He is saying simple "spec numbers" are no good and he is right. You want to see full measurement graphs so that you can see the tested parameter varied. Of course this is what I do at ASR day in and day out. Here is the power measurements of an amp:
Note how I provide references of a mediocre and stated of the art amp at the same time to give you context. Without it, you can get lost in see of numbers he is showing you.
He then makes a bunch of other comments about power mattering at micro-watts which is neither here, nor there. First, he calls them "distortion" when in reality that part of the graph (sloping down) is completely dominated by noise. Distortion only takes over when the graph starts to move up which only happens near clipping (exception are amps without feedback or distortion-factory ones).
I also don't believe in this "first watt" business. Speakers have become smaller to fit in homes better over the years and this has made them much less sensitive. As a result, 1 watt is not going to do anything for you. For this reason, I have standardized on 5 watts as a low value power output:
Notice the comprehensive dashboard that not only gives you distortion, but also the amplifier gain and full spectrum of noise+distortion. The latter lets you apply perceptual analysis to determine audibility.
Bottom line, yes, run fast from any single value specs thrown out there without detailed data as I have presented. As a practical matter, for non-speaker products, you do need to stick to one source of measurements. In my case, I have tested over 1000 audio products of this class in the last few years. So you can compare with confidence.
For speakers (and headphones to some extent) we have quality measurement standard in the form of ANSI/CEA-2034. With this data, you can indeed compare one source to another. This is what it looks like:
In on graph you get on-axis and (important) off-axis response. And directivity.
You don't get distortion so I have added that with two (and sometimes three) standardized levels:
I have over 200 speakers measurements (I think) and others have posted measurements using similar scheme. That hole then is being filled nicely although the process remains more expensive than for electronics.
|
You have to know what you are doing with in-room frequency response. Otherwise, you have more than useless information. Dr. Toole says it best in his wonderful book: Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms
Mind you, you absolutely need to measure your room and correct (the right) frequency response errors. Just don't chase measurements without fully understanding how our perception works and difference between one microphone and two ears. The internet is replete with wrong measurements and approaches to rooms.
|
@kota1
I am agreeing with "Good read: Why comparing specifications is pointless"
That was the clickbait headline. You didn't bother reading or understanding the article saying and showing measurements are absolutely useful. It is the difference between useless "specs" and real measurements.
|
You take Revel or some other good measuring speaker, put it in a room with hard flat surfaces and you don’t need a FR chart to know that it ain’t singing like it could.
What is the point of having a golf swing panther DAC in a headless panther room? You tell me...
I did tell you. You need to spend time actually learning what sound reproduction in room involves. Measurements of rooms can generate incredibly bad decisions especially when it comes to "treatments." Ask any top acousticians what they think of DIY efforts and they will universally say they are done poorly. And that people slap this and that on the wall, routinely creating dead rooms. First thing they do is rip everything out and start over.
Audiophiles can learn to treat room modes however. There, measurements do tell the truth. Fixing those when combined with an excellent speaker creates wonderful results. No need to go and create an ugly room full of padded walls and such.
|
Unless you get that one the way you want I would agree, the rest of the specs are pointless.
Who are you agreeing with, yourself? Only in audio some folks think knowing less about what they are buying is a benefit to them. Get the manufacturers to back their fidelity claims.
That aside, OP said nothing about specs not being useful. Measurements tell you if devices do nothing for your sound. How much noise an amp can generate. How much power it has, etc. If you don't know this then you have a lot of learning to do.
|
@amir_asr
The measurements you do on speakers is actually the least useful, see:
Nope. They are incredibly useful in predicting listener preference of speakers in room. That is why those measurements are standardized. And considered critical for speaker design.
As I noted, you absolutely need to measure your room as well. It is just that the knowledge of what on there requires extreme care. See for example this article I published on room reflections you talk about:
|
You state "audiophiles" can learn to treat room modes. Does that include you???
