Precisely. I tried to cover this in the Audio Amplifier Assessment Program but got beaten to death by ‘only solid state and 1ppm uber alles’ crowd here so I just binned it.
I think I related a story somewhere here where a preamp of mine had a review at the now defunc t’Hi-Fi World’ and the guy asked me what I had used in the line stage. They had already opened it to photograph it anyway. So I said ‘an AD797’ and he replied’ I thought so - I could hear the op-amp haze’
Ask a non-technical journo for a review, and you may as well give a pen to a monkey IMV.
Ask a non-technical journo for a review, and you may as well give a pen to a monkey IMV.
Isn’t all a part of the magic ? When I say magic I mean those moments when you tingle and focus as you experience one of those sonic moments that we are all looking for. Those listening moments that you never forget where your brain tells you that you are there, the band is in the room. That’s what we all want and strive to maintain. For me it is the unexplained science that triggers or convinces your brain what you are hearing is real. Absolutely no doubt that state of nirvana is just as likely or possibly even more likely with tube gear. Just because we can’t measure it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Our brains identify best with what it believes to be correct more so than what we may even initially like more. Making measurements off into the universe of minutia tells us nothing and certainly does not solve the question of why so many thoughtful competent listeners swear by tube or Turntable as the path to perfection. We don’t know why that is true we only know that it is true. Audio isn’t about numbers it’s about listening and listening is about emotion. If it were about numbers then the Japanese would rule the world of audio. It’s really what we don’t know that is the most exciting for me, it brings a Zen like philosophical approach which lines up with those moments of sonic heaven we all know. It’s not how we get there it’s about recognizing it when we do. My opinion is that opinion doesn’t matter, any two components when compared will always show a winner. The one that delivers to you exactly what the source handed you wins! To listen only for what brings the band closer to you is the key. Your brain reacts to what is natural and correct, that’s where over time the pleasure comes from. Push the loudness button in and 9 out of ten people will say it sounds better! It doesn’t it only pleases you short term. Listening long term with the loudness button will cause you to listen for shorter periods as you turn it down whereas without it the fatigue of all that unnatural information will end up causing you longer more satisfying listening experiences. Notice how the most respected critics talk about how they felt about something a week later and won’t judge until they have put the hours in. We have our brains as the only reliable measuring stick to tell us what is correct and what isn’t and that imo is the bar to measure with. Statements like everybody’s ears are different or my favorite but what you like both fly in the face of the word audiophile meaning audio fidelity meaning the one that delivers the information intact and un colored wins. Opinions are meaningless unless that is the bar we measure with. There is always a winner and a loser if that path of purity is maintained and that is the path that can bring you to that place we all strive so hard to be.
I design audio circuits because I enjoy furthering my understanding of physics and psychology. I also enjoy the technical challenge. I love squeezing the last dB out of a circuit, even if the difference is so far below audible that it's not even funny. It may not be audible, but it is repeatable and quantifiable. I also love the business aspects and love the great friends I've made in the industry and beyond.
Cheers.
Tom
Cheers.
Tom
One thing that's nice around here is the freedom to discuss and explain the limitations of commonly used audio measurements. We can talk about the good and the bad effects of omitting phase from spectral analysis. We can talk about limitations of phase noise measurements. We can talk about signal-correlated noise, and more. Over at that other place, science they deny and or don't understand they sometimes refer to as "garbage." Have seen the lack of interest in actual science and math more than once.
... maybe me... just a little ... ok... I'll off to the confessional for repentance... anyone else coming... please... we can hold hands and pray... and I have some dill pickle chips! (which I'm currently eating)...
The issue with ASR is that their use to me personally is limited mostly to the measurements their website provides and have little reason not to trust those measurements. As in many things, if the intent is to advance ones knowledge base on a topic your interesting in you go where the probability is highest. That is dominantly here for me.
Science also includes peer review. There's a feedback loop there. If you screw up an experiment you fix the error(s) and re-run the experiment. Publish a correction if need be. I've yet to see that feedback loop closed on ASR.
I can think of several examples where a piece of gear was tested incorrectly and received a poor rating as result. Only on page 42 of the thread is it then mentioned that, "oh by the way I had some mode enabled. Actually this works really well". I would rather see the review redone or at the very least have the correction in the first post. Often Amir's response to suggestions for corrections or additional measurements is, "I shipped it back already". It's unfortunate because it devalues the content on the site.
I've come across quite a few manufacturers an hifi shows who are now leery of sending gear to Amir for this very reason. And, frankly, if a manufacturer charges significantly more than Topping for their products there's little point in having their gear reviewed at ASR. The dollar per dB SINAD ratio just isn't there. So they send it to Stereophile instead.
Tom
I can think of several examples where a piece of gear was tested incorrectly and received a poor rating as result. Only on page 42 of the thread is it then mentioned that, "oh by the way I had some mode enabled. Actually this works really well". I would rather see the review redone or at the very least have the correction in the first post. Often Amir's response to suggestions for corrections or additional measurements is, "I shipped it back already". It's unfortunate because it devalues the content on the site.
I've come across quite a few manufacturers an hifi shows who are now leery of sending gear to Amir for this very reason. And, frankly, if a manufacturer charges significantly more than Topping for their products there's little point in having their gear reviewed at ASR. The dollar per dB SINAD ratio just isn't there. So they send it to Stereophile instead.
Tom
Atually I do not trust his measurements. For one that "SINAD" fantasy standard isn't used by anyone elso and makes it impossible to compare measurements. And the site is a business with donations collected from members that need a story repeated to feel superior. Amir delivers.
