@p05129
I’ve only watched snippets of ASR because he’s hard to watch. I watched the video where he went after GR Research which he looked like a fool, the other times, he wanted to promote a cheap product and wanted to degrade a more expensive product.
First, I test plenty of expensive products. At least I think they are. Take these Genelec 8361A speakers for $5,000 each:
https://youtu.be/FfWijCRMUHI
Are you wealthy enough for these to be too cheap for you? How about this NAD M23 at $3,700?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nad-m23-stereo-amplifier-review.45462/
My own amplifiers are $25,000 *each*. So I have no bias toward expensive or cheap gear. I measure them all the same. The measurements have no bias. If an amp has more noise and distortion than another and costs 5X more, then it looks bad. That is not because I did that to it. It is because the designer didn't bother to make the amplifier as performant as he could. Yet the marketing material screams fidelity in exchange for a large check to be written.
Give me high performance and great engineering and I don't care how much it costs. I will recommend it. Sure, the membership may want better value but you don't have to join that opinion.
And it is not just me. A number of studies have shown that there is no correlation between price and performance. I could build a case out of gold and charge an extra $10K for the equipment. You think that makes it sound better all of a sudden?
As to GR research, you have that backward. You are believe the word of someone trying to sell you something (Danny) vs an independent reviewer (me). You have to have very little sensibility to put your trust in a company rep who offers zero proof of efficacy of what he sells. Wires wrapped around a rope to make it look thick? Yep, that is what he has done:
https://youtu.be/_7HbjdQRaAM
|
Let me address the larger point here.
The beef some of you have with me is misplaced. What you see is not me, it is me and literally tens of thousands of your fellow audiophiles working together to bring more transparency to audio gear. They send me equipment, I test and publish them. We then collectively discuss the findings. Certain truths pop out of this process. That truth resonates with so many audiophiles who are desperate for reliable facts about audio gear. This is the appeal. This is the reason ASR has grown so much and so fast. It certainly is not because I am good looking or know how to write a sentence without a typo! 😁
Nothing about this stops you from doing what you want to do. If you are able to get that NAD or Genelec amp/speaker I post about first to evaluate, go right ahead. But if you can't, then where are you? We live in a world where everything is going remote and online.
Some of you falsely claim that we are all different. If that is the case, then you better not believe anyone's opinion here about any gear then. Ditto for any reviewer out there. The alternative you offer then is not knowing anything.
I know some like to make themselves feel good by making stuff up:
1. Better measurements mean better sound. This is sometimes the case, sometimes not. This is how we look at measurements, not what you claim. A low noise amplifier will have less chance of hiss. That is a fact. A low distortion amplifier may sound the same as a high distortion amp if you are not able to hear such non-linearities.
What good measurements show is that you can push impairments so low such that they fall below threshold of hearing -- something determined with listening tests. We are fortunately enough that many DACs, some pre-amps and amplifiers now fall in this category. And get there at very reasonable costs. This, we need to celebrate. Not have angst over. I replaced my expensive, many thousand dollar Mark Levinson DAC with a few hundred dollar DAC. The latter is better in every way and costs a lot less due to economy of scale. Great win for us!
2. We don't listen. I listen to a ton. Every speaker, headphone and headphone amplifier for example gets a listening test. This adds up to hundreds of listening tests a year. I listen to these classes of products because they do indeed perform differently from each other. I even listen to stuff that doesn't make a difference as to cover that base as well but obviously don't want to waste time doing it all the time.
3. I must have commercial interest. Well, I don't. I don't need the money. I don't make my living from this effort. I enjoy it as a good hobby that has massively positive reward.
4. I must hate this and that. I can't afford that. But if i did, measurements can be repeated by anyone so can't be gamed that way.
5. We rely on measurements alone. That is just wrong. Measurements are only one aspect of product evaluation. We use engineering, audio science research and understanding of how products work in our total analysis. And I say "we" as there are many technical experts on ASR Forum. It is the totality of this kind of evaluation that damns certain products, not just pure measurements.
6. That we don't value listening tests. We absolutely do. We just want them without bias. This is why you saying this and that sounds better has no value. You have to run a controlled test as we know without it, any outcome can be had.
Bottom line, use ASR as an additional source of information. No harm comes out of that. Fighting us as if we are your enemy makes no sense unless you are selling overpriced, non-performant gear.
|
""His does all this pro bono" Are you sure? He does not do it pre bono, he asks for donations. Also what does he do with the equipment that certain companies send to him?"
They sit here in an ever growing mountain of gear! Here is a picture of 100+ samples I post a while back when the last guy challenged me this way:
It is much taller now and there are other places I stash them. I should do something with them but I have not thought of what yet. Occasionally they come in handy in testing something. Or re-testing the same gear because someone has found an issue.
The donations are there for a) members to show their appreciation for the work and b) to cover the expenses of doing all this. With some exceptions, I pay for return shipping of anything I test. This adds up to lots of expense given the hundreds of gear I test per year.
Keep in mind that *everyone gets the same information* whether they donate or not. Nothing special is given to that membership class. In that regard, donations are purely optional. This is in sharp contrast to your typical reviewer who begs for money, buying form sponsored links, content behind paywalls, etc.
|
"You have never explained why you recommend a product whose quality control is crap."
If a product fails during testing, it absolutely does NOT get a recommendation. But if it works and performs well, it gets a recommendation. It is beyond the scope of my evaluation to do reliability surveys. No reviewer does this. The forum however, does a fantastic job of bringing out such issues especially since manufacturers are there to respond as well (or at least read what is being post).
|
"No, you are the one doing the measuring and interpreting the data. Other followers chime in on occasion with their own "measurements" that would receive an F in high school science. "
I am indeed doing the measurements. But this nordost speaker cable didn’t just fall in my lap from sky. A member was told by a salesman he better buy these cables or else his system would not sound good. He tried them and it made no difference so he was curious if measurements would show any difference.
Well, measurements did show a difference: said Nordost cable picked up far more noise than a generic speaker cable! This was obvious to anyone with engineering knowledge so was trivial for me to create a measurement for it.
So next time someone says this cable "removes a veil" due to "reduction of noise," you know that is completely false. You paid more to get a noisy cable! That is the interpretation that you can’t argue with.
Post that testing, people gained general knowledge about the issues here and they will spread the word. This is why ASR is a team effort. Members enable testing of a ton of gear. Measurements provide very reliable facts. And knowledge gets discussed and disseminated.
As to testing others doing not being any good, claims like yours are easy. Clearly you don’t have any facts to back that or we would already be reading them in your post.
Remember, hundreds of gear gets measured every year on ASR. With very, very rare exceptions, no manufacturer has disputed them! As you imagine, no one has higher interest in measurements being correct than manufacturer. Yet we don’t see any counters even though 2/3 of the gear I test doesn’t get a recommendation due to poor performance.
As a corollary to above, no audio reviewer’s work gets scrutinized remotely like mine. I publish a new review almost every day, subjecting my testing and opinion to verification/rejection by industry and membership at large. ASR would have thrived if the work we were doing was bad as you claim.
|
"I was happy to see that Amir visited many rooms at Pacific Audiofest and declared them to sound good… no measurements needed!"
Indeed. I can walk around and enjoy sound like everyone else. OK, I am more critical but still, good sound is good sound.
What I bring back though is more than what sounded good and what didn't. I also bring back data like this:
We have arrived in a world where the speaker cable costs more than the amplifier it is connected to! The world of audio marketing is broken to the core with little checks and balances. So I bring that to the table with the help of your fellow audiophiles. Maybe that cable does improve audio. So I test them as they arrive. I don't dismiss them out of hand as many do (and rightly so). It is that data that is damning, not what I think. Ditto for what I say I heard at a show. It is a casual observation subject to proper verification in formal testing.
|
"@amir_asr Amir…how about incorporating listening tests and publishing those results along with the measurements. As most reviewers do, list your reference system so that your subscribers can see in what context a component was reviewed and how it performed using your ears as a measurement tool. Don’t use a $99 dac to test a $1700 usb cable. "
As I mentioned, I perform huge number of listening tests in my reviews. So much so that it dwarfs what other reviewers do. Just look at my reviews for headphones, speakers, headphone amps, etc. Here is the latest example of the former:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/monoprice-m1570c-headphone-review.45837/
I do these because differences are large so we are not asking if something makes a difference at all. I suspect that is where you are going with the rest of your comment.
In that class of device, it is critical to perform controlled, blind tests as otherwise results are dominated by improper testing, bias, etc. To be sure, I also do such listening tests from time to time but I put no value on them, and neither should you. Here is an example, the iconoclast cable review: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/belden-iconoclast-xlr-cable-review.33929/
"Iconoclast CLR Cable Listening Tests
I used two setups for listening tests: headphone and main 2-channel system:
Headphone Listening: source was a computer as the streamer using Roon player to RME ADI-2 Pro ($2K) acting as a DAC & headphone amplifier, driving my Dan Clark Stealth headphone ($4K). I started listening with Iconoclast cable. Everything sounded the same as I was used to. I then switched to WBC cable. Immediately I "heard" more air, more detail and better fidelity. This faded in a few seconds though and the sound was just as it was with the Iconoclast.
For my main system, I used a Topping D90SE driving the Topping LA90 which in turn drove my Revel Salon 2 speakers. I picked tracks with superb spatial qualities to judge the usual "soundstage." I again started with Iconoclast XLR TPC cable. I was once again blown away how good my system sounds. ![:)]( "Smile :)") I don't get to enjoy it often enough given how much time I spend working at my desk. Anyway, after a while I switched to WBC cable. Once again, immediate reaction was that the sound was more open, bass was a bit more tight, etc. This too passed after a few seconds and everything sounded the same again."
As you see, the rest of the system was specified and it was anything but a "$99 DAC." The DAC costs $2,000. My Revel Salon 2 speakers retail for $23,000 a pair. And as noted, my headphones along cost $4,000.
I put all that info in there to impress folks like you, not that they matter much. :) If they did, then the manufacturer should have put in as precondition of purchase. Which they never do. Plenty of people buy these things and hook them up to modest systems and claim improvements. Don't see anyone telling them their system is too cheap for the difference they heard to be real. The argument is only used when results don't show a difference.
By the way, above review also included proper null tests in addition to measurements. That testing showed beyond any doubt, with real music, that there is no difference due to this cable:
A review doesn't get more comprehensive than this.
|
"YouTubers need to differentiate themselves from the crowd of competing YouTubers. (The cost of entry is so low, that anyone can become a YouTube influencer!) The smart ones, such as Amir, find a "hook" and then cultivate the audience that follows it."
Your argument doesn't hold water about me because I am not a typical youtuber. Despite having 40,000 subscribes and qualifying long time ago for monetization, I don't do such. There are no ads, no sponsorships, no patreon requirement to see, no nothing. Neither do I beg for "likes and subscriptions" as youtubers do. So please don't put me in that bucket.
I create youtube videos when explaining the same thing in text requires writing a book. I also highlight a product review here and there when it is notable. These are the things that differentiate me from other youtubers.
"Amir argues:That premise allows him to be the savior. It’s the, "Only I can fix it" canard."
You keep creating these talking points while missing core points I have made. That this is a community effort. My voice would be completely lost on the Internet if people didn't see value in my work and didn't talk about it. And continue to support the activity by sending me huge volume of audio gear to test.
I am motivated by curiosity of how something performs much more than thinking I can solve the audio problem at large. Yes, that change is coming slowly and very heartwarming to see. More and more companies are investing in proper measurement gear to test their design. That way, the first time they see an issue, it wont be in my testing. They also see value in a very large group of audiophiles who now value measurements as a purchase criteria. This is what keeps me going.
|
"if you observe how blindly the minions follow their master and read Amir’s posts on this thread, you will realize that this limited minded group of people for whom using their own head for anything other than eating is too much of a burden, need the Amirs of this world with their oscilloscopes to guide them in their decision making process."
Nothing remotely like this is true. Every review I post gets criticism from membership on ASR forum. This is almost without exception! Members are highly knowledgeable and critique any and all aspects of the review. I feel like I am taking a final exam in college and getting graded on every review I do!
That is what objective data allows people to do: they can examine the information the same way I would. This is quite different than a subjectivist reviewer claiming this and that track sounded good on this and that device. You do not share that experience so no way to challenge the reviewer on any basis. Not so when I post a measurement.
Members also are also free to challenge me with their own testing as happened recently over of all things, a $35 dongle that converted XLR to RCA. Another engineer bought a unit and has created his own tests.
Members also bring their own criteria for whether a unit is recommended or not. There is a multi-choice poll for every review where members opine whether they agree or not with my final conclusion.
Finally, it strains credibility that hundreds of thousands of your peers are dumb and blindly follow something. It actually takes a lot to convince them of anything.
Really, spend a few minutes on the site before forming these blind conclusions and talking points.
|
"See, this is where the comment breaks down. You can get a very good measuring one, but it may not sound that good. "
There is a "break down" but not in the way you realize. None of you bother to eliminate sources of bias and errors in your listening tests before claiming you hear this and that. It is trivial to show that two identical audio products will get different subjective impressions even though the sound is identical between them. Until this lesson is learned, you will never know the audio truth and wind up chasing ghosts.
Here is a video on that:
https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk
I also cover the topic of listener training that was mentioned earlier.
|
"Well "Prof" if you come to erroneous conclusions or use poor methodology why should you get cut slack?"
You all have been asked repeatedly to state what is wrong with the methodology I use yet nothing specific has come up. Not a thing. You just linked to two random online threads as if that is supposed to be something.
As to conclusions being wrong, that is an opinion you have that is not backed by any facts or data. You just claim it and expect it to be taken at face value. How on earth is that the right "methodology?" Do a controlled test as the entire audio science world demands and then we can talk if your results are different than what measurements show. Until then, you are just unhappy that what you think is right, really isn't based on objective facts, science and engineering. That is a huge hurdle to get over.
|
"I have already said Amir is rude and intolerant. A number of posters have already been banned from ASR for posting contrary opinions, yet Amir is here posting his."
I am only here because you all are discussing me and making stuff up that are simply not true. I am thankful that the host is allowing me to reply. Should they want to disallow that, I would accept it and go about my business.
"As far as Amir’s measurements being incorrect or off beam, there is plenty of information around on the web, you just need to look for it. "
You need to do more than "look for it." You need to understand the topic at a very deep level. Otherwise you are just running with talking points that can be shown to be false claims. To wit, you linked to a youtuber who uses an analyzer just to ignore the data that it generates and run off with a bunch of subjective nonsense not backed by said measurements. His video there shows that there are settings in the analyzer that change the results. Well duh! Use the same settings as I do and you get consistent, and repeatable results.
I am getting close to 2,000 measurements I have performed. If there were flaws in my work by now there would be riots in streets with manufacturers countering them. Yet not only do you not see that, but manufactures that do proper engineering continue to send me equipment to test. And participate in ASR as well. I earlier linked to the Focal speaker review I did which was sent to me by the company. My work is somehow proper to them but not for you???
|
"Absolute rubbish Amir. You have no idea how many here actually do listen to a variety of equipment without knowing what the equipment is or what the cost is. Again you push the line that you are the omnipotent guru."
What I talk about is elementary in audio science. So no, stating the need for a controlled test is not any attempt at looking like a guru. However, it is trivial to show that your understanding of such tests is faulty. "Without knowing what equipment is" constitutes just one aspect of such tests. I explained all of that in my video but it is clear you didn’t watch it. So here it is again:
1. Levels must be matched. This applies to active devices like electronics and passives like speakers/headphones. If you don’t match levels, you better not bother.
2. Testing must be repeated to rule out chance. This is an extremely common failing of people who claim to have done "blind tests." I can predict a coin being a head, flip it and get that. I can even do that 4 or 5 times in a row. That doesn’t mean I have super powers to predict a coin toss. It just means I got lucky. You need to conduct the test at least 10 times and get 9 out of 10 right. Typical audiophile trying once or twice just generates "noise, " not data.
3. The test needs to truly be blind. No "tells." For this reason, you need to have a proper protocol to conduct the test.
All of this takes less time and effort by the way that some of you put up by posting here. The truth is there for you.
"There are and for what its worth Goldenone knows far more than you, but when he challenged your measurements you threw him out."
There is no truth to this at all. His unprofessional/unethical conduct is what got him banned on ASR. He has been doing measurements for a year or so with no background in audio engineering or science. If that makes him more qualified than me, fine. Post measurements of his that back your claims in audio. As it is, they don’t match his own subjective claims!
|
"For me Amir, with all due respect, part of the problem for me is your manner. I want be open minded to what you say, and the points/facts/information you are attempting to impart, but for me it's about manner and delivery. Somebody else mentioned Erin's Audio Corner; I could listen to him all day; firstly he has humility, and he doesn't stop dead at the measurements he displays."
Give Erin some audio cables to test and then we can talk. Until then, there is no one as open minded as me, searching for any hint to truth in products that don't have any efficacy. I spend incredible time and expense teasing out their performance, way beyond any reasonableness. I test them for example up to 1 Mhz or 20X the audio band. I search for changes in noise and distortion 100 to 1000 times lower than threshold of hearing. I don't use works like "snake oil, rip off, etc." I measure, evaluate and present the data in the most professional way possible.
Ultimately though, I am here to provide a service to audio community by examining the performance of audio systems. I am not here to win an election or be liked by everyone. If you have no use for such data then whether I am polite or not is not going to make a difference. I am pretty sure if Erin presented the same data I have you would hate him with passion as well.
Really, what I keep hearing is a cry to keep your fellow audiophiles from knowing more about audio products they have purchased. To what end? To validate someone else's lay and causal opinion about audio? Well, that is not going to work. Incredible number of your peers like what I do. And if as you say it is not because of my delivery, then it must be the power of the data presented.
|
"At the end of the day, when it comes down to it, when I or anyone else switches on their system and presses play, it becomes an entirely subjective activity; after all, for me anyway it's about the music and love/passion for music. If it sounds good/I enjoy the presentation my system gives me, nothing else matters - not measurements, cost, brand, none of it. I want to get lost in the music, end of."
This frequently stated talking point is entirely fallacious. That audio gear didn't manifest itself subjectively. It came about by using science and engineering. Some companies are great at this; others not so much. Measurements are your best friend when it comes to figuring this out.
Plenty of gear sounds excellent. You could buy an AVR from a big box store for $250, hook up a pair of $250 speakers and get great enjoyment. But that is not what some of you do, are you? You go and buy a $2000 USB cable and convince yourself it must be improving fidelity because it lowers "jitter" or "noise." What does have to do with what you claim? Nothing. It is a purely technical and objective assumption. My role is to test that manufacturer claim. I can test for Jitter. I can test for noise. When those tests don't show a difference, there goes your reason for buying said cable. Take this JPS Superconductor V USB Cable Review. They have already got you with that "superconductor" term as if such a thing exists in a $1000 cable at room temperature. Here is its noise and jitter compared to a $9 Amazon cable:
See how the two graphs land identically on top of each other? Your threshold of hearing is at -115 dB and here I am measuring down to whopping -160 dB! Still no difference.
Of course that cable transfers USB bits just the same and with right system and content, it can sound superb. That is not the issue and I have no doubt you would enjoy the sound of a system with this cable. So would I. Difference between us is the knowledge I have that this cable does nothing for the sound coming out of your audio equipment. That you perceive any difference is due to improper listening tests and nothing more. Since you are not willing to engage in such controlled tests, then measurements better be your friend, not your enemy.
|
"Paul Barton, of PSB, worked with Toole, Harmon and others back in the day of speaker testing. Check out Darko's interview with him. Worth a listen.
Lots of people like to name drop the audio greats and then go on to reengineer their methods of testing while hoping no one catches on or knows better on just how to do it, fancying themselves as being oh, so, scientific.
Paul pointed out that when doing the first round of speaker testing (1/2 hours worth), the tests were thrown out the window due to the fact that the people were listening to the room and not the speakers. Evaluations were all over the place. It's why one has a better chance on getting their ears around a speaker in the confines of their own listening room."
That is NOT at all what he said. He is talking about adaptation or how we can "hear through a room." This adaptation takes a few minutes so people in controlled tests needs to be allowed to acclimate a bit. He said nothing whatsoever about "confines of their own listening room." You made that up. Here are some bits I transcribed:
----------------
"Before you were introduced to dr. toole were you designing by ear..
Yes, I was designing based on early days ..... pink noise listening to it and music... when I took the first speaker to Ottawa [at NRC], there were clearly things that could be improved based on theory that speaker is a window.... flat frequency response and dispersion are all a factor."
"[measurements at NRC] put a microscope on what I was doing... correlating measurements with listener preference."
1. Most of the people most of the time agree on relative quality of a group of loudspeaker. There is no personal taste when it comes to asking what sounds the most natural. That is the goal to make the recording exactly the musician intended.
2. Properly interpreted set of objective measurements correlate strongly with listener preferences. You can see the measurements and predict how listeners will prefer.
[3] Musical tastes and experience is not material.
When listeners go into the room, it will take a few minutes for listeners to adjust to the acoustics of the room. After that, they are able to sort out the speakers from room.
We did both stereo and mono listening.... did the same experiment in mono and stereo (double blind)...when testing in stereo the anchor [bad speaker] got better in stereo because stereo masks tonal aspects of a speaker. You get better differentiation between sonic differences of speakers in mono than stereo. Most of stereo imaging we hear is in the recording, not the room.
The final tuning is done by ear, i.e. ratio of highs to lows. Darko summarizing: "95% is done with measurements last bit is done by ear." Tuning is still done using measurements. Subjecting himself to double blind as he tweaks.
"We can measure everything... but the scale of it you judge by ear."
-----
So yes, people need to listen to that podcast. It is wonderful and fascinating to see how Darko's mind is shifting toward objective side of things.
|
@painter24
"So you see, when I fallaciously sit down, kick back, throw some tunes on, I'm not really thinking graphs, charts, measurements, or how I can be saved from nasty audio manufacturers. "
First, thank you for that heartfelt story. I am so sad to hear you about your blood disorder especially when found during that period. I can't possibly put myself in your shoes and imagine what it must be like for yourself, and work conditions you had to deal with.
On the above quote, please allow me to say that we in the other camp absolutely do the same thing. Despite our differences, we all share the love for music and what it brings to our lives. None of us are thinking about graphs or anything when listening to wonderful music that moves us.
As audiophiles though, as opposed to just music lovers, we also have a second passion and that is chasing equipment that best optimizes that experience. It is in that process that we differ. When it comes to purchasing something new, we seek out objective and reliable data such as measurements, prior research, engineering knowledge, etc. It is then that we look at said "graphs." Graphs teach us about the incredible technology that is behind what we just turn on and listen.
We also sense betrayal when casual and incorrect subjective assessments get us to spend tons of money on things that absolutely do nothing for the sound of our system. But serve to bias us enough to then go and tell others they are gifts to audiophiles in how they "remove veils, lower noise floor, blacker backgrounds, faster bass, etc." You can't fault hundreds of thousands of your fellow audiophiles to see value in this. And certainly not shame them by implying that they must think of graphs when enjoying music.
On the other hand, you have many fellow subjectivist audiophiles who are constantly worrying whether the most innocent thing in your system is impacting the sound. I know audiophiles who experimented with the cover and screw for their outlets and arrived at the conclusion that yet another veil was removed when those were upgraded. Clearly they are not just sitting back with confidence we have on the objectivist side that none of this matters and our systems are performant.
So please, please, please, don't make stereotypes of us the way you are doing with the implication that we don't listen to music but just look at graphs. This accusation is made all the time by subjectivists who don't like measurements. It is untrue, and unkind to the Nth degree.
|
"Yes my new opinion is he is a measurementophile not an audiophile. We should’ve be talking about him in these forums."
Well, I don't know what your old opinion was but the new one couldn't be more wrong. As I have said here, listening tests are more valuable than measurements. The hitch is, you have to do them in controlled manner with statistical rigor. That is time consuming and frankly, not always fun to do. So we resort to not only measurements but also science and engineering of audio. Combine all of this and you get powerful evidence of whether something makes a difference to fidelity and if so, what that impact might be.
Go and do random test and all you generate is noise, not data.
|
"As Dr. Floyd Toole said "Two ears and a brain respond very differently to a complex sound field and are much more analytical, than an omni-directional mic and analyzer." Is Dr. Toole wrong?"
He is absolutely right when it comes to acoustic measurements above transition frequencies of a few hundred hertz. Each ear hears something different due to wavelength of audio becoming smaller relative to the size of our head and torso. The brain then gets involved to adjudicate what the net summary is of the two differing signals from each ear. I have spent weeks of my life literally across multiple forums explaining this including the last drawn out battle in a recent thread on ASR. From my first post there:
"2. He is optimizing for his eyes, not ears. Two ears and a brain don't work like a single microphone and a graph as Dr. Toole would again say. The notion that reflections are "bad" is folklore as comprehensive peer reviewed has repeatedly shown. Yet, it has become one of the "internet rules" to chase them using measurements. Doing so will lead to a completely dead room when you are done. Ask any high-end acoustician what the #1 problem with DIY acoustic is and they tell you people creating dead rooms because of this mistake."
We are not discussing acoustic measurements here. We are talking about everything leading up to and including speakers. Dr. Toole has dedicated his life in correlating measurements of speakers to good sound. The culminated in a major standard in the form of ANSR/CTA/CEA-2034 which I follow when posting measurements of speakers.
Alas, that correlation of measurements to speaker sound is about 70 to 80% predictive. To wit, I have liked speakers that didn't measure that well, and disliked some that did. It could be that my subjective assessments are wrong. Or that we are hitting on less known (e.g. role of directivity in preference).
When you go upstream of the speaker though, you will see 100% agreement from Dr. Toole on measurements speaking the truth on whether something is performant or even functional. You don't see anything in Dr. Toole's book about screwing around with cables, power conditioners, etc. So I would not bring in his name in this context.
|
"When someone critiques an audio product based on measurements - and then never listens to the product, it greatly minimizes credibility and the overall review. "
I assume you are talking about someone else as I do more listening tests than many reviewers combined. Again, every speaker, headphone and headphone amp gets listened to. And some others including audio tweaks.
I don't do them in all areas because subjective tests there have the potential to create massively incorrect conclusions. Credibility takes a big dump when you just do listening tests that are uncontrolled and subject to huge error. In that sense you have it backward because I follow proper protocols in science of audio.
Mind you, you are welcome to perform a controlled test and prove me wrong when I don't do them. Alas, no such test has come about despite me performing hundreds of tests.
Any more talking points you want me to address?
|
"I have not once heard you say in your responses here, how you could do things better or where you fell short. That is why you are vilified here and Erin is beloved. you have no modesty and you can't even witness it. "
Erin is not vilified because he doesn't go after your sacred cows. You know, all the stuff that makes no difference to sound but you all swear by it. Go ahead and ask Erin if he uses your fancy audio and power cables in his testing. Or uses boutique amplifiers, DACs, etc. You won't like the answer, I assure you.
Erin also learned his lesson early on when he got to speaker testing. That you best not deliver negative outcomes straight out or it would not be good for growth of a youtube channel. See comments he received after his transparent review of a Klipsch speaker: https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/klipsch-heresy-iv-objective-speaker-review.1028801/page-4
"To male Karens in this thread ...
You can wave the tube flag all you want. It won't fix the deficiencies in this speaker. Surely you can't be ignorant enough to think a tube amp corrects dispersion patterns, enclosure resonances and diffraction effects. Surely. Surely?
But... If you think it does, enjoy your setup. Don't let me make you feel bad for enjoying what you enjoy. That's not my intent. There are plenty of others who have simply disagreed and didn't seem to feel like I kicked their puppy with my review. Don't take it so personally.
As for me being a troll or just trying to get money: that's laughable. I get about $0.02 per view. I have probably 30+ hours in this whole thing as it sits. So, let's do the math... if I paid myself $5/hour for this review I would need 7500 views. I'm at 1k. I'm paying myself far less than minimum wage. I could get a part time job paying more than that. It isn't "worth" it for me to spend the time I do, in that scheme. I do this for the passion. Not for the money. If it were the latter, I'd be presenting things in an entirely different way and would look like just another YT reviewer (some of whom have been discussed). Not that I imagine this will change your mind. But, facts.
If you are that upset with my analysis (and the correlating data which is standard in the industry) that you feel the need to talk to me like you're a big boy then you have your own set of problems. Take it up with the industry because whining and acting tough to me isn't going to change the performance of your speaker. See ya' around. "
Not the "beloved" Erin you know, right? Fortunately for him, he learned early on that saying stuff like this is not going to get you subscribers so best to tone it down.
Me? I have not promised anyone niceness. What I have promised is data, objectivity, science and professionalism. Sometimes an answer is something you are not going to like. Not being motivated by money, I am not afraid to tell it like it is. Or have some of you get upset as you are. It can't be helped. As long as you put your emotions ahead of learning, that is going to be a problem for you.
|
"For someone trying to defend their honor, Amir sure is digging this hole deeper. Clearly he wont address the Erin stuff or the old posts Soundfield brought up. "
There a bunch of you making all kinds of faulty arguments and personal remarks. It is only one of me answering you between everything else. Here is briefly the answer to those:
Erin:
He brings great value to audiophiles with respect to speaker measurements. All of you who watch his videos better go and support him with a donation or buy products with his sponsored links.
What you can't do is ask me to use the membership and traffic on ASR to help him in gather said cash. I don't monetize ASR Forum in any form or fashion so sure as heck not going to let someone else do that. The last video that was posed was a clear clickbait. The title and thumbnail screamed that. I made a comment about it and folks started to scream back and forth that he should be entitled to that. To which I said he can do it in his platform (youtube), not on ASR. Complaints kept coming so I closed the thread.
AJ (Soundfield)
If I were you, I would dig into who AJ is before siding with him. He is used to be the most miserable objectivist on AVSForum.com. He would roast two high-end subjectivists in the morning for breakfast just as a warm up exercise. His bullying tactics were so bad that I actually chose to defend high-end audiophiles. Fortunately his knowledge of audio science and engineering was nill so was easy to push back on his claim after which, he would get personal over and over again.
Let me give you a tasted of that: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/best-amp-for-1000.1309064/page-2#post-19897161
"Here is the reason why there will be such a dichotomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
The folks with Dunning-Kruger/zero technical literacy will not be able to discern between their imagination and reality....and they can't be cognizant of this situation/shortcoming (a closed loop scenario described by the wiki link above).
You have a choice. You either accept that there are psychogenic "improvements" to the "sound" that are produced by an amplifier namebrand, price and audiophile "street cred"...which will affect your mind in the same way it did audiophile X...and therefore "sound" "better", etc.
...or you believe that the function of such a component (voltage amplifier) is to increase the signal level and contribute no "sound" of its own (real or imaginary).
The only time you will "hear" an amplifier, is if it is poorly designed (like many "audiophile" designs), or driven past it's linear limits...which is exactly what will happen with some of the lower power, but "audiophile" brandname designs.
The key to a "soundless" amplifier, is good low level ("
One thing AJ never had was common sense and here is an example of it bringing out that I used to defend some of you while he attacked you mercilessly.
Of course a few years later he decided to build speakers in the garage and quickly realized that saying stuff like above, and acting it, would not be good for business. Enter those faulty audiophile amplifiers and speaker cables in his exhibits at audio shows. Amazing how money causes people to completely change their color.
Sadly, the same happened with Erin. He used to a wonderful and core member of ASR Forum. Then he bought the expensive Klippel measurement system and in the interest of paying it off, tilted hard toward monetizing the content -- again on the backs of ASR. We repeatedly told him to not do that only to have severely negative reaction from him. Have seen this happen with another member going through the same phase change and ultimately banned from ASR. Money's power over some people is incredible.
|
"Nope, that is not "what he has done." The cable configuration is what it is for electrical parameter control. The configuration is employed to determine the ratio of LCR reactance in order to shape a significant portion of the filter characteristics of that cable. It has an organic core instead of any polymer to decrease DA and lower DF."
And what are those measurements? Don't exist, right? But let's say they exist: who the heck says these things are important characteristics in a power cable?
That cable provides zero filtering as I explained in the video. If you are going to dispute that where are those measurements? We can measure filtering, right? Or are you talking about filtering imaginary things?
Also, if a power cable filters, by definition that is bad for impulses. A lot of these companies advertise how these cables can handle power spikes better. Well, if you filter then you filter that demand for power and produce less power! You see how you are confusing the role of a power cable with that of an interconnect?
Regardless, I performed a null test with music. That showed there is not a hair difference when using this power cable vs the cheapest thinnest power cable I had on hand:
|
Adding on, your audio gear performs filtering. If you need a power cable to do that for you, you have bought one hell of a bad design. Fortunately even the most incompetent designer out there will build a power supply with filtering (otherwise it would hum badly). So no, you don't need a filtering AC cable even if such an animal existed.
|
|
" I will say it gives me a lot of hesitancy to give a website the censors speech because someone uses his website to generate interest in their side of the conversation."
Nothing Erin does is in conflict with ASR. Indeed, his measurements are patterned after mine and using exactly the same measurement gear. The only conflict as I mentioned was his desire to make money and get subscribers from ASR traffic. No site owner will let him do this.
"I will say it gives me a lot of hesitancy to give a website the censors speech because someone uses his website to generate interest in their side of the conversation."
Oh please... I have had countless posts here deleted. Heck entire threads with them in it have vanished. You don't see me crying and complaining about "censorship." Forum management is hard and if the owners/admins see fit to delete something, that is that. Don't go trying to milk that for fallacious arguments.
"You also claim it doesn't make you any money and you don't do it for the cash so why care if someone benefits from the traffic."
It is called equal treatment. If we allow one person to commercialize our site, then every dealer and manufacture would want to do the same thing. From our terms of service for people in the industry:
"Please have a signature identifying the name of your business. You can have a single link to your business but that is it. This link must not lead directly to any form of Advertising or Commercial Sponsorship related links. Same applies to any posts in the forum."
Erin's content is allowed on ASR anyway. So your whole thesis is wrong.
|
"You said do we have further questions.
1) Why are you so rude?"
You are projecting. Ton of insults are sent my way and I am calmly answering them. It is folks like you who can't for a moment stay professional and focus on the topic of audio.
"2) Why do you throw people off your site for presenting contrary opinions?"
People disagree and argue with me to death on ASR. We show extreme tolerance for this, to a fault. It is only in extreme cases that we resort to banning people.
Note that showing up for battle by claiming you hear differences in audio cables and we must not listen to music and only read graphs, can get the door shown to you. But not before you dig that hole very deep by creating empty and rehashed arguments.
Come forward with proper evidence of your claims and you will be more than welcome whether they agree with mine or not.
"3) I bought my Dac at a hifi shop by listening to 7 different ones through the same equipment, ..."
You don't say... Of course if you violate every rule in proper listening test you wind up with some random choice. Maybe your fellow audiophiles care about that kind of story, but we don't. We rely on what we can prove, not what we can imagine. Come back when you pick that same selection in proper blind test. Without it as I mentioned, you generated noise, not data.
|
"I for one believe you. Imagine that. Trusting how something sounds! "
I do too! There is no question that is what he perceived. It is just that we don't know if that depended on the actual output of said DACs or other extraneous factors. Our brain is a wonderful thing when it comes to manufacturing facts. To make sure that is not happening, we only trust listening tests where only the sound is involved, not the rest of your senses.
You don't believe me? Allow me to call my expert witness who has shown up in this thread, AJ (Soundfiled). This is what he had to say on discussion of whether an external DAC improves the sound of an Oppo player: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/using-oppo-bdp-95-as-source-is-outboard-dac-going-to-make-a-difference.1389093/page-2
"Then you don't need to spend more than $100 to replace your presumably failing/broken Sony BDP. If transparent audio signal transfer is your concern."
[...]
"I didn't say that [that two dacs don't sound different]. My position is that I don't see any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that it does. And no, the blathering of ignorant crazy people and fabricated "tests" online isn't evidence to support superior DAC sound. It's evidence to support ignorance, craziness and truly infantile and sad resorts, like fabrications."
AJ, you want to take over from here? Strange to see you silent given how much you hate stuff like this.
|
@laoman
""Indeed, his measurements are patterned after mine and using exactly the same measurement gear."
WRONG. He no longer uses what you use."
Oh yeh? What does he use?
|
"I just think that we need to give more credit to the imperfect listening tests that we all do. I have sat and A/B' d between sources like phono stages and DACs and knowing what they are had no influence on how they sounded. I wasn't invested either way. I truly wanted to know how they compared. Sometimes even forgetting which I had on which input. Sometimes I wanted the less expensive one to sound better for instance. And it didn't."
It doesn't matter if you are or are not invested in the outcome: you can still arrive at totally wrong conclusions. All I have to do is make one product louder than the other and get you to say it sounds better even if you were primed to think it wouldn't. And indeed, it can sound massively better with more detail, blacker backgrounds, etc. Yet, if I match levels that difference instantly disappears.
Our hearing is also bi-directional and highly elastic (variable) making such tests very difficult to do correctly in the manner you are going about it. Here is a real example.
Jason Victor Serinus is one of the stereophile reviewers who lives close to our audiophile group. He was kind enough to invite us to his home. Once there, we broke into two groups, taking turns to listen to a new amplifier he had under review. Group one went in and came out and without saying anything to us, we went and listened. There, Jason played his own amplifier against the unit under review. At the end, he asked which sounded better. Majority voted one way. I did not vote because I could not at all assess a difference in such a test.
We then adjourned and went back to where first group was. They immediately asked which amplifier we voted was better. The group expressed that to amazement of group one as the had picked the exact opposite! We are talking two groups of 10 to 15 audiophiles arriving at completely different conclusion after listening to the same comparison!
Clearly you can't have two versions of truth. So what went wrong? Jason said that the problem was the order. He had played the amplifiers in reverse order for our group as opposed to the first. This is a problem as we tend to scrutinize the sound of the second item in a comparison more as we pay more attention and hear more detail, etc. We get around this in proper blind test by a) randomizing what is playing and b) repeating the test enough times to rule out faulty voting.
Really, if casual tests were good enough we would do them all the time in industry and research community. But we don't because we know they generate completely wrong results. They just do. Until this is learned and really internalized, audiophiles will continue to make the wrong choices in their selection of audio gear. And waste money on tons of stuff that does nothing for the sound. The science of our perception and audio is conclusive here.
Having said all of this, what you do for yourself is fine. But please don't put it forward as the poster did with that "minion" comment as if you are on the side of right. You are anything but.
|
"I understand what you are saying but he said that he did not know brand or price and still found a difference, and that's good enough for me. It seems like you doubted his conclusions due to it not being a perfect blind test. People find that insulting. Rightly so. "
What do you mean "rightly so?" If heaven forbid you get cancer and you go to your doctor and say you are taking megavitamins and it is curing your cancer, you think him telling you that is not evidence of it working, you consider than an insult? I hope not. He wants reliable data, not anecdotes.
You say the test was not a "perfect blind." How do you know how blind it was? Did he match levels? Did he repeat it enough times to rule out chance? A one-time AB test without level matching generates nothing useful.
And comments like this tells me the test was not blind at all: "I can tell you that the Topping I listened to sounded like crap with female voices. So do not tell me like some of your minions post, that all well measuring Dacs sound the same.""
His bias toward cheap/chinese products is showing from a mile away. In addition to that, we know what he says is hugely improperable. I have tested the Topping DAC and its distortion and noise is below threshold of hearing. Against this landscape, he needs to provide far more than an anecdote.
Again, he could be right but the only way to prove it against a mountain of evidence to the contrary is to at least make a half plan to do a blind test. Don't do pretend blind tests. They are of no value. I cover all of this in a video I did after I got tired of industry people claiming that the tests they do are "blind:"
https://youtu.be/vRG8TaxGcbU
|
"Honestly - the report so far has no helpful descriptions or details about how things really sounded at the show, with a lack of descriptive detail. Also noting very limited praise for many systems we are familiar with, particularly with high cost systems. High cost systems can sound good too, yet there is limited reporting. "
They can. But I can only report what I heard based on music they played when I was there. Many people enjoy seeing what was there, and what music was played there. And a word or two about that experience. That you find no value in that is fine. Many of your fellow audiophiles disagree.
As I noted in those threads, at other shows manufacturers would pause and talk about the technology on display. No company did that so I had nothing to share on that front.
Other than this, I am not a paid reporter as to sit there and take copious notes. Many non-paid posters who cover every suite as I do just post pictures and nothing else.
Also keep in mind that these show reports are meant to be timely. Folks lose interest if you cover them weeks later. To that end, I spent two entire day and night preparing and posting what you saw as the show was going on. As it is, I was up until 2 or 3 am posting images, looking up songs, etc.
As to high end system, yes, they can be capable but if system is not optimized for the room -- and scant few were -- then the sound is not going to be that great. Ditto if they play whatever they want instead of asking what the audience wants to hear.
All in all, a few rooms did stand out and one was Dutch and Dutch. Stereophile reporter and local reporter Jason, agreed with the same and voted them as the best there was. So turns out you don't need to spend that much money to get superb sound (although $15K is not cheap).
|
"In fact measurements are just another way to be fooled. One might argue that knowing a piece measures well causes more bias than if we knew nothing about the measurements. So in fact the objectivists may be more subjective and biased and deluded than those that do not know a thing about the measurements. They think, oh, well, that DAC measured great on ASR so it must sound good. So it sounds good to them. "
First, we don't evaluate measurements in a vacuum. If I measure noise at -80 dB, I can demonstrate conclusively that it could be audible based on playback level. Conversely, if the noise level is at -120 dB, I can tell you that it is 5 dB better than best case threshold of hearing so absolutely inaudible. See how we combine measurements with psychoacoustics science which completely relies on listening tests?
As a more complex example, look at how much noise is bleeding into this power cable I measured:
That is the red/blue graph. Now pay attention to that green curve. That is threshold of hearing. Clearly the noise is below that for both samples. Ergo, they won't make an audible difference. Here measurements powerfully tell you what is going on.
In other cases, yes, if I showed distortion at -80 dB vs -130 dB, we can't quickly assess if the former truly has audible distortion to everyone's ears. As it happens, audiophiles are terrible at detecting non-linear distortions. So to them the -80 dB product could be just as transparent as the -130 dB one. What we can do is again, prove that the -130 dB distortion product is completely transparent to the source.
But here is the trick, and it is a good one, you can get superbly transparent for a lot less money than products with much less chance of transparency! Amazing progress has been made by companies that are dedicated to proper engineering and science to eradicate any audible impairments. A $100 DAC indeed can run circles around a $10,000 one, no ifs and buts about.
Again, the distortion and noise in the $10,000 DAC may not be audible to you. Which is fine. Just don't say that because it is expensive it must be better. Or that you did this and that listening test that proved the same. Both are completely faulty assumptions.
Members who frequent ASR don't just read a number or graph. After a short while, they start to learn the meaning behind them and more than capable to not run with "oh, it has lower distortion so it must sound better." That is a label you are incorrectly putting on us and doesn't reflect reality.
Hang around on ASR long enough and you will be exposed to incredible amount of discussion around audio science in all aspects. I guarantee you that you will know more about this hobby than spending years arguing with people elsewhere.
So please don't keep making stuff up about who we are and what we do. Learn who we are and what we do and then tell us it is wrong.
|
"The ASR site seems to confirm this by rarely even mentioning sound quality of a measured component and doesn't even try to find any correlation between Amir's measurements and sound quality."
Is that right? Here is my latest speaker review: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focal-solo6-st6-monitor-review.45784/
"On first playback, I was impressed by the dynamics and level of bass, in addition to clean sound. I could have lived with the speaker as is but thought I should play with EQ to see if I can improve on it:
Pulling down the 60 Hz hump resulted in "tighter" bass but then it was a bit light in that department and the highs stood out more. I dialed in the dip for the highs and that helped but still too much of a trade off. So I added the third filter in upper bass to fill that region. With all three there, I liked the sound better. Clarity was improved and vocals came more to the forefront. But I could see someone liking the stock sound as well given the small amount of adjustment here.
I could detect no distortion even after the clipping light came on. On that note, the above EQ postponed the onset of the light by a bit, getting me more volume. I could only detect some muddiness starting to set in as the clipping light was more on than off. Playing music with extreme sub-bass resulted in playback of such with mild amount of distortion. Many speakers either don't play these notes or severely distort them.
With the EQ in there, I could sit there and enjoy the speaker for hours."
This is not telling you how it sounded? And the significant correlation between measurements and listening test results?
Here is a recent headphone review: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dan-clark-audio-ether-flow-1-1-headphone-review.45821/
Dan Clark Audio Ether Flow 1.1 Listening Tests & EQ
The immediate impression was that of the somewhat exaggerated upper bass/warmth. You could listen to them as is because it is not annoying in any regard. But EQ is mandatory to bring out what this headphone can do. The complex shape of the deviations made it a bit difficult but I managed to get there up to a few kHz:
Strategy was a dip for the resonant peak and then two PEQs to boost the whole region. Upper bass was pulled down and low bass pulled up to taste. Depending on good your high frequency hearing is, you may want to play with pulling those resonant peaks down as well.
Me? I was satisfied and was blown away by the incredible fidelity I was hearing with those 5 filters. The track you see on the snapshot of Roon was to die for with amazing resolution and detail. You cold almost feel the strings courtesy of very nice spatial qualities.
The high sensitivity allowed my RME ADI-2 Pro to drive them up to as high a level as I wanted with thundering bass that resonated the cups and my ear! I wish I didn't have to take pictures of the headphone for the review so I could keep listening to them!
Let say that I did not expect to be able to correct the response as well as I did. It was tempting to just write off the headphone and not bother. But owner had told me to try so I am glad I did."
Translation: you haven't spent a quality minute on ASR to be making the claims you just did. Poster after poster uses talking points fed to them about what ASR is. Reality and facts seem to not be important.
|
Still you do not address the fact that you you continue to recommend products after they have been shown to have poor build quality. Ashamed or embarrassed perhaps?
To answer your question, Why do you not do your own research and look at Erin's site?l.
Addressing last part first, I told you that Erin uses the same Klippel NFS system that I have. Indeed, he purchased his after I did. You vehemently disagreed so I asked you to tell me what gear he is using. Clearly you got the answer: he uses the same machine and even same protocol and reporting. So in the future, please don't shoot from the hip without getting your facts straight first.
On the first comment, there is not one audio reviewer who provides what you are demanding. Stereophile, Absolute Sound, etc. all publish recommended yearly list of gear. Not once do they follow up with any reliability comments or corrections.
On my side, to anyone with common sense, it is clear that I am testing the performance of a product, not its short or long term reliability. If I see a problem during testing, I will absolutely stop, note it and review is aborted. See this example: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/behringer-b2031a-measurement-broken-sample.31717/
You also say I "keep" recommending. I don't do any such thing. I recommend a product based testing I performed at the time. Not at the current moment.
All of this said, if people bring it to my attention that something is seriously wrong, I will go back and address. At times, I have actually have gone and bought the product at my expense (if I still don't have it) and verify the issue. This is then noted and if I have leverage with a manufacturer, I put pressure on them to fix. Here again is an example: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-m500-dac-and-hp-amp-review.9606/post-822300
"I finally got a chance to confirm the problem with the right channel being driven by itself causing much higher distortion. Review is updated with it:
Recommendation of the product has been deleted in the review and members are cautioned about this problem.
I have also formally asked SMSL to respond to this issue."
When the response didn't come in a timely and proper manner, I pushed harder resulting in company setting up local firmware updates in both US and Europe.
Ultimately it is just one of me and hundreds of products being reviewed each. My job is to evaluate them from performance point of view using specialized equipment knowledge. You all bear the responsibility to figure out if the product is reliable or functional. Fortunately, ASR Forum is a wonderful resource for this. Review threads routinely never die with owners posting questions, comments, etc. Manufacturers routinely read and follow these threads as well. So while not ideal, what you are demanding is happening.
If you want more, then you need to become part of the solution than the problem. Don't keep throwing rocks and false talking points as what we are doing on ASR. Help support the activity so that over time, there can be more resources than just me to follow up on products and extend the reach of what we are doing.
|
" Knowing the measurements before listening causes objectivists to be anything but objective. They are already biased. "
Say that to your doctor next time he makes measurements of your health and then diagnoses what is wrong with you. Tell him to just trust his ears and hands. No need for X-ray, MRI, blood pressure, etc. You know, the measurement stuff that biases him.
For that matter, because you are a human being just like your doctor, surely you can diagnose what is wrong with you yourself. You don't need no measurements or someone else to tell you what is wrong with *you*.
|
@daveyf
If one has no real life frame of reference as to the sound of 'live' musical instruments in a non-amplified setting, then just relying on measurements might not be a bad idea.
Hi Dave. Long time no see. On your comment, measurements are a great idea no matter what. Ask any acousticians how to optimize the bass response in a room: they say to measure. It doesn't matter how much you know some music. Knowing that you have a peak at 40 and not 50 Hz won't come from that. It will come from measurements.
And of course, what is on the recoding is not a copy of the live experience. No microphone can capture what your two ears and a brain do in live music. And of course that is on top of all the manipulations done in mixing and mastering of music. It is best to think of a recording as a painting of real life, not a photograph. In that sense, familiarity with real instruments won't help you. This is why musicians as a rule are not audiophiles.
|
@audphile1
I just measured my interconnects.
To my surprise, Amir was wright. Nordost cables measure like 💩. The 1m pair is 99.9998 cm long. And the 2m pair is longer than the 1m pair.
Last I checked, your ruler wants nothing to do with your audio cables. So I suggest not forcing a marriage between them this way.
Also, I checked out a Nordost Tyr Coax cable and showed that it has slightly better performance than my generic cable: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nordost-tyr-2-review-coax-cable.35507/
Sadly for them and you, it didn't result in better sound:
Nordost Tyr2 Cable Listening Tests
I fed the output of the Topping D70s into Topping A90 Discrete. The latter then drove my Dan Clark Stealth headphone. This is as transparent of a chain as you can get. I then swapped between RG58 coax cable and Nordost TYR2. Switching time is long for super accurate assessment but I detected no difference whatsoever. My reference tracks sound as beautiful with either cable.
I suggest you sell it and get your money back. Not on the basis of my measurements mind you, but said ruler.....
|
"Effort and Value are two different things. The comments about needing to be "paid" in order to take notes at an audio show was telling. No need for notes, just listen, and report out what you hear. "
That is precisely what I did in my show report. I even put the music that I heard in the report. Here is the link again: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/amirs-2023-pacific-audio-fest-report-day-2.45942/
"Another classic in the form of Patricia Barber's Ode to Billie Joe
Neat channel separation. Good bass for such little speakers (I didn't know there was a woofer in the back at this point)"
[another suite]
Another Night · Cody High
Superb detail and dynamics. Excellent recording as I listen to it from youtube.
Essa Moça Tá Diferente (feat. Wilson Simoninha) · Bossacucanova · Wilson Simoninha · Chico Buarque · Chico Buarque
Nice drums!"
So I did and reported what I heard. If you had bothered to spend 30 seconds looking at my show report, you would have know that.
The poster apparently wanted me to write a full book report for every suite and hence my answer that I am not a journalist that gets paid by the word to do that.
Maybe next time I use ChatGPT to make up subjective remarks as to make some of you happy. Surely that would do a better job than word salads we get from such "reviewers."
|
"It is plain to see that Amir doesn’t like Erin and uses any reason he can to justify his logic even when it clearly goes against his other actions such as failure to delete/close other threads which contain links through ASR and his own part in playing "the game" by creating content he knows will create drama and fuel views, asking for donations, asking for likes/subscribers all while running a business that sells various brands."
Nonsense. I post a review almost every other day. Few are controversial things or created to create drama. Latest reviews were a DCA headphone and TP RA3 rackmount amplifier. The latter is an incredibly nice, state of the art amplifier with beautiful display and input selection going for just $229.
Hardly anything I test has anything to do with my company whose business is custom integration for high-end residential and commercial projects. If there is such a conflict, it is noted at the start of the review, you know, the transparency you talked about:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jbl-ac25-speaker-review.43520/
"NOTE: our company, Madrona Digital is a dealer for Harman products (and hence JBL) for custom integration business. So while there is no benefit to us one way or the other how this review goes, feel free to read whatever bias you want into my subjective remarks."
This is how the review ended:
"I can't provide a recommendation one way or the other without evaluating the AC25 with its companion filtering. Wish the company would make this more clear in its marketing material."
You are also out of line with that "asking likes." I never, ever do that in my videos. There is not one mention of such thing in the video or even in the notes below it. The videos are presented as pure information for people to watch and enjoy, free of ads, or any kind of interruptions.
It seems you are so used to people trying to milk others for such things that you assumed I do the same when the facts are completely against your claims.
|
"Some people hear.
Some people listen.
Some people measure.
Some people know the difference."
We measure and listen. Seems to be a better strategy than just listen. But sure, some still think they rather know less about their purchases than more.... And think they have such super human hearing ability that have no need for any instrumentation. I get it.
|
"Amir says Erin's video was removed because it was clickbait and he doesn't want anyone to earn money by having their videos shared on ASR. "
His video was NOT removed. For heaven's sake, why don't you guys spend 10 seconds fact checking stuff you write??? Here is the thread again for all to see:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/erins-top-5-speakers-regardless-of-price-june-2023.45988/#post-1639462
All I said in there was this as a follow up from another poster wondering if he has "marketing intentions:"
"Hate clickbait titles like that. It seems every second there is another like that. This whole monetization business drives creators to make so many of these."
That comment got a lot of people to throw themselves over the railroad tracks defending Erin and getting quite personal to boot. So I eventually closed the thread since there was no substance that was being discussed from his video anyway.
"As for clickbait, let's all remember how many back-and-forth videos Amir has created about Danny @ GR Research and Paul McGowan @ PS Audio. Amir knew those would get views."
And what would views do for me on a channel that has no monetization, ads or sponsorship? Nothing. I do those videos because members and non-members ask for an answer to claims made by Danny, Paul, etc. In every case I work hard to make sure there are substantive technical information. They are not, "here are my top 5 speakers." No definition of clickbait applies to my video whereas it is clear as a day that it applies to Erin's. Erin does want the views, the ads, the sponsorships, the channel growth, etc. Again, those are fine for him. Just don't use ASR to promote content like this. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for you all to grasp.
|
"Quote: If you have not already, please go to my youtube page and subscribe. It won’t make me any money but will work to improve our influence in youtube world:"
Oh, that is what you meant. Clever of you to put that in the footnote. That comment came about because of people saying if someone has more subscribers, he must be more right. So I thought I put in a request or two in the text on ASR for the last couple of videos.
But as I stated, no video has any such requests unlike what you claimed and implied in your post. So you can't possibly compare me to other youtubers who stop the flow of the video, only to beg for subscribers, likes, notifications, etc.
|
"But Amir and (some of) his dedicated followers conveniently ignore all these objective facts and cast doubt on others so they can prop Amir up as the only person capable of providing honest and accurate reviews."
No one ignores such a thing. Indeed, the opposite is true in the number of people on ASR who defend Erin, including the very thread you were talking about (his top 5 video). Neither me, or them think Erin's videos are dishonest in any way.
The difference simply comes from a concept that you don't want to accept: ASR is not meant to be used to help someone else monetize their content. No forum allows this. You will get banned immediately on any other forum if you post a video and immediately asked for donations.
Yet, I allow Erin's videos to be posted. Other fora would just ban any such links and go about their business.
Bottom line, I love what Erin is doing as far as generating great objective data for speakers. I didn't love it when he attempted to use ASR to grow his activities and pay off the cost of his gear. I can't let him do this without the floodgates opening to everyone else wanting to do it.
I think the concept of a pure, non-commercial site like ASR is so foreign to people that they just assume there must be more going on. Well, there isn't. We have created a unique social experiment where members and some companies send gear to me, and I test and report on it. I am fortunate enough to have had a long (and hard) career in tech as not need to make a living from it. This gives me incredible freedom to do things that others can't. I for example vote that 2/3 of the gear I test. Only 1/3 gets my recommendation.
No one can survive such stats, including Erin by the way. But I am not here to make friends. I am here to provide transparency with respect to performance of audio gear. You know, the thing you said you wanted but are working hard to cast aside.
Good news is that countless fellow audiophiles of yours are seeing the value and helping us grow by reading the content, spreading the good word and sending in more gear to be tested. That upsets a few of you here. Why? Because your casual evaluation of audio is being proven wrong in objective testing. So what to do? You can start learning what audio is really about. Or complain I guess....
|
"@amir_asr You do ask for donations! Your blindspots are immense."
So is yours in not seeing the difference between me and others. The donations are completely optional. No one gets exclusive access for donating as every other youtuber is doing by putting content behind patreon, etc. I detest that and am never going to force people to pay to get information.
The ask for the donation is also a one-linear at end of text reviews. Nothing of the sort exists in any of the videos.
Donations help me feel better when I am sitting there packing boxes, taping and labeling and schlepping them to FedEx. They also pay to buy gear that I have no personal interest in testing.
Unlike others, that is where it ends. No one is subjected to ton of ads as they read ASR or watch my videos. No monetized links as to cloud the real intent behind giving positive reviews. No company sponsorships as to make me beholding to them.
And it is not like if I didn't ask for the donations you all become fans. That is just another made up thing to complain about.
|
"@amir_asr Why then did you allow Erin’s video only to close the thread? People aren’t allowed to dissent? I was considering sending you some gear to review that would have filled a nice gap in your informational catalog. Not anymore after I’ve seen how you conduct yourself here.
Clearly you are not here to make friends. 😂"
I have no catalog to fill. What do you think I run, a department store?
Currently there are probably 30 to 60 items here for review and the backlog has stayed like that forever. You should send me gear because *you* want to know how it performs and you think it would benefit your fellow audiophiles. To the extent you have no desire to do either, you are no friend of mine either.
|
"@amir_asr I dont think he was asking for a book. It would be great to hear about these speakers but you provided no detail other than things like "nice recording" that gives zero insight into what you liked or didnt like."
A lot of things would be "nice to have." I am not your man to give you all this. I have my own life to live and am not going to invest 10X more energy in providing a show report that some of you are demanding, while at the same time throwing every rock you have at me.
People who read my show notes enjoyed seeing the pictures, the commentary and importantly, discover of new music. Some members were kind enough to make Tidal, Spotify, etc. playlists out of them. You want more? Go do your own show report.
This self entitlement is really getting out of hand.....
|
"So you deny that knowing the measurements before listening may cause bias?"
You are asking a loaded question as to say, "if measurements can bias listening tests, let me use my eyes just as well to do my listening tests." Answer to that is that if you know such biases exists, then you better not do any sighted listening tests.
On my end, when such knowledge can create corrupt outcomes, then I don't even do the listening test. Example is DACs. Unless distortion is very high, I don't do sighted listening tests.
In other cases, measurements provide incredible value in creating the proper listening test. If for example I know from measurements that a headphone amplifier has trouble driving low impedance headphones, I use that information to drive a such a headphone with content specifically designed to push that corner of fidelity.
For speakers/headphones, it goes without saying that we can tell the difference between them so blinding is not needed on that front. What I do in my listening tests there is to use the measurement as a guide to see if I can improve the response using EQ. If I can, then I publish that EQ for others to try as well. Knowing measurements there is therefore a wonderful tool just as it is for your doctor.
People who claim they should listen first and measure second, just have it wrong. They will then be giving you a random subjective opinion in a sighted test with no reliability factor. Who is to say their ears tell the truth? Or that the speakers are setup in the way that the room is not dominating the response? Or the content? I have done a video on this very topic: "Reviewing Speakers - Measurements and Listening Tests"
https://youtu.be/_2cu7GGQZ1A
In there I show published studies involving professional audio reviewers and how unreliably and poorly done their assessments are. If they can't produce reliable evidence for speakers, what hope is there for amps, DACs, etc.? Answer is none.
So once again, measurements are your friend, not your enemy. Don't try to convince yourself otherwise with an argument like that.
|
"«Claims that differences in upstream components
(e.g., source or amplifier) can be heard even when the
system is bottle-necked by a mediocre downstream
component (e.g., speaker) shouldn’t seem surprising—
given that the NEP ( neurals excitation pattern) can resolve 1 part in 10 at the 40 power » Millind N. Kunchur"
Kunchur has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to matters related to audio. His expertise is in physics and has nothing to do with this domain. I have done a full video on his last paper with totally incorrect test protocols:
Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review
https://youtu.be/a0p3D_Gv6IY
In every field, you can find people who write official looking stuff that will impress the layman. Don't fall for it. Learn the topic yourself and then you see that such "experts" are not that at all.
|
"@amir_asr ever consider changing ASR to Amirs Measurements Science Review, since zero listening tests are/will ever be done?"
Not at all because there is a ton of discussion of audio science. Audio Science is not just about blind tests. But sure, we have a number of blind tests posted.
DAC blind ABX in-home test: Hegel h390 internal DAC vs Mytek Manhatten ii DAC
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dac-blind-abx-in-home-test-hegel-h390-internal-dac-vs-mytek-manhatten-ii-dac.37447/
Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-listening-test-2-neumann-kh-80-vs-jbl-305p-mkii-vs-edifier-r1280t-vs-rcf-arya-pro5.43343/
I have also been posting blind test results for literally decades. Here is a sample:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav
18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)
If you believe in blind tests, how come you are not arguing with folks here saying they are not useful? Not convenient for business AJ?
Yet another example of someone claiming what we do ats ASR, only to trivially be shown to not have any idea whatsoever.
|