I did my learning many years back. I now I teach others. Suggest picking up a copy of Dr. Toole's book if you really want to learn the topic. Otherwise, please don't waste our time googling/cutting and pasting stuff. It is too obvious that you lack any experience in this field.
|
@amir_asr
OK, so please share the measurements of YOUR room so we can all benefit from how you address sound reproduction.
This is not a thread about my room. Or any room for that matter. It is about audio gear specs/measurements. You seem to have no ability to stay on topic.
But maybe you share Earl's room measurements since you quoted him. Do you have that?
|
@kota1
I think he is just jealous of my "nodes" :)
You have no idea of your "nodes." You are not understanding what Audyssey Pro software is showing you. It is not remotely what you think it is. You are completely in the dark right now with respect to your room response post EQ. Even pre-EQ, you don't know what you are looking at.
|
@kota1
@amir_asr , I walked the walk, my "nodes" are fine as you can see in my profile. As for yours, IDK what you are teaching but apparently you still have a lot to learn.
In your profile? You mean this?
If so, you have so much to learn.....
|
@ghdprentice
I have no idea what you gain from your deceptive site and posts. I like charts, but they must explain things that are not easily explained otherwise. But you are adding no value for folks that are attempting to build great sounding systems.
Measurements absolutely show things that are not clearly "explained" otherwise. Take a speaker I measured recently:
You should be able to easily tell the troubles in the 2 to 3 kHz even if I had not noted them. Things like directivity may be foreign to you but it is all explained in every review. I hope you agree that know if a speaker has colorations/faults is very important to know. And not something you are going to get out of the random Joe reviewer.
If you don't understand these measurements, then you can watch videos I have done where I explain it all. Here is one:
If you have specific concerns, let me know and I will address them. Until then, huge number of audiophiles have benefited from objective and reliable information on ASR. We have grown to double the size of this site despite being much younger. That didn't happen because people share your opinion. It happened because they learned the information, modified their purchasing behavior, and are much happier for it.
|
@kota1
@ghdprentice , he doesn’t have the goods, he is deceptive because he has to be, if he had the goods he would post them. He wrote a full page boasting about his creds and not even one mention of his own gear?
My system and link to it including measurements was has been posted multiple times. Here it is again:
If he had even a halfway decent system he would be just as braggadocious.
No, I am a private person and don't want to walk around bragging about my own system. I only post it out of necessity where a test requires it as it did here:
I let you go on thinking I don't want to post it to see how far you go with it. Boy did you go far even though so often the answer was given! You truly lack common sense and skills to have debates like this.
|
@kota1
I think he is just jealous of my "nodes" :)
Once again, you have no idea of how your room measures. You post this:
This is the output of Audyssey Pro. You made no measurements of your own so have no idea what this represents so let me explain.
On the left in black are what Audyssey measured as your room response. This shows the usual room modes and other response errors. Alas, there are no scales. You have no ideal how big or small those variations are. Further, you don’t know how much smoothing is applied which again, can hide issues.
Audyssey proceeds to create its correction filters. Those filters are based on what is shown in red on the right. It however, NEVER shows you the response after applying those targets!!! That’s right. Your room response is not remotely like that. Those red curves are the "targets" used, not what is achieved.
Don’t believe me? Here is a test of Auddyssey I performed with my system/room where I show what it says it did versus reality:
Black is the response with no EQ. Light pink is what Audyssey claims to have done. The reality/measured response is in red. As you see, they are NOT at all the same. And that is with me applying a lot of smoothing to actual measurements to help make it look similar.
Most importantly here, you have screwed up and did not create the proper target curve. Audyssey by default makes two major mistakes:
1. Uses a flat target curve. This is perceptually wrong and will make your system very bass light post correction. The proper target curve is what I show in my measurement above. It has increased bass response to make it sound more balanced and natural. Formal research shows that without this fix, Audyssey actually makes the system sound worse, not better:
This is the result of listening tests from that study:
Audyssey using the same target curve you did is #6 all the way to the right. It produced lower listener preference than no EQ!!!