Getting the measurements right is only part of the problem.
It also matters how measurements are then interpreted by humans. IMHO that often tends to be the area of greater disservice to unwary readers.
Last edited:
It is a weird mix of brushing things off as 'Its just a guy testing equipment for free. What do you expect' and 'This data is all that matters!'. Depending on what fits the argument at the time, it is either a quest for truth and knowledge or a just fun hobby. They regularly celebrate their power and influence on audio manufactures and then deny having any of that if a review is faulty or questionable.
I've seen what you mention with the quiet corrections pages into the review comments and felt bad for the companies. How many people will even read past all the comments bashing the product and the company to see that?
What also gets me is how often he tests equipment of questionable condition; really old items, items that were refurbished by 'someone', items that may not have been packaged well for shipping.
I agree, the dollar per dB SINAD makes it so any higher dollar item will get bashed no matter if its issues are audible or not. Comparing higher end products with high end support and warranty to mass produced, cheap products with little if any warranty or support doesn't seem fair. I've never understood the level of spite and anger that is unleashed on products that don't fit their criteria. There are plenty of products that I have no interest in but it doesn't annoy me that they exist.
And, don't get me started on how if someone says "I was told this would sound better and it did" they get shouted down as expectation bias; but if he only listens after testing and says "The testing showed this flaw and I could hear it", everyone is okay with it.
That's my point. For a small manufacturer, that could sink the company. For a large manufacturer it could sink the product (and probably 6-digit development cost). Not because the product was flawed but simply because it wasn't tested correctly.
There are other reviewers out there. Soundstage has an APx555 as well. I'd just send my products there.
Same here. Why get annoyed? The world has diversity. We don't all like the same stuff. I'm OK with that. I can always just keep scrolling.
Tom
The review of the SMSL SU-1 by ASR is interesting to analyze from the two comments that follow, seemingly having 86 likes and 107 respectively
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-su-1-stereo-dac-review.44029/
BLUMLEIN88 identified as a "Grand Contributor"
"One more on the pile of evidence that DACs are a solved problem."
followed by AMIR.
"Until every DAC manifests that and comes with measurements to prove the same, we need to keep doing this...."
In this exchange the implication is first that the measurements conducted reveal all that is required in the correlation to detect differences psycho-acoustically, seemingly by any test apparatus that could be engaged in to confirm. The reasons are unimportant here. For the sake of this argument AMIR acknowledges of his personal belief the legitimacy of the statement by BLUMLEIN88 that "DACs are a solved problem" for a device costing $100.
This ought to lead to a conclusion by AMIR that anything costing more ought not to be recommended on the basis of sonics alone. Yet in the categories of DAC listing's AMIR states
"Very nice performance with respect to noise and distortion, easily landing it in our "excellent" category of DACs:"
This leads to asking the question why any DAC costing more than $100 isn't receiving a "no longer recommended" designation by ASR, being anywhere on this array of DAC's. Although it can be argued by AMIR (and seems he might be eluding to this), it is left up to the readers to decide. The problem with this is that he never engages to change his recommendations of past products that readers might search independently of knowing about the SMSL SU-1. Concluding that he wilfully engages in doing at minimum a disservice to his own readers. Bear in mind this is not by my views that differences can exist beyond measurements, rather by his seemingly unruffled belief that measurements reveal all.
It is easy to imagine why he wouldn't do so. Can you imagine the blowback on his site of someone just paying $2K for a DAC to appear on a "no-longer recommended list" to a $100 SMSL.
I don't want to come down on AMIR too much. Candour and integrity can only go so far. You still have to put food on the table. Its only the caviar that I might object too.... a Ferrari or two... the hot girlfriends.... and the hot tub in the limousine... wait... let me think...
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-su-1-stereo-dac-review.44029/
BLUMLEIN88 identified as a "Grand Contributor"
"One more on the pile of evidence that DACs are a solved problem."
followed by AMIR.
"Until every DAC manifests that and comes with measurements to prove the same, we need to keep doing this...."
In this exchange the implication is first that the measurements conducted reveal all that is required in the correlation to detect differences psycho-acoustically, seemingly by any test apparatus that could be engaged in to confirm. The reasons are unimportant here. For the sake of this argument AMIR acknowledges of his personal belief the legitimacy of the statement by BLUMLEIN88 that "DACs are a solved problem" for a device costing $100.
This ought to lead to a conclusion by AMIR that anything costing more ought not to be recommended on the basis of sonics alone. Yet in the categories of DAC listing's AMIR states
"Very nice performance with respect to noise and distortion, easily landing it in our "excellent" category of DACs:"
This leads to asking the question why any DAC costing more than $100 isn't receiving a "no longer recommended" designation by ASR, being anywhere on this array of DAC's. Although it can be argued by AMIR (and seems he might be eluding to this), it is left up to the readers to decide. The problem with this is that he never engages to change his recommendations of past products that readers might search independently of knowing about the SMSL SU-1. Concluding that he wilfully engages in doing at minimum a disservice to his own readers. Bear in mind this is not by my views that differences can exist beyond measurements, rather by his seemingly unruffled belief that measurements reveal all.
It is easy to imagine why he wouldn't do so. Can you imagine the blowback on his site of someone just paying $2K for a DAC to appear on a "no-longer recommended list" to a $100 SMSL.
I don't want to come down on AMIR too much. Candour and integrity can only go so far. You still have to put food on the table. Its only the caviar that I might object too.... a Ferrari or two... the hot girlfriends.... and the hot tub in the limousine... wait... let me think...
Last edited: