I believe the graph may have come from Harman Inc/Sean Olive. I downloaded the Harman ‘How to Listen’ desktop app and in conjunction with that I saw a presentation that describes their efforts to train listeners, of which How to Listen was a key part. It was in this presentation that I saw the graph… I believe. Really cool software by the way.
Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews
I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.
As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.
Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.
1. Speaker pricing.
One ASR review spends an amazing amount of time and effort analyzing the ~$800 US Tekton M-Lore. That price compares very favorably with a full Seas A26 kit from Madisound, around $1,700. I mean, not sure these inexpensive speakers deserve quite the nit-picking done here.
2. Measuring mid-woofers is hard.
The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.
a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.
b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.
For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.
Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.
In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.
3. Crossover point and dispersion
One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.
Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.
Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.
In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response. One big reason not to is crossover costs. I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range. In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies. Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.
I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.
1,166 responses
Training is not mainly about the acuity of perception...😊 Certainly not about digital artefacts spottings... This part made me laugh... So useful it could be for audio design in digital signals engineering...And it is useful...But creating a dedicated room has nothing to do with that... What i trained in my room for was learning how to recognize the main classical acoustics parameters in my room and the 7 spatial components of which Choueiri spoke about.Then i tried to created the necessary physical conditions for them to appear. Success is there when you can recognize all of them and you know how to play with them. Acuity is not the main factor, focussed attentive hearing after and before a parameter modification is. Then my training was not based on "hearing acuity" as suggested by Amir but about "hearing intelligence" which was learning how to perceive concretely acoustics main concepts by varying the room acoustics parameters and then knowing what we speak about with our own ears nevermind our age and "acuity" ...😁 But for Amir any auditory qualia if not measured or measurable is deceptive illusion which will be debunk by ABX double blind test ... This idea is ridiculous because tuning my room mechanically is an incremental increasing process where simple blind test is way enough...it asked for recognizing acoustic concepts and patterns not perceive acutely digital signals from various formats. I beg to differ, acoustics is not electrical tool measuring specs ideology sold as truth for audio ... Acoustics is about a system/eroom not about a piece of gear which someone want to sell as the best solution.. This is worst than lie this is marketing half truth.. The missing part is acoustics in any selling pitch... ( i could add mechanical vibrations/resonaNce control and electricaL GRID CONTROL ) Amir claim that he own "golden ears" in fact and use them for all of us as Audio pope , i claim that i can made by myself my room sound extraordinary with acoustics concepts implemented in it mechanically . No need for "acuity" only need experiments ( hundred of them )to master some basic concepts. We cannot perceive anything meaningful if we dont have the necessary concept to grasp it... I will let to Amir the "acuity" hearing prize proven to be secured in his hands with double blind test in spotting his digital artefacts... I myself spotted ravishing music in acoustical dress which spoke to me each evening before dancing ... 😊😋😎
|
Very interesting. I have a background in satellite remote sensing and pattern recognition. Training is an essential component there. Training occurs whenever the task is to recognize a known feature correctly. So I would say the general concept is scientifically sound . The question comes when determining what constitutes the thing that is to be recognized which in the case here is “good sound” If you can’t get a group to agree on what are the key features of good sound then there is little chance of ever recognizing it correctly. But, if you can get a consensus on what it is that constitutes good sound, then it can be recognized or not by people.
If people can’t even agree on what kinds of distortion if any sounds “best” then good luck!
So is an interesting idea. The purpose of training is always improved performance and that is always a good thing even if people can’t agree on what exactly good performance is.
|
Thanks Amir for the excellent video about Blind test and listener training!
Alas! this video describing very well where you come from . the world of digital processing, and ABX double blind test to spot digital artefacts
reveal to me why you cannot understand anything of what i was speaking about in acoustics and hearing theory.
Your stance is pure marketing of a method of gear pieces analysis using a small set of electrical tools this method branded ASR , even if you do it not for profit but for pleasure.
Thanks for your reviews anyway.