2. You left the so called "BBC dip" in the target. This is that little notch in mid-frequencies. It is a mistaken belief that speakers in general are too hot in that region and so response should be pulled down. This is completely wrong. You need to override it and make that flat like the target I created (light pink).
Net, net, your system is improperly equalized. And you do NOT have any kind of measurements for you to understand it. Learn the topic for heaven’s sake.
|
@kota1
@amir_asr indeed, all the stuff you posted about Audyssey is for the consumer version with the $20 paid app. The version I use has a different license (around $200), a calibrated microphone with a serial number that gets linked to that license, and software for PC.
I have had the Pro version for some 15 years. Everything I told you applies to it. You must use the editor to create a proper target curve. And learn to measure yourself to understand what it is really doing.
The fact that you post that output thinking your room has that kind of flat response shows that you have no idea what you are doing. All you did was run some automated calibration and blindly convinced yourself it must be perfect now. Instead of posting here, learn to measure your room. If you don't know how, I have written a tutorial on Room EQ Wizard:
Until then, you have NOT post a single measurement of your room response. None. Come back when you have one.
|
@tantejuut
The problem is a lack of standards in specs and measurement methods between companies and reviewers.
This is part of the problem. The biggest issue is that companies are either not measuring, or have rudimentary/obsolete gear for doing so. Perfect example is Schiit. To save money they had bought this old, obsolete audio analyzer. Once they saw my measurements, at first started to complain, throw rocks, etc. Then they got their senses and not only bought the same Analyzer I have, but substantially improved the performance of their gear. They now publish Audio Precision reports for every product they release -- quite admirable.
Even major companies like Denon are using and producing same measurements as me although sadly they are not releasing them to consumers.
A big barrier is the cost of this gear. THe hardware is around $30,000. For a company though, it is reasonable to purchase but they don't feel pressure yet. But they will as the value of measurements continues to broaden to more and more consumers.
|
@jerryg123
@cleeds @ghdprentice @kota1 you all nailed it and are calling a spade a ♠️.
I have never been on the ASR site but have seen the musings of Amir’s followers, and that told me enough. Watched on YouTube video of Amir’s and that was enough for me.
How about you go and read a review on ASR and watch a video or two before forming an opinion? They will be devoid of this kind of bickering I am responding to.
|
@kota1
@amir_asr you said:
Even major companies like Denon are using and producing same measurements as me although sadly they are not releasing them to consumers.
OK, let’s take a look at the Sound United "Experience Center" where they test the gear as it is meant to be used, in a proper setup. You have two speakers in an untreated room with a mic and a PC. Your in room FR that looks like the Mississippi river during a hurricane.
You don’t have the proper conditions to even listen to MCH gear much less review it, you know that, please stop, ok?
You have gotten a lot wrong there. Let me start at the top. Every Denon and Marantz review is done with prior consultation with the company. See my last review of Denon AVR-X3800H for example:
And this statement: "I grabbed a preliminary set of measurements from the DAC section of the 3800H and ran it by the company. Within typical margin of error, the measurements were the same as company's own."
So we have the company being fine with my work, but you think something is wrong with my testing?
No, there is nothing wrong. I perform 2-channel testing because a) a lot of people want to use their AV products for music also and b) I use 2-channel systems as the standard that the AV industry needs to strive to match.
Keep in mind that nothing different happens in an AVR because you have 2 speakers or 10. Each is calibrated independent of any other channel. What more than 2 channel does however, is screw up your perception of fidelity. Research shows the more channels in playback system, the less critical listeners get.
The above is the reason behind you screwing up the response of your system completely yet still think it is all fine. You are lost in the spatial qualities of multi-channel, not realizing tonality is screwed up, and bass sucked out of the system. The research behind this is solid as a rock:
|
@juanmanuelfangioii
How about you listen to the equipment you review instead of just measuring befor formulating an opinion.
I listen to well over half of all devices I review. Every speaker, headphone, headphone amp/dac, gets listened to for example. Seeing how I review nearly 300 audio devices a year, that is a hell of a lot of listening tests! Certainly more than any other reviewer out there by far.
So you are completely wrong about that. How did you get your information anyway? Just listened to someone else's talking point?
|
@cleeds
This guy @amir_as is just the latest Youtuber wannabe guru to use Audiogon as a tool to drive traffic to their website where they hope to generate revenue.
My youtube channel has no monetization (ads) even though I am fully qualified to do so. ASR likewise has no advertising, no sponsors, no nothing. So there is absolutely no gain for me.
In return however, every time I post here, it generates traffic, more ads for you to see, etc. So contribution is one-way in favor of Audiogon.
Regardless, I am only posting in a couple of threads because ASR was mentioned specifically by name.
|
@jerryg123
@amir_asr Stick to your base. Kids with limited financial resources.
Oh? So only rich old people hang around this forum? Didn't know! Others agree? How old are you? And how wealthy are you?
|
@juanmanuelfangioii
@amir_asr So how do the folks at other review based organizations do it? Sterophile, PTA, M&S, PF, ... I know they are better equipped in both staff and technology, and they are dedicated to one mission or job, Reviews.
Quality not quantity. You just validated what many are saying here.
You have this backward. I bring the quality. They bring fiction. Anyone can write a word salad about how something "sounds." You have no way of verifying anything they have said. Their reviews are also universally positive. Here are my stats from the ASR Review Index:
Total Devices Tested by Amir 1,177
Total Devices Recommended by Amir 495
Recommended Devices By Amir % 36%
As you see, I find issues with 2/3 of the products I test. I have the freedom to say so because I either buy the product myself or a membrer sends it. I am not beholding to a manufacture who sends me gear to give a positive review.
But let's say their motives are pure. Their listening tests are not worth bits that are used to store them online. Here is how they did when testing speakers -- something that should be easy for them -- in formal double blind study:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html
You see how poorly the audio reviewers did? They could not remotely provide consistent results of listening to the same set of speakers. You would want to put your trust in that???
When I perform listening tests, it is not for writing novels. It is to focus and quantify keep weaknesses in products. And to see if measurements are correctly predicting performance.
What is great here is that audiophiles are appreciating the value of proper audio reviews as opposed to fiction. Here is our traffic compared to stereophile.com for example:
We have 3X the reach despite being much younger site. You want to continue to live in the past, you can. But please don't ask me to feed you nonsense in my reviews.
|
@westcoastaudiophile
"Every Denon and Marantz review is done with prior consultation with the company"
LOL! -what is your price tag for “agreed" review?
Well, you tell me. Here is the conclusion of the Denon AVR-X3800H Review:
Conclusions
I had high hopes going into this review thinking the company had seen the advantage its superior objective measurements in the past and would try to capitalize on them. Sadly, the reverse seems to be true with the DAC section taking a large step backward. Considering that the 3800 costs $500 more than 3700H, this is very surprising to me. Yes, inflation has a lot to do with that but surely the eye needed to be focused on making sure they at least met the same level of performance as last generation.
The good news is that the amplifier seems to be same design as last generation and has only taken a small hit.
Denon had been my "goto" recommendation for AVRs and even AVPs. When anyone asked me about either, I would just say "get a Denon AVR." While subjectively the performance of this new generation may be similar, I can't accept the regression in objective measured performance.
It is with much sadness that I cannot recommend the Denon AVR-X3800H.
You think this is something they would pay for? I would think not.
I have an informal agreement with D&M to run my measurements by them in advance of a review. It is an exception to the rule of testing membership products. I am not sure of their reaction to the latest review so maybe they break the relationship for the future, I don't know. What I do know is that the few of you keep shooting from the hip trying to sow discord. :(
|
@kota1
I am not being critical of your ability to use a laptop and a mic. The fact that Denon’s own measurements matches yours is good The issue I am bringing to your attention is obvious, you have to review it under the conditions it is designed to be used. You can’t do that with just 2 speakers, OK?
