@jerryg123 , you forget, kids today don’t have access to dealers any more. Sending them to ASR is a terrible suggestion. Better they meet some of our members and hear the real deal firsthand, don’t you agree?
@amir_asr , I still appreciate you posting your system. Hopefully the fact you keep coming back to our site is helping some of the stuff we are sharing with you start to sink in. Everything matters, the room, the cables, the power, the source, etc. You can’t just measure one anything, stick a panther on it, and expect it to produce the goods. You gotta build a room around it first, plug it into pure power, connect it with quality cables, and then calibrate (last step). Why not start posting some stuff about taking a bunch of gear you like and putting it together in a system, isn’t that what most dealers do? Just no MCH until you get setup properly for it.
|
That’s it I went to ASR and I am converted.
|
@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?
|
@amir_asr , I know you listen, it is obvious that you sincerely enjoy this hobby.
Just drop $1-2K and fix your room. You know the difference it makes and you will be able to discern the nuances of the equipment you review in a more critical listening environment. I think the issue here is more about what you are hearing in your room because it has a jumble of both direct and reflected sound from all those flat hard surfaces vs if you listen or not.
|
@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.
|
@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:
|
@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?
|
@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.
Seeing how I review nearly 300 audio devices a year, that is a hell of a lot of listening tests!
|
Some good information here. Benefitting from the more informational posts, despite some lamentable trolling. Appreciate Amir getting into the back and forth.
|
|
@amir_asr ,
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.
This is completely wrong. You perform only 2 channel testing because you are forced to, you only have 2 speakers, LOL.
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?
I think you have to do both 2 channel testing as well as MCH. You know how many people that buy that receiver that will use it strictly in 2 channel? 0
Do you know how much value a half baked (you didn’t actually ever use the receiver as a customer would when you reviewed it) provides? 0.
|
"Every Denon and Marantz review is done with prior consultation with the company"
LOL! -what is your price tag for “agreed" review?
|
@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....
|
@amir_asr
How did the Denon "perform" when you set it up in your home theater as it was designed to be used? Good luck with that, this is why you keep getting comments about not listening to gear.
You said:
Go and fix the sound of your system.
I started a new thread here on setting up an Atmos system, you would like it, lots of technical detail, feel free to check it out and fix the sound of your system..
|
Again you just validated what many here have been saying. You should not even be considered in the realm of professional reviewer's.
You keep stepping in your own poop.
@amir_asr ,
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.
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.
Seeing how I review nearly 300 audio devices a year, that is a hell of a lot of listening tests!
|
@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.
|
Amir I did not ask you for anything. I am not your demographic.
You came here. Go back to your catbox then.
And what is this poop?
You are lying again. Your words I do not have time to do listening test doing 300 reviews a year.
Also when I am buying speakers I do not use any review sites. (not yours for sure) 1). again I am not your demographic, 2) I do in home auditions on my system, in my listening room.
I would never trust any reviewer including or especially you.
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
|
@amir_asr Good set of arguments about your independence, methods, selectivity. You could depart this thread having done due diligence, and who could blame you.
|
@amir_asr
You have this backward. I bring the quality.
I have yet to "see" this quality you are claiming. Where is it? In your wooden room with two speakers? In your mystery home theater? LOL.
We have a video from Dolby Labs that defines what a "quality" room posted in this thread. If you are reviewing atmos receivers this should be table stakes at a minimum. You are a dealer, you got the resources, now get started:
|
I'd like to slag off most of the posters on this thread.
From what they say, it just seems like the right thing to do....
Translation: try to be objective and less personal.
On point. Comparing specifications is utterly pointless unless you also listen to the gear. If you listen, then specifications have relevance.
|
@juanmanuelfangioii , don’t you think our guest from ASR has done a fantastic job confirming the title of this thread, basically proving why specs are pointless.
1) He is reviewing speakers in a room that is barren wood so you know whatever the specs say they won’t sound like that in his room (or any other gear played in that room for that matter).
2) He is reviewing home theater gear without actually using it in a home theater so he can only imagine what "the specs" sound like in real world conditions, LOL.