But the problem is, that buying a piece of gear based only on your analysis cannot make sense by itself alone.
Synergy exist. And cannot be reduced to just objective specs compatibility.
We need a system in a room to judge a piece of gear relatively good FOR OURSELVES and our ears/brain. Nobody is here to sell it as the best or worst solution ever because it measure well over the design written specs or not.
You then act as a preacher to sell your measure method and disparage any audiophile acoustic journey value as unsignificative if not branded right by your "objective" method.
I will not repeat what i said in many posts above about hearing theory and the 5 articles i submitted together . I dont think that many understood them for what they means. Fourier theory cannot explain qualia perception. And qualia perception is fundamental.
And Amir you cannot accept their results because they will reveal the unscientific stance of your techno-cultist ideology.
Anyway nowadays almost all software engineers are techno-cultists.
in a word: we audiophiles guided by basic acoustics principles and experiments we listen not mostly to digital artefacts , we listen to the way the acoustics trade-off of the recording engineer can be TRANSLATED at best in the optimal trade-off conditions of our room parameters and for our ears/brain specific acoustics parameters. The digital vehicle only convey the acoustic and spatial and musical information more or less well ( MP3 or different lossless formats) it convey it nothing more.
Amir we dont hear the same thing and we dont sell the same thing. You hear digital artefacts, i hear my system/room; you sell ASR, i sell creativity with simple acoustics experiments. You disparage an acoustic ears training which is not your own conception of ears training : digital errors or artefacts spotting. ( simple blind test by the way is enough and a tool for all acoustician day to day working, double blind test is used only in acoustics statistical studies )
You sell a selected set of tools based on an ideology but not the right way to build a satisfying musical experience with acoustics.
You trained yourself with digital artefacts spotting, i trained myself in two different systems/rooms creation using acoustics and music, not mostly digital artefacts spotting. By ideological principle and ignorance about hearing you disparage turntable over Dac and tubes over S.S. only because of your measures set selective ideology.
As some ignorant subjectivist audiophile selling his gear choice in some review , you sell your own objectivist gear choice in your own review.
But all audiophile are not ignorant, they are neither objectivist nor subjectivists, i dont sell my gear choice as a solution, i sell system/room/ears/brain acoustics basic knowledge as the ONLY way to create TOP musical experience according to our budget .
Who is the ideologue here ?
|
Misinformation and disinformation are everywhere and there’s nothing that can be done about that. In the case of ASR, it shouldn’t take most people very long to realize it’s propagandistic. Some of the site's users are happy with that, I suspect. |
I agree. The problem is that he may be influencing other enthusiasts, hopefully few younger listeners, who may abandon the hobby out of frustration. I would say the same thing about hucksters that claim improvements that arise from dubious products. Problems arise when "experts" encourage listeners to judge by factors other than actual listening. No one should be discouraged from allowing the experience to take them in a positive direction. |
@audition__audio Why continue to get yourself aggravated by Amir’s views on tube amps or anything else. I have 3 tube integrated amps between my 2 systems, a tube preamp in one of them that I use when I switch to a solid state power amp, and a tube DAC in one of the systems. I could care less whether or not he thinks it is primative technology, that folks buy them with some imagined fixation with filamnet glow, or any of his other points relative to them. I like the way each in its own way sounds with the rest of my systems’ components. Likewise, I could care less what his critique would or wouldn’t be on my speakers or other components. As long as I enjoy what I am listening to is all that matters to me. I don't need him or anyone else saving me from myself, or my money. Life is too short. Sit back and immerse yourself in the music, versus aggravating yourself with him. |
@audition__audio Yes, he has not "reviewed" any Doshi, Ayon or other hi end tube amps, has he? |
I agree with the above post. Also what really annoys me about Amir is that he comes here to express his opinions and argues. That is fine but then DO NOT BOOT PEOPLE OFF YOUR OWN SITE if they hold contrary opinions to your minions. If you come here, then others should be able to present their opinions on ASR.
|
Starting to spend too much time thinking about the ASR guy. First I dont know of many that respect Carver and take him seriously by the standards of today. Second he is not a tube designer but Amir chooses his tube amp to measure, review and mention. Hmm. As if all tube amp designs are the same and display the same characteristics. Never more true than with Amir, sweeping generalizations are the product of a small mind. |
Emmys for what? Look at how he gets his equipment and also the type of equipment he reviews. He is out of his element when he discusses the high-end. Funny how he continually discusses his qualifications but no one in this industry takes him seriously and they usually dont know him. "Oh yeah that Audio Science guy" is about the best you will get. I love the "trained listener" graph. |
amir_asraudiophiles have clung to tubes, hypnotized by the glowing filaments, convincing themselves that they are hearing better fidelity. Delusional definition - Characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgements. A delusional person believes things that couldn’t possibly be true. So, I see you have a trained listener such as yourself at 100% on your chart and audio reviewers somewhere down at 20%. Let’s also consider that there are millions of audiophiles throughout the world who enjoy the fidelity of tubes, myself included, but they must all be hypnotized by glowing filaments. Let’s also not forget that you’re a trained listener. So, you take a VTA ST70 and you plug in a pair inefficient Infinity speakers and complain to your audience that you’re hearing floppy bass. Oh I forgot, it’s not your responsibility to pair gear properly and let’s not forget those three Emmys as well. Amir, I must say, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone so self righteous yourself. You’ve definitely earned another Emmy for that. No doubt your BS-meter is at redline. There are many other forums who don’t like your particular methods either. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not disregarding measurements altogether and I’m certainly not against all of them. I just think you need to seek some help for yourself.
|
We don't think anyone is a moron. We think they are uninformed about how their hearing really works and trust things that are not real and can be trivially shown to be the case. Instead of listening to people who know this topic well, they walk around with fingers in the ear and brag about it too. Fortunately, huge number of audiophiles have enough common sense to see the value of measurements, and proper analysis of audio gear rather than believing in folklore you can't prove. This is why ASR has over 2 million visitors a month, dwarfing traditional rags such as stereophile:
That aside, you have no idea what you are talking about. My own system costs $100,000. Just this week I tested a $12,000 processor from a member: |
Please don't make up stuff. I never said anyone is "delusional." Everyone is *human.* Humans use all of their senses and past experiences to arrive at a conclusion. As such, someone saying this and that sounds better when the science says otherwise, requires controlled testing that isolates the sound alone. Without it, all of us, me included, could provide totally unreliable and wrong information.
Could be but if you are worried about this, how come you are comfortable making conclusions in your sighted listening?
I am a professionally trained listener. I listen to music many hours a day. I perform a ton of controlled testing. Countless reviews I do include listening tests. Here is a recent review with listening tests: "ZMF Bokeh Headphone Listening Tests and Equalization
That quickly showed that without it, the sound was quite dull with essentially no spatial effects. There was just enough bass but I felt it could have more so put that shelf in there. And added a dip for the extra energy in upper bass. Now the bass was impressive. Note that I deviated from measurements in setting the 6 KHz lower as to avoid extra brightness. The equalizations I develop like above routinely get tested and verified by other users and many compliment on how much better their headphones/speakers sound because of them. I also teach how to become a trained listener as I post earlier.
Finally, you all have been tested formally and shown to be incredibly unreliable compared to trained listeners:
So if i were you, I would not bring up the topic of who knows how to listen and who doesn't. |
Isn't it interesting Amir how you think audiophiles who look at glowing tubes in the dark are delusional, yet when you look at graphs, you continually convince yourself you are hearing all sorts of horrible distortion. I don't believe you even know what you're listening to most of the time assuming you even take the time to listen in the first place. |
I will give you the answer Bob Carver gave me. As you probably know, he built his career on solid state amplifiers. And even won a challenge organized by Stereophile by making his solid state amplifier sound like a tube amp chosen by stereophile editors. So naturally I was curious why he has been into tubes. His answer? There was too much competition in solid state space but much less so in tubes! And that tubes were more fun to design. Translation: nothing in there for an audiophile. Sadly, his tube amps leave a lot to be desired, advertising specs that it cannot meet despite its high cost:
As you can see here, it has 3rd order distortion, not the beloved 2nd order:
And tons of mains noise for added effect. Can’t deliver a flat response in audible band which solid state amps do in their sleep: Worst of all, they advertise 75 watts but the thing can’t go past 29 watts.
This is why we measure folks. To get solid information like this as a check on manufacturer claims. Back to your question, there is no doubt whatsoever that tubes are a marketing tool and differentiation as Bob said. You get underpowered, noisy and high distortion amplifiers and you pay a lot more for it, and have a ton of maintenance to go with it. Folks see the glowing filaments and confuse that with "warm sound." When I listen to these amps, they are anything but warm. Turn up the volume and they get muddy and routinely bright. Exactly as the measurements predict. See this measurement of the Carver:
Notice how it is blowing its brains out at 20 Hz. This is primitive technology. The fact that folks throw so much good money after bad over them, only works if you convince people to hate measurements and simple engineering explanation. The only plausible but random benefit would be that if the high impedance of the amplifier modifies the frequency response of the speaker in the way that makes it more pleasing. That is, two bads working together to make good. Again, this is a random coincident. Better get a proper speaker and drive it with a proper solid state amplifier and get the fidelity you want. If something doesn’t sound good then, it is in your content. |
@amir_asr If solid state is so much better than antiquated tube gear then why are so many manufactures still using this old science? What say you ? Just curious!
|
When I tactfully stated on a thread on the ASR forum 1 amplifier drove my speakers more audibly better, at low volume, For context I was asking what power ratings really meant when an amp using less than a single watt of power could offer greater detail, dynamics and resolution? The moderator stepped in and said I was evil and and a demon lower than the devil himself to suggest it!!! NO BS, My reply was simply to ask " Why is someone coming to an Audio Science forum to understand why similar rated amps cause speakers to sound so different a demon? I followed by offering him or anyone else over for a listen as I have the amps all on hand. Science consists of observing the world by watching, listening, observing, and recording. Science is curiosity in thoughtful action about ... NASA Science isn’t claiming to know everything, but to continue to explore answers to questions. |
i think you say it well ... 😊
|
The word is not the thing. All the best,
|
4 years ago, i discussed here with an engineer in a respectful but very hot way for a week . He argued that the "timbre" experience acoustic variation using different acoustics conditions was only an added color or distortion, a deceitful experience of our ears/brain added to the Fourier map of the sound. ( the fact that our ears/brain can directly perceive something true about the vibrating sound source physical invariant dont struck him as true) It seems he had no idea what "timbre" is in acoustics save a trouble maker for scientific gear design 😊 ... At the end after one week of discussion , in desesperation he send me in private his curriculum, a very impressive one, as argument .. I felt at the same time humbled but proud ... If an ignorant as i am could learn something anybody can ...😁
|
Absolutely right! We all listen and compare in specific acoustics environment ... For ASR zealot 1+1= 0 Electrical specs measures +acoustics environment and psychoacoustics parameters cancel each other. Or acoustics and psychoacoustics individual experience taken alone = -1 as a deceitful experience , if we speak about sound quality... All there is to say is in the gear design as measured by ASR... These specific acoustics parameters of the environment of our speakers/room are ONLY deceitful and reliable ONLY after ABX double blind test of each separate piece of gear ...😊 Comical!