No, it is not "OK." I just got done explaining all of this to you. Go watch that video. If you don't understand it, ask questions. If you understand it but disagree, come back with comprehensive research that I showed there why you don't want to test multichannel EQ systems in multi-channel.
But maybe you think I should do what other "reviewers" do. Play some movies through the AVR and write fiction about how said movie soundtrack sounded. I don't do stuf like that. Go and seek our those sources.
Finally, I have a separeate dedicated theater. If there ever was a need, I can test in there but there never has been. No company has asked for that either and that list includes some of the highest-end AV companies such as Trinnov, Storm, etc.
So don't keep bringing up these lay arguments. Go and fix the sound of your system. Measure what it is producing now and post that. You are the best example of how science and engineering can help you. You screwed up following online stuff you heard. Now is your chance to improve your system sound and instead are wasting time with all these complaining....
|
|
@jerrybj
Why would you even bother coming here Amir?
Well, it certainly isn't for hugs and kisses from the few of you this way! 😁
I came here because someone here created a thread saying Audio Science Review is a "cult" and is not open to any contrarian views. Since then, he and a few others have been working overtime to prove this forum is that way! There has also been a lot of misinformation which as you see, I have been correcting.
This thread is about measurements which is core to what we do at ASR. Perhaps for that reason a poster flagged me yet again so here I am.
Why are you in this thread? If you are not valuing measurements, and don't want to read my posts, surely you would want to hang around rest of the forum than this one.
Go back to where people appreciate what you say, and reinforce what you believe to be true. Hopefully a few others here follow you.
I am pretty sure people appreciate what proper audio science and engineering says about audio in here as well. A number of people have chimed in public and in private.
But yes, I do wonder at times whether my time is best spent elsewhere. To the extent there are no more misinformation is posted about me and ASR forum, I may indeed fade away....
|
@ghdprentice
I would not begin to consider evaluating a single new component without listening to it for a couple months.
I appreciate that you think you need that much time to evaluate a component. But you and I are not similarly situated for many reasons:
1. I understand the full design and architecture of what I am testing. This allows me to focus on what their weakness and strengths are. An example of the former is a powered speaker. These routinely have amplifiers that run out of gas before their drivers do. So I test for that. I am not just shooting in the dark thinking any and all things need to be evaluated.
2. I use measurements which help immensely with #1 above. They show me objectively and reliability where I need to look. If a speaker has a dip in 2 kHz, I use equalization to fill that. I then perform AB testing to determine how audible that is. Measurements are quick. Electronics/tweaks take an afternoon. Speakers take about a day. With that in hand, and knowledge of the product, I am able to make very rapid progress in listening tests.
3. I have tested well over 1000 devices in the last 3 to 4 years. That has enabled me to build methods and systems for fast and reliable comparisons. For example, I have special music tracks that instantly tell me how well a speaker reproduces sub-bass. I know how the competitors to the speakers perform relative to what I am testing.
Audiophiles and "professional reviewers" throw random music at equipment with no aim or direction. So no wonder it takes them so much longer to learn something about the product. At the end they may just be guessing.
4. I am professionally trained critical listener. I also know psychoacoustics and research in this area that says long-term testing is completely unreliable. See the digest of this AES paper:
Here is the punchline there:
The results were that the Long Island group [Audiophile/Take Home Group] was unable to identify the distortion in either of their tests. SMWTMS's listeners also failed the "take home" test scoring 11 correct out of 18 which fails to be significant at the 5% confidence level. However, using the A/B/X test, the SMWTMS not only proved audibility of the distortion within 45 minutes, but they went on to correctly identify a lower amount. The A/B/X test was proven to be more sensitive than long-term listening for this task.
