subjective reviewing by reviewers who can't hear all sorts of measured problems as proven in Stereophile, and hokey advertising by profit-driven vendors about the VAST differences their silly trinkets will make.

For your own test, take any recent mass-market receiver and compare it blind with with your amp; difficult to do without a switcher, but it can be done with a friend. The results are NEVER pleasing to folks who proclaim to be able to hear all sorts of differences.