@fleschler in your case Ti BB outdated DAC chip could be limiting factor by itself.. also, I don’t see post-DA converter and filter / ref-clk design details, therefore it’s hard to say what affects midrange in your case.
Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts
@crymeanaudioriver @amir_asr You are sitting there worrying if this or that other useless tweak like a cable makes a sonic difference.
I don’t worry about my equipment unless it fails. I never worry about tweaks or cables. The last time I had to choose a cable was after I purchased my first DAC and transport in 2019. I auditioned six and chose one, the Synergistic Research Atmosphere X Euphoria. Why would someone with as fulfilling a life as me worry about cables or tweaks and it is in YOUR mind that they are USELESS.
@prof "would it be safe to say you are not an electrical designer or electrical engineer? If so, under what authority do you make the following comment" - concerning creating a high end DAC out of a mediocre DAC.
Well, I have such a DAC, built by a manufacturer of equipment and cables for his and my use. It beat out a $9,000 COS Engineering D1v and $5,000 D2v by a longshot. It is comparable to an $23,000 Meridian Ultradac. Because I tried all the latter three in comparison I say this with some authority, the authority of a recording engineer (me), a manufacturer (friend) and many audiophiles who have heard the same and came to the same conclusion.
Another DAC with excellent design engineer and inferior execution is the Emotiva XDA-2. No new audio board but 7! audiophile quality regulators instead of the computer grade junk inside, similar high end power and filter caps, resistors, etc. to make this into a high end DAC on the very cheap ($400 new plus about the same in added parts).
@russ69 We must be neighbors. I frequented Woodland Hills Audio Center back in the 70s and 80s. I heard several of Arnie’s speakers including a the large Infinity speakers in a home.
326 responses Add your response
It could be just the SPDIF as the streaming section sounds okay (only checked with iPhone USB connection). There are two SPDIF inputs and one lacks bass response with an even leaner sound compared to the other. Design or implementation flaw somewhere. I'm selling it. Again, manufacturers often do not provide details of their design (often considered proprietary) and/or measurements. |
Just read their review of the SMSL M500 MKIII, where they said that the XLR and USB ports are too close together and you cannot remove the right XLR cable when the USB is plugged in since spacing on the back is too tight (design flaw). Yet everyone including Amir just loved it! If what's on the outside where everyone can see is flawed I wonder about worse design flaws on the inside. Too many reviews where the first post is like the second coming and by the end post the flaws start showing up and you have to send the broken thing back to China. I don't mind reading their test results but wouldn't buy anything they recommend unless it is also recommended by sites I trust. |
@ddd1 +1
|
This is a non sequitur, but I listened to the top measured products on ASR compared to some which measured worse, and I was shocked at how bad the top ones sounded by comparison. Because of course, they are not measuring everything you can hear. Like a good magician setting up a card trick, Amir will narrow your lens of perception before the trick begins. Never thought about that forum again after that.
|
Sounds like a lot of gear! Which gear?
Which ones? That could help put your post in to some perspective.
How do you know that? Instruments are developed to augment our capabilities, to the point of detecting things humans can't detect. What exactly are Amir's instruments incapable of measuring that you can hear?
|
@prof soundstage, imaging, and note decay, and that's just off the top of my head. |
invalid, Are you suggesting that those parameters are not contained within the measurements used by Amir? How would you show that? First, there are measurements that correspond with things like the soundstage being perceived as bigger (e.g. measurable influence of reflections and also speaker dispersion on those measurements), imaging (good cross-talk measurements, proper balance in both channels reaching the ear etc), good "note decay" would be implied in low distortion, etc. Also, depending on the gear, you can do things like null tests which, if the results are the same, imply no change to the signal is occurring between the measured components. It would be question-begging to assert that nonetheless the signal had changed audibly (without some very strong evidence for that claim, beyond anecdote). |
I can picture some of the filter roll off and preringing in a DAC might be something that’s not covered in a SINAD of a tone, or 2 tone measurement.
Decay is likely rolled up in impulse response. But imaging is something that happens in the head. |
@thyname +1, too funny :)🤣 |
You say that like it's a bad thing ;-) I certainly appreciate the fact that measurements can let me know if A is likely to sound any different from B, especially if A is far more expensive. Yes..it certainly is a time saver and potential money saver. Nothing wrong with that.
|
Pretty much… if we see a spray of harmonics it tells us a lot. Do you find it perplexing that most of the equipment that many seem to like listening to have a similar harmonic structure, and that the harmonics are generally low… and that they also measure pretty good? Or why is there a correlation? Is it just luck?