3) He can’t/won’t fix any of his problems it so the specs will never help, no matter what they are, so essentially, they won’t matter right?
|
Amir,
I am sure you are well intended. But you provide evidence that you do not understand what quality audio is all about in your posts.
You listen to half of the units? and process 300 units per year? I would not begin to consider evaluating a single new component without listening to it for a couple months. This would be only after being completely familiar with my system without change for months… many months. This establishes a base line of a sound you understand at all levels. This is a reference system. A professional reviewer will spend months evaluating a single component.
Have you read professional reviews? Reviewers have systems they understand inside and out. Then they spend, what a hundred… sometimes several hundred hours listening. The complexity of sound reproduction is layer upon layer of nuance. Which is why a whole glossary of terminology to describe the nuances of sound reproduction exists. Rhythm and pace, micro-details…etc.
It now makes sense how your charts match your perceived quality. The sonic evaluation is so cursory that all you pick up is the very gross highest level characteristics of the sound. This is not at all what high performance audio is about. It is about communicating the full breath and depth of the musical experience… not the wire-frame representation.
When I attend a live symphony it can be so emotionally moving that it brings tears to my eyes. I am left breathless in the beauty created by the music. My audio system can do that. This is what the pursuit is about. Doing this requires incredible dedication in people that produce components to achieve this, and in evaluation of sound far in excess of a few variable, and in choosing and assembling a system. Great components come from designers that work by listening to their products long after they have run out of variables to measure.
|
Why would you even bother coming here Amir?
Anything you say bears no weight in any way to my audio choices. We are at polar opposites of how to choose equipment.
You have your loyal followers on ASR. I don’t go on there and criticise your beliefs. If I joined up and said what I believe, I would be booted out. Go back to where people appreciate what you say, and reinforce what you believe to be true. Hopefully a few others here follow you.
|
@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.
|
|
@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....
|
|
|
@amir_asr
I am professionally trained critical listener.
Without a proper room to listen in, total waste of training IMO.
If you want to get "schooled by Toole", check out his room. Why would you want to go there when you have SO much to learn yourself? I can see why you keep coming back here though, because you NEED it :). The Kota doesn’t even charge you a name tag fee like ASR does, sweet!
I consulted with the founder of Auro 3D, Wilfred Van Balen on my room treatments, and the Kota and the Toole both groove on Auro 3D (that's how REAL critical listeners roll Amir). If Dr Toole saw your room he would take your certificate in listening away and send you back to school:
"I choose to add moderate up-mixing to most of my stereo music, finding the adjustable Auro-3D implementation in the SDP-75 to be quite pleasant."
The following is a panoramic photo of the room (geometric distortion included) showing seating in the conversational mode. The equipment racks are on the right, under the projector opening - in what was a fireplace space in the original house.
The room was configured in 2000, as a 7.1 system. The front wall was deliberately constructed as a low-mid frequency sound scattering surface using display niches and other depth variations (including spaces behind the fabric covered doors) to alleviate the boundary effect for that wall. Two of the subwoofers are hidden in those cavities.
This became a huge advantage when I recently decided to wall mount the inverted Revel Salon2s to reduce their visual dominance - the huge loudspeakers retreat into the background visually, but remain firmly in place acoustically. The other loudspeakers in the room are clearly visible, which would be a deal breaker in many households. In this one, I am fortunate to have a wife who has long tolerated my hobby/profession, admitting that the audible rewards are enough to offset a certain amount of visual loudspeaker clutter. This system may have exceeded even those generous limits :-)
An in-ceiling loudspeaker is used as the Voice of God. Others could have replaced some or all of the elevation speakers. But, knowing that the direct sound has a dominant effect on timbre/sound quality I decided not to compromise, and used high quality bookshelf loudspeakers in custom mounts, aiming them at the prime listening location as shown in the following floor plan.
https://www.thescreeningroomav.com/single-post/2019/03/06/The-Ultimate-Real-World-Home-Theater-and-Listening-Room
|
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.
Whatever happened to robust, reasoned discussion? If at an impasse. Agreeing to disagree. Respect even if in opposite camps?
If I state my beliefs on a range of topics on your ASR, I would be derided and ridiculed.