Or if you are more comfortable with video, a complete tutorial in listener training, my ability find small impairments and explanation of above paper:
5. Adaptation. Our brain adapts to its environment. Think of the your computer fan running. After a bit, you forget about it. This is adaptation in play. Same thing happens with say, a speaker that is bright. Listen to it for a while and you adapt and no longer think it is bright. It becomes the "new normal." This is why speakers rank the same in formal studies regardless of the room they are tested in. Your brain learns to listen through the room. From point of view of reviewing, you want to give the true nature of the sound, not what you have adapted to.
Dr. Toole explains this effect very well in his wonderful book:
I could go on but I hope you get the message that I follow the science and research in what I do. What you and other reviewers do is based on lay impressions and what others have told you. You have no proof point that you are creating reliable results. Indeed, research shows as I post earlier, that professional reviewers are terribly unreliable in their assessment of speaker sound.
So you do what you want to do. But unless you can prove your methodology to be right, and better, there is no argument here.
|
@kota1
If you want to get "schooled by Toole", check out his room.
Maybe you should. Earlier you said this:
"You take Revel or some other good measuring speaker, put it in a room with hard flat surfaces and you don’t need a FR chart to know that it ain’t singing like it could."
His room has plenty of hard surfaces, right? And he has the identical Revel Salon 2 speakers I have. First you said such a setup sounds terrible but now put forth his room as an example of good sounding room? You see any "acoustic treatments" there? You don't. Reason is that you don't need it to get superb sound.
|
@kota1
Isn't there a lot of flutter echo?
Flutter echo? In a room with open floor plan like mine or Dr. Toole's? Do you even know what that is? Clearly not. I have never seen anyone in these argument contradict himself left and right like you do.
|
@jerrybj
I’ve only been in this audio game for 46 years, Amir.
What annoys most are two things:
1. Absolutes, with no tolerance for possibilities. Things are this way, the earth is flat etc.
2. Those who emphatically believe my experience is invalid, and our sanity is questionable at best.
Your sanity is not remotely questioned. You simply have not read and understood what audio research and engineering has been telling us for decades. Instead you trust your gut feeling about technical matters.
As to your 46 years, I am close behind you. Years ago when MP3 came out, I compressed some tracks into it and expected to sound horrible. I was shocked that despite being an audiophile for decades, I could not tell lossy compression from the source. I took months of training for me to be able to do that. Sometime later we used a large group of audiophiles at the company to conduct blind tests of the same. They all did very poorly and lost out easily compared to our trained listeners (including myself) in blind tests.
And it doesn't matter what you hate. Audiophiles routinely hate it when what they think they "heard" is proven to be otherwise. It doesn't make proper analysis that led to that outcome wrong. It shows that you need to dispense with bad protocols used in evaluating audio and learn how your hearing works. I had to do that years ago. That is the difference between us: I accepted science had a lot to offer me and I started over. You are sticking to your beliefs. Why? Because you hate what it says to you? That is not the way to conduct your life....
|
@oddiofyl
I listened to several DACs from $1500 to $6k and guess what? They all sounded different, but they all sounded quite good.
You didn't "listen" to them. You included your eye and the rest of your senses. So yes, we do have to guess what you heard since you didn't know to just uses your ears.
The Lab 12 specs are straight out of the 90's but it has such great tone and lack of glare that you can listen for hours on end.
Maybe. Maybe not. I can and do listen to my systems for hours on end. As do many others here with completely different DACs including the ones you say have glare. See the problem? What you claim something about audio in a public forum and want to be convincing, you need to provide back up. I do that in every one of my posts here as you see.
|
@kota1
Please come check out the thread I started on an Atmos build, you NEED it.
Well, looks like no one else needs it as you only have a couple of responses and that is that. I am sure plenty of people here would throw up on the idea of upmixing stereo music to multichannel/atmos. I personally find the effect appealing at first but quickly loose interest. It is cool that others like it as it is a preference thing. But it is not for me so I am not going to engage you there. Best of luck in getting others here to pay attention.
But see folks? How I get asked over and over again to engage with them here?
|
@kota1
The Kota and the Toole are "critically listening" in immersive audio, please enjoy listening however you like over at "dry wall studios".