@thyname We can compare this to praying, versus going to the doctor. It is not like the sound comes from magic. There is some engineering that people have done to reveal the things we call refer to secularly as theory. It is not a parallel universe, or tribal thing, unless we make it so. The science and the listening pleasure seem largely correlated and causal. But there is also the psychological element of knowing that <high buck item> should sound better than some other <low buck> item. Not understanding graphs and measurement is OK. One can avoid them, and there is no reason to hate them or find contempt/disgust in people that find them useful. |
@kota1 :
Not a joke. This is exactly how those people operate. To the dot. See comments above
|
@thyname I know it is an accurate assessment, I can visualize an online shopper looking at graphs and clicking the Buy Now button without even knowing anything else. Think of the paradigm shift, manufacturers quickly figure out the cheapest way to make a graph look good because their market will convince themselves it sounds good because of the graph, no matter what. |
@kota1 : Yup! And it works. Think about it. Blame AmirM what you want, but he is very smart. He figured out his niche on the market. Often, it’s not even graphs. I am willing to bet the majority of those guys don’t know how to read the graphs. Neither do they care. A Point system by the measurement guru & authority is what all it takes. Two data inputs from the comfort of mom’s basement bed: points by the guru system, and price. Boom! Done. Ka-Ching |
Well, some people prefer to benefit from information that can help them spend their money more wisely, others not so much I guess. If I were thinking I needed to spend extra money on a "high end" USB cable to ensure I get good sound, I’d really appreciate people like Amir putting this stuff under the microscope and explaining the lack of plausibility to such claims:
Of course, anyone who relies in the idea their perception is infallible and trumps all theory, measurements or expert knowledge, won’t be the type to use such info.
|
Guess so @prof if junk from china is your thing. |
When you look at the virtual systems of members here you typically see quality rooms that are treated, quality gear, and everyone seems to be looking to share. The head panther over at ASR sticks a pair of expensive speakers in a room with nothing but dry wall, a hard floor, a microphone and a rug and to me, that is a monumental waste, of speakers, of the time spent listening, and sadly of the lost people following the pied piper over the cliff. |
the funniest ASR guys are the ones who love vinyl but feel the need to qualify every statement about records or turntables with "look, i know it’s not as good as digital, yes i understand that objectively i deserve to be criticized for it, but..." because they’re scared of being cyberbullied by computer nerds. no self respect |
LPs make for a circular argument then. |
ASR fits a religion to the T. Doesn’t matter if its science or astrology, the religious aspects have nothing to do with the topic but the social aspect - like someone said, you just need a self proclaimed guru and authority figure and many highly recruitable people. All religions and especially cults have in common the removal of the individual or personal experiences and are replaced by symbols that a leader "channels" and "interprets" for the followers. Any dissonance from people who experience something different are stamped out by foot soldiers, who then re-emphasize the Leader's authority and unique interpretation abilities. Carl Jung said that despite all the science progress of the last century, all human beings still yearn for religion on a primal level, and that modern science progress has forced this desire into our unconscious where we can become unaware of new ways we participate. He suggested that rather follow leaders and popular symbols, we learn to read our own personal, empirical experiences that our body and soul tell us, in conjunction with science. In that sense, hi-fi for me is a spiritual, but not religious, experience. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@noske why is full of poop? Because he disagrees with your religion err cult. |
Even if your first claim was granted, the claim of "lost people following him over the cliff" does not follow. A picture of Amir’s room comes nowhere near actually addressing his technical arguments, backed up by his measurements. Nor is every ASR member just rotely accepting everything Amir says. |
No it doesn't. It really doesn't. I have to presume you haven't really spent a lot of time on ASR to produce such a misrepresentation. Are there group dynamics on the ASR forum? Of course! Just as in every forum! Just as in every aspect of human social life. That doesn't make EVERYTHING LIKE THAT a "religion." For one thing, the central tenet most adhere to is that inherent fallibility of human beings and what methods can help account for this - among them blind testing and the use of measuring tools that are more sensitive and reliable than our own senses. (That is why, after all, most measurement devices are created - to make up for human limitations). This very foundation is anti-dogmatic at it's core. It allows people to, in principle, find out they are wrong, and find ways to settle some questions (always, provisionally) that would otherwise reside in unfalsifiable realms, such as purelysubjective claims. That right there is a massive difference from any dogma or religion. Does that mean any ASR member can not be blinkered, or dogmatic himself? Of course not. That can happen anywhere (which doesn't make The Whole Thing Like A Religion).