|
Only an improperly functioning brain concludes that 1 + 1 = 3. Convincing yourself of this would be psychotic. So all posts extoling the virtues of cables, conditioning and the like come from trolls? And you conclude this because these are all components that make no or little difference. This makes no sense, but then begins to make sense when you mention what you do for a living. Never ceases to amaze me that engineers think they have some extra level of credibility by virtue of their education and choice of career. Actually you have less credibility because you are often victims of your education and your desire to quantify everything. Unanswerable questions scare the stuffing out of people who typically do what you guys do. Check out the different types of distortion that are created by solid state and tube amplifiers. Also check out at what levels of these distortions the brain begins to react negatively. Not all distortion is the same nor are these distortions processed by the human brain in the same fashion as they are detected by measurements. Lower distortion is always better but not when a higher distorting piece gets others things right. No more likely that we talk ourselves into liking a product that measures poorly or is "colored" than you guys convince yourselves into preferring a product that measures well. Once again the only meaningful tests are ones that result from listening and thoughtful comparison. I have listened over the last 40 years to all types of speakers, amps, preamps and cables and then drawn my conclusions. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt you have ever compared cables, amps of different architectures, etc over decades. If you havent it is probably because you know there will be no difference and certainly not enough difference to justify spending large amount of money on such accessories/snake oil. If you dont listen and compare your position is untenable. |
Sorry but acoustics is a science as electrical engineering is, And electrical engineering receive order from psychoacoustics and acoustics discovereies not the reverse : acoustics experience quality is not determined by few electrical sets of measures but by acoustics physical parameters and psychoacoustics parameters... In my experience and experiment about good sound my ears experience and acoustics experiments to create what is "timbre" and "dynamics" and the spatial qualities of sound in my speakers/room matter more than a % of measured distortion to the xth decimals ... i dont need ABX Double blind test circus either . Single blind tests as working tool is enough to tune a speakers/room to my liking... Then claiming that using our ears/brain is not "science" is one thing but claiming that we must replace all along our ears/brain by some limited set of electrical measures is "ideology" or techno cultism ... Then you do simulation rooted in human hearing universal abilities as measured in acoustics and this acoustics parameters gave electrical designer some frame to work with ... This does not means that human hearing of the consumers cannot be used in acoustics and in gear design choice... Synergy between pieces is also related to the room and ears of the owner not only to electrical specs of each separate piece of design ... Then accusing audiophile using their ears to be deceived is as preposterous as someone claiming that electrical set of specs measures had no value... Objectivist tool ideology and subjectivist tastes gear obsession are marketing ideologies not acoustics science ...
In a word i dont want to buy what and only what ASR measuring Amir recommend and claim that all other recommendation based on subjective takes had zero value ... Synergy exist, room exist, my ears/brain exist.... If i had done so as seems to recommend some ASR zealot i will be a credulous believer... I believe only in my acoustics experiments and basic concepts with the relatively synergetical gear i choose because i can play with them and change my acoustics parameters .... Sorry ... 😎 By the way thanks to Amir who tried the Fosi SK1 preamplifier and headphone amplifier with his own ears and with his headphone too not only with electrical measures set and without double blind ABX test and liked it, i bought one and it is for the price a very good purchase, he was exactly right ! ... 😉 |
"I don’t like the sound of this so called great measuring inexpensive equipment and like the sound of my tube equipment?" Your personal preference. The measurements do not dictate you what to like or what to buy but inform you of the technical properties of an audio equipment. As long as you think your tube amp distort "pleasingly" you got your money’s worth. You can identify them easily yourself they are all over the forum just pay extra attention to threads about cables/POWER cables/digital data cables/power conditioners/filters/fuses/receptacles/receptacle covers... "use my brain/ears to judge how a product sounds to me.." That’s your ’personal’ opinion. You can use your brain to conclude 1+1=3. But we don’t use your brain but use the measurements data/results to develop/analyze circuits/products. What we electrical engineers do at work modeling/simulation/measurements. Later
|
| Post removed |
The sound qualia and qualities are acoustic physical and psychoacoustics phenomena.