Dr. Toole is using upmixing for enjoyment, not for evaluating performance of any product. For that, he 1000% believes in testing one speaker at a time in double blind setting, not his home.
For your part, you have failed to explain why you are championing his room when it is a normal living room with hard surfaces and no acoustic products. Dr. Toole is no witness for your case:
"Some reflected sound is good. Sometimes a lot of the right kind is even better. Concert halls are deliberately reflective, highly reverberant, spaces. This is my “classical” listening room in our custom-built Canadian home. Conceived as a space for enjoying large, spatially involving, works of music, it was the largest “concert hall” I could afford at the time. The very neutral, essentially omnidirectional, Mirage M1s “became” the orchestra and the room became a seamless extension of the recorded space. It provided a very satisfying, involving, experience. Because of the designed-in irregular scattering surfaces, the heavy carpet and thick felt underlay brought the reverberation time down to under 0.5s so the room sounded much less “live” than one would think. It was a nice-sounding space, pleasant to be in. Late at night I have been known to sit in the dark with a glass of good Scotch and listen to non-classical involving pieces of music like Dire Straits “Brothers in Arms” played at high level. I miss this room. Elsewhere in the house was a 7-channel home theater with very few reflections but a very good multichannel upmixer and spatial synthesizer, a Lexicon CP-1 – this was 1988."
No one should feel obligated to turn their everyday listening rooms into padded cells and ugly acoustic products. Normal furnishings can act as acoustic features to serve similar purpose per above. Now, if you have a dedicated empty room for music/movie listening, then yes, you do want to put treatment there because otherwise its RT60 will be too high although even that can be cool effect for orchestral or big band music.
The key to good sound in such places is a great speaker. Such a speaker will have off-axis response that is similar to on-axis so the mixing of the two does not cause a problem. Reflections laterally will then sound good and add the feeling of spaciousness which many of us crave.
Please, please don't follow videos/articles from companies selling acoustic products, trying to scare you off with "reflections are bad." Per Dr. Toole statement above, and entire chapter in his book, that is absolutely wrong.
|
@jerrybj
Well Amir, I hadn't expected your arrogance. Your assumptions are unpalatable.
This is what arrogance looks like: that the entire body of audio science, research and engineering doesn't apply to the sound coming out of your audio systems. That objective measurements and controlled testing have no value. That some magical force in the universe is intervening in audio and only in audio to create experiences that cannot be explained by a shred of physics, electronics, psychoacoustics, etc. This, is arrogance to the extreme. Not me explain all of this to you.
And oh, I believe you when you say your system sounds great. The problem is you thinking alternative DACs don't and they are for the reasons you mentioned. This, is the problem.
|
@jerryg123
@kota1 your should know by now, Amir is all knowing and the GOD OF AUDIO.
I am not. I am however great student of audio science, research and engineering. This is why I am able to back everything I say with independent research. And why you or other reviewers like you, cannot. Their opinion is expressed and demanded to be believed. No amount of explaining to them simple things like only using your ears to evaluate audio systems sinks in. They stomp their feet, get angry, demand that the truth not be spoken.
What is really strange is common sense is absent as well. You keep saying you don't want me here, then throw out fighting words like what I am responding to. Or arguments that can be trivially shown to be wrong.
|
@coralkong
He's pandering to people pretending to be audiophiles who are desperate to think their inexpensive gear is "just as good" when it's obvious they simply cannot afford it.
How do you know they can't afford it? I recently reviewed a bunch of Chord gear from a member. Cost? Around $30K. He bought a Topping DAC to replace it all and said it sounded just as good. He was so nice about it that felt guilty to sell the Chord gear to someone else. I suspect money is not nearly as valuable to him as his ethics there.
I personally replaced my $6,000 Mark Levinson DAC (and older multibit one), with a Topping as well. I have more capabilities and have not lost a bit of fidelity. I have however, lost prestige given how small it looks compared the Levinson DAC.