But in actual practice, anyone who actually knows what goes on at ASR knows that it is FAR from religious subjects receiving dogmatic knowledge uncritically. There is TONS of pushback, critique and discussion not only regarding Amir's tests, but on just about any subject you can point to! Are there viable critiques of individuals on ASR, or perhaps some trends? Sure. And yes there will be social trends. But it's lazy to just call that "fitting religion to a T." That's like saying scientists attending a conference "fit religion to a T" because "look, they are congregating and hashing out their belief system, just like people do at a church!"
|
Isn't it funny that there's no Food Science Review, filled with devotees who claim that coffee and wine notes are imaginary, that herbs must be measured by % points of acidity, and using your own feelings to create and taste dishes is foolish? But food and audio are very similar - many things which can and cannot be measured, but ultimately being decided by our senses as the ultimate measurement tools. Imagine the engineers behind stoves and microwaves tearing down professional chefs for cooking based on their feelings. Yet that what ASR is to audio. |
I agree. Only a person who is insane can spend considerable time there. When the leader of a forum states that "I know all I have to know" to begin a discussion, that is the time you know that it's a closed forum and nothing can be gained by spending time with them.
Very good point. And do all the folks have the exact same ear cavity size, etc? What if some people are hard of hearing, or some people are extra sensitive? You folks realize that not all people hear the same...right? But do you know, the ear sends the "vibration/sound" signal to the brain to process it further? Yes, I called it the "vibration/sound" because, till the brain completely processes it completely, we cannot identify what it is. Then the following happens, as explained on brainfacts.org: The next stop for sound processing is the thalamus. Located just above the brainstem, the thalamus is the brain’s relay station for incoming sensory information. Then the information travels to the auditory part of the cerebral cortex. I don't think anyone has any instrument to test how person A perceives the same sound compared to person B. As far as I have read and understood - brain is a super complex organ. I believe the scientists community thinks that we hardly know how a brain functions (completely). Of course, the ASR community who mention their PhD, BEEE, MSc, position at Microsoft, etc probably know how brain works like the back of their hand. Unfortunately not many humans are as enlightened as these ASR souls. |
I agree, but none of that means that any wacky audiophile claim, or any marketing claim made for a product, is legit. We have to have some way to winnow out b.s. from the real. Remember that almost all high end audio present their claims as technical claims of one sort or another. They are either explicit, or allude to some technical "problem" their products address in getting us "closer to the music." The technical claims can be addressed via technical inquiry by a knowledgeable person with equipment. Notice virtually no manufacturer actually corrects Amir, as in "no, you are measuring the wrong things...HERE is how we measured the phenomenon we claim to have addressed in our product." It never moves beyond marketing. (The one attempt I've seen was by PS Audio...but their attempt to rebut Amir by showing how they would measure their product flopped pretty badly).
So mere assertions of dogma are neither here nor there. People either have better evidence or arguments against what Amir has concluded...or they don't. As I said, his reviews receive quite a bit of scrutiny on ASR by technically knowledgeable members. I find the critiques of some tests by ASR members FAR more pointed and convincing than those outside...especially in threads like this. Which is why I find it silly to presume ASR is some lock-step cult where everyone just uncritically accepts whatever Amir says. I myself have been in plenty of dust-ups with Amir.
|
I guess I've just been diagnosed as insane ;-)
I don't know where that quote comes from, but in any case it's cherry picking to seize on one thing he (or anyone else) may have said at one point, to ignore all the other reasonable claims and tests he has produced. THAT is a form of motivated self-blindness in itself. It's like twitter-think. I've heavily disagreed with Amir on a number of issues, but see that on other things he has made a very good case. Someone looking for an out will seize on something Amir said they don't like. Someone interested in truth and intellectually honest conversation will have a wider view and note there may be "good" with the "bad."
What do you think of someone who insists his perception is so reliable he can not be wrong? That is essentially the basis of the Golden Ear cohort of audiophiles who push back on every single argument/measurement/counter-evidence with the claim "But I Know What I Heard So I Know What I Know And You Can't Tell Me Otherwise!" How much do you expect to gain from that?
|
"Notice virtually no manufacturer actually corrects Amir, as in "no, you are measuring the wrong things...HERE is how we measured the phenomenon we claim to have addressed in our product." It never moves beyond marketing. (The one attempt I've seen was by PS Audio...but their attempt to rebut Amir by showing how they would measure their product flopped pretty badly)."
This is such an important point that it's worth repeating. No manufacturer would sit idly by and ignore criticism of their products if they believed it was unsupported. Not a single one.
