Alex,
Unfortunately, that leaves us information-seekers in the cold.
If the reason is because of less-than-adequate implementation of the test, then the results of the test are dubious (and personally, I do not understand how the audio signal in #2 gets to listeners' ears and therefore do not understand the "NOT the S/PDIF" bit). If the reason for the problem with #3 is indeed structural and cannot be addressed using known technology, then surely given your prior comments in the thread, you can say that. If you'd rather not discuss it here because you have reached technological epiphany and wish to patent it and license it to the audiophile world for a gazillion bajillion dollars before discussing (and if this is the case, more power to you), then you probably should have said nothing in the first place.
I personally have not done the tests. I would very much like to participate in such a test. I have no reason to believe that with competing 'cost-is-no-object' implementations that one or the other will provide an obviously better solution TODAY, though I admit to tending to the idea that a high quality implementation of data transfer through transistors and software-embedded chips will in the near future, if not now, likely get a result of Quality Level X with less expense than a transport physically spinning a reflective disc. That said, I am completely open to being convinced of the opposite. While I have no reason to disbelieve someone of your obvious expertise and passion in the digital domain, I am perplexed by the thrust of your commentary, and the fact we are left hanging after such a detailed buildup.
There are many reasons why #3 did not sound as good but Id rather not discuss them here.
Unfortunately, that leaves us information-seekers in the cold.
If the reason is because of less-than-adequate implementation of the test, then the results of the test are dubious (and personally, I do not understand how the audio signal in #2 gets to listeners' ears and therefore do not understand the "NOT the S/PDIF" bit). If the reason for the problem with #3 is indeed structural and cannot be addressed using known technology, then surely given your prior comments in the thread, you can say that. If you'd rather not discuss it here because you have reached technological epiphany and wish to patent it and license it to the audiophile world for a gazillion bajillion dollars before discussing (and if this is the case, more power to you), then you probably should have said nothing in the first place.
I personally have not done the tests. I would very much like to participate in such a test. I have no reason to believe that with competing 'cost-is-no-object' implementations that one or the other will provide an obviously better solution TODAY, though I admit to tending to the idea that a high quality implementation of data transfer through transistors and software-embedded chips will in the near future, if not now, likely get a result of Quality Level X with less expense than a transport physically spinning a reflective disc. That said, I am completely open to being convinced of the opposite. While I have no reason to disbelieve someone of your obvious expertise and passion in the digital domain, I am perplexed by the thrust of your commentary, and the fact we are left hanging after such a detailed buildup.