A manufacturer send me a $20,000 DAC recently to test. I measure it and find a very common design flaw that Chinese DAC companies already solved (I call it ESS IMD Hump). Without measurements you would not know there is a problem here. Instead you would trust the price and heavy box this DAC in and rave about how good it is.
This is the problem with you few. Instead of going by performance, you go by price as if there is any correlation between the two in audio electronics anymore. Putting a DAC in a 50 pound box and selling it in specialty dealers will surely add thousands of dollars to the retail price but likely does nothing for performance unless that is demonstrated objectively. Or subjectively with ears only.
I mean which other field is judged like this? Why do you, as consumers, demand that stuff be expensive to be good? With no proof point other than some shill reviews in youtube or otherwise? When did you lose your way like this? Why not say, "show me reliably and repeatedly that this is a better device?"
So we came about to change this atmosphere and change is occurring. More and more people who can easily afford expensive gear are realizing the proper way to test and review products and are changing their way. And becoming much happier for it as well. You want to live in the past and defend manufacturers over consumers, be my guest. But don't post it about me or audio science review.
|
@kota1
Almost all reviews include a list of the writers reference system components, the test conditions the equipment was used in, the content played during the review, comparisons to equipment from competitors, and possibly measurements.
When it matters, I do the same:
The Lyngdorf is the black box sitting on my (unused currently) Mark Levinson No 532 power amplifier. For those of you complaining about the cost of the Lyngdorf TDAI-3400, the 523 costs $20,000 by itself! ![:)]( "Smile :)") Admittedly it has 400 watts using 8 ohm and probably twice as much over 4 ohm so much more powerful than the Lyngdorf. Still, it is just an amplifier.
My everyday amplifiers are the two Mark Levinson No 53 monoblocks flanking the Revel Salon 2 speakers which were used for this testing. Those beasts have 500 watts into 8 ohm and 1000 watts into 4 ohm. In listening tests, the Lyngdorf TDAI-3400 got plenty loud although I had it pretty close to 0 dB at times. Again, this is a huge space so it takes fair bit of power to fill it and shake my seat.
I test my near-field/desktop products and there, equipment is listed as well:
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.
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.
Really, all of these protests could be avoided if you had spent just a few minutes reading how and why I test things. There is incredibly scrutiny of what I do by members at ASR and industry at large. You have to be far more prepared to find a criticism that can stick.
|
“The hope of film buffs and makers alike is an experience that fully transports the audience into the world of the characters,” said Auro Technologies CEO Wilfried Van Baelen. “Having major releases from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment incorporating Auro-3D helps provide this immersive experience, with sound design unlike anything audiences have heard before, to ensure they are able to enjoy films how the creator intended—with full impact.”:
Auro-3D filed for bankruptcy back in June of this year.
|
@kota1
You are the one that decided to brand your website as "science". You admittedly are neither a scientist nor have a "lab"/studio/listening room that follows well established specs (see Toole, Kota1, Abbey Road, Sony, and Dolby Institute in the above posts).
The website is not called "science." It is Audio Science Review. Audio Science and engineering is our guiding light, not what random poster says on a website. We review and digest audio science and use it to our advantage to build superbly sounding systems without wasting on nonsense that does nothing for the performance of your system.
We can see the sharp difference in the way you blindly ran an automated EQ system that butchered the bass response in room. Every frequent reader of ASR forum would have been able to school you on proper target to say nothing of the formal study by Dr. Toole. These are mistakes that readers of ASR either don't make or are given immediate help to fix.
Good luck with your website and I am taking the good counsel of my fellow members, no more feeding your trolls, bye!
I didn't think that would ever happen! Thank you for finally letting go of my pant legs. 😀 As for luck, thankfully we don't need at ASR as there is strong appeal to both audiophiles and members of the industry to read and view objective and science based information about audio. We have more reach than this site and stereophile combined. You should wonder what the rest of the world knows that you don't.....
|