The financially ruinous consequences for any reviewer, of wrongly criticizing any product shouldn't need explaining here, should they? There are many good reasons why reviewers so rarely criticize products, but the most important one is that they do not want to get sued. Without evidence critical reviews are little more than allegations, which if successfully challenged can be financially disastrous to the person making them. ASR deals in factual evidence as determined by state of the art measuring equipment. ASR are also not alone in employing this approach and that is something we should be grateful for if we want anything more than watered down flattery that passes for most reviews these days. The days of entirely subjective, or if you prefer, entirely fictional reviews finally seem to be coming to an end, and it's difficult to ever see them returning. |
Your conclusion, not mine 🙂 And that phrase was from the deleted original thread. I cannot forget that - because it reflected arrogance. He also mentioned that he was the head of some department in Microsoft. And I read it on other threads as well, which seems to be his "go to" line when someone does not agree with him. So what?! Does not mean he understands everything.
You did not discuss about my point on how the sound travels through our ears canals, to the cochlea and finally to the brain which analyzes it - which we define as music or sound. Now if you could explain that process and how it is similar in all human beings - we all will stand to gain a lot. Please go ahead with your explanation - I am all ears. |
You could take a hundred people and probably throw some dogs.cats, a few bats and an elephant, and maybe even a cobra in. And no matter their ear structure they would be listening to the same thing, and those that can communicate would know it as the same song. One pretty much can use a microphone to evaluate the sound pressure field, much the same way that they are used to get the sounds onto the LP or CD in the first place. |
I didn't address it, because, while a fine question, it was a red herring in regard to criticisms of ASR. You don't have to know, for instance, exactly how every INDIVIDUAL hears everything to know, through experiment, general truths about what humans can hear! Just like we know that while sight varies among humans, no one is seeing X-rays! So when Amir is for instance appealing to measurements to say that the signal difference between component A or B will be inaudible, he's typically basing this on what is known about the human hearing range in terms of db thresholds, dynamics, masking effects, etc. Could any of his diagnosis be wrong? Sure it's possible. But given Amir is familiar with the relevant research (and can cite it), you better bring something more than "No It's Not" or "Science Hasn't Explained Everything" or "But I Can Hear It, I Know I Can!" Appeal to the unknown is not an argument. Further, Amir will also refer to the tons of research done by, and cited by, professionals like Floyde Toole, Sean Olive and others, which arrived at very strong predictive theories for what people will perceive as "better" or "worse" sounding, once confounding variables like sighted bias were removed. So the fact people don't hear everything exactly alike does not entail strong trends or patterns aren't there to be found.
|
| Post removed |
@oddioboy Oh man, you would never give up, no matter how many times you get banned. Sick dude. ——- crymeanaudioriver
theaudiomaniac
theaudioamp
deludedaudiophile
thynamesinnervoice
cindyment
snratio
yesiamjohn
sugabooger
dletch2
audio2design
dannad
roberttdid
roberttcan
heaudio123
audiozenology
atdavid |
Bye Bye @cindyment @oddioboy you troll. |
As usual, you science guys always go to the extreme. Looks like life for you is digital - 0 or 1. Based on your "vision" example, look up "Veronica Seider" and her Guinness Book record. She was a normal human having super-eye. Normal eyes have visual acuity of 20/20 while Veronica’s acuity was around 20/2. She could easily distinguish people from as far as 1 mile. And before you call out, below is the link from Fact or Hoax My point is - many people struggle at 20 feet with average vision. And yet there are individuals who have this extraordinary ability. So think about it - from 20 feet (should be 10 feet or less for people with real eye issues) to 1 mile is the variation when it comes to sight. Before you say - that is only one person - I would say - the earth's population is appox 8 Billion. And not every single person is aware of Guinness records or has time or inclination to come out with what their vision is, etc etc. So us normal being are saying that no humans can do bat hearing. We agree with the super minds at ASR. But how difficult is it for the super intelligent beings at ASR to understand that there are people whose hearing could be so much better than people who cannot hear the difference in sound quality. You cannot measure this variation because there is currently no instrument to measure it. No one is denying the research that Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and others have done. Does advancement in science stop there? We cannot be blind to the fact that as humans progress more research will discover things that we currently do not know. Current state-of-the-art will probably be stale in a few decades. That is the whole gist about being scientific - understand the "how to" and advance.In that sense this forum seems to be open minded about future possibility, while the scientific community seems to be harp on the notion that all that is to know about human hearing is researched and everyone is on par no more,no less. It amuses me that in every debate you guys state about "X-ray vision" or "bat hearing". Need to get real. |