Best we stay in our own lanes…
|
@amir_asr How can you listen to anything critically? Casually, sure, but critically? This is your system so you explain it, I see two big speakers in a room with flat surfaces everywhere. was this your intent??? Isn't there a lot of flutter echo?
|
life is short, enjoy the music
no point arguing
sometimes, there is no middle ground to achieve
|
Not with this Amir guy. He is here to blow his own horn.
I am out.
|
Not with this Amir guy. He is here to blow his own horn.
I am out.
|
Not one of my components would pass the ASR litmus test, except my RME adi2 DAC. It tests well but isn't nearly as engaging and musical sounding as my LAB 12 DAC 1 reference. It's not even in my main system anymore. So much for numbers.
I have finally assembled a musically satisfying system, and did so with zero regard for numbers or specs. "How does it sound? " being the only criteria . The gear that stayed did so purely on sound quality and overall enjoyment.
ASR is a joke, anyone who thinks a $500 Chinese DAC destroys all comers is delusional. Amir called the RME the best DAC out there and maybe on paper it is. It's a great DAC but the best? No. That title is reserved for something truly high end like the MSB DACs or dcs, seriously.
I listened to several DACs from $1500 to $6k and guess what? They all sounded different, but they all sounded quite good. I probably would have acclimated to any and have been happy. I bought the Lab 12 , it was right in the middle price wise and I thought it sounded better than some DACs that cost quite a bit more.
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. It still surprises me with the image it renders. A nice 3D image that extends well beyond the speakers width and height . It's great in my system so keep that in mind, I'm only recommending it if you can home demo.
|
@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
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.
|
@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....
|
@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.
|
Well Amir, I hadn't expected your arrogance. Your assumptions are unpalatable.
I consider you a fool and us at opposite ends of the audio spectrum.
Your blather has no effect, and I ignore your opinions forthwith, measured or not.
Btw, my system has never sounded better!
|
@amir_asr
You didn’t read the article about Toole’s room:
The room was configured in 2000, as a 7.1 system. The front wall was deliberately constructed as a low-mid frequency sound scattering surface using display niches and other depth variations (including spaces behind the fabric covered doors) to alleviate the boundary effect for that wall.
He has a purpose built room and the treatments aren’t displayed. If you look at the diagram his speaker layout follows dolby specs just like mine does (see the other thread I started about building an atmos room, LOL)
Good luck with your "critical listening" over at "dry wall studios". Complete waste of time, but you refuse to be "schooled by Toole" which makes you a ......
|
Well put, @jerryg123 .
Mirrors what I said in the last post that our friend Amir attempted to hijack. 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. I don't have a dog in this fight (I said what I felt in the last thread), but it just makes me shake my head.
Watching this go back and forth reminds me of 2 kids in the backseat on a road trip. "He's touching me!" "He touched me first!" "Did not!" "Did too!"
Perhaps if we ignore him, he'll go back to his little pond where he can continue to get his ego stroked by his audiophile-wannabe followers, while the rest of us get on with our lives.
|
@kota1 your should know by now, Amir is all knowing and the GOD OF AUDIO. He doesn't have to read what you mere mortals post on these pages.
Not sure why he keeps coming back for all the abuse.
He is simply the greatest audio reviewer that ever walked the planet. Just ask him he will tell you.
|
@coralkong @jerrybj
@amir_asr keeps coming back because he NEEDS to. If you had to listen to 400 or whatever components over at "dry wall studios" wouldn’t you look for an escape? Audiogon Forum rocks, intelligent members, open minded, genial, phenomenal virtual system area, who can blame the guy for trying to escape from that "other" board, where it seems to be just the opposite.
BTW Amir, you do realize the title of this thread is spot on, whatever specs you measure ARE pointless when you stick your gear in a really bad room.
Please come check out the thread I started on an Atmos build, you NEED it.
|
@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.
|
... genial ...
You can't be serious @kota1. I think it's pretty clear how genial you and others have been to Amir. Not a good look to say the least.
|
@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?
|
@melvinjames , there are a lot of threads here besides this one. As a whole I feel the banter in this forum is indeed genial, but 100% genial, no,
|
