Weird claims? Like FLAC opposed to MP3 or this DAC rather than that DAC. Or maybe Asynchronous USB over Adaptive USB? These are not weird claims, these are tried and true observations that have become fact - and there are many others.
All the OP and myself was asking was to give the audio portion of the program some LOVE as well. Jim already made it clear that MC changes it focus from time to time. The focus will shift back to the audio side in due time.
Differences between FLAC and mp3 and different DACs are exaggerated greatly by many, but there is a difference between the former two, and it might be a difference between the latter two in some circumstances. However I am talking about claims like very expensive speaker cables are needed, a very expensive CD-player is needed, digital cables make a difference, and so on.Not to mentioned the more exotic claims like volume knobs that alter the sound, cable-holders and all kinds of weird stuff. There is nothing wrong about focusing on audio, but IMHO focusing on claims without any kind of backing from listening tests or science is wrong, it makes audio less about science which in turn makes companies make worse products, since they are not judged on what matters, sound quality. Instead random subjective evaluations are done, and the net result is worse quality. I love music and sound, that is why I am so passionate about this.
But as pluto has pointed out, what can be done to improve audio? IMHO, better filtering, and algorithms is the main point where improvement is possible, and also possibly a bit better documentation of some features-