I recommend this article as a complement to Dr. Choueiri article : http://The Body-Image Theory of Sound: An Ecological Approach to Speech and Music These qualia and associate qualities (vibrating sound sources information associated with physical invariants in the sound sources) and these 7 spatial qualities identified by Dr. Choueri ( Reverb; Envelopment; Depth & Proximity; Spatial Extent & Resolution; Motion; Spatial Modulation; and Spatial Segregation.) With the orthodox classical qualities associated with music in history (pitch, timbre, texture, volume/dynamics, attack/duration/decay, melody, rhythm, and form. ) All of this is acoustics phenomenon. Not playback gear design measured specs manifestation. Then sound quality experience cannot be evaluated nor predicted by few electrical sets of measures submitted to ABX double blind test because hearing is supposedly deceptive...
Ideology is not science even when ideology use electrical tools ...
By the way Amir is a gentleman and a pleasure to discuss with. I cannot say the same for many people here or on ASR who gangstalk people they dont like because they cannot have recognize or use rational arguments. |
i will not go back in my acoustics hearing theory rant... Anyway it seems very few read science articles.. I posted many... Our ears are designed in a specific way to grasp some qualitative meanings about vibrating sound source these qualia reflecting direct physical invariant of the sound sources. "timbre" is the main exemple. For Amir all there is to say is in some types of cherry picked electrical measurement about the gear through Fourier linear mapping of a reality which anyway exist not as a linear Fourier map and exist in his own non linear time domain in our perceptive and interpretative consciousness reflecting in himself some physical invariants of the vibrating sound source... Then Amir stance about sound quality rooted in some set of electrical measures is half truths at best ... Then ricevs is right here :
The Map is not the reality.... The Fourier tools are only that : "tools" ...We dont understand hearing without the vibrating sound source many physical invariant ready to be directly perceived as qualities of sound, timbre, speech, music ...
Also apart for these qualities extracted from vibrating sound sources describing properties of these sound sources. ( is the vibrating object is made of metals or wood or plastic , is it dense or hollowed, is it made of many holes etc )
Apart for the physical invariants of the sound source Acoustician Edgar Choueiri say this: « Spatial music is music in which the spatial aspect of sound—the perceived location, extent, and movements of sound sources in surrounding space—is more or less equal in stature to the traditional aspects, or elements, of music—pitch, timbre, texture, volume/dynamics, attack/duration/decay, melody, rhythm, and form. We shall call this traditional aspect of music canonical and contrast it with the spatial. Our daily experience of sound outside of music is rich in the spatial aspect and poor in the canonical. We constantly hear sounds localized or moving in 3D space, but most sounds—the engine rattle of a passing bus, the rustle of tree leaves in the park, even a melodic birdsong—heard one day are not easily hummable in the shower the next. In most music the opposite has been true: We hum and remember the melodies, and we sway to the rhythms, but we have grown to accept that the spatial location and extent of musical sounds and their movement in space are, at most, secondary to the canonical elements. We are thus as oblivious to the music that is constantly unfolding in natural space as we have been unfazed by the lack of spatial sound in music.»
Then how measuring few electrical specs of an isolated gear design could indicate anything deep about the many sound qualities aspects really ?😊
|
If I’m not supposed to use my brain/ears to judge how a product sounds to me.....um.....then what’s the point? What a ridiculous, fatally flawed premise for an argument. My advice would be to make your own decisions based on how a product SOUNDS and what YOU like, not what some guy on the internet with a multi-meter tells you.
I'm done with this nonsense.
|
So I'm wrong if I don't like the sound of this so called great measuring inexpensive equipment and like the sound of my tube equipment? The problem with measurements is they are taken in isolation and not the way the equipment will be used in the real world. |
" most of the angst comes from industry people who feel threatened " Couldn't agree more! I'm sick and tired of seeing this forum flooded with paid trolls (or those affiliated). "ASR seems to me to be a place where hoards of people with cheap equipment are so desperate for validation that their $300 "insert piece of equipment here" is just as good as a $6000" Of course ASR can prove that $300 equipment outperforms your $6000 SCIENTIFICALLY based on their measurements data (not based on your ears/brains) so you need to be thankful (or shameful) |
"The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience." Listening tests would be very subjective and subsequent magazine/online reviews and comments would be fallacious and deceptive like one below. "This quantum based receptacle cover make the ambient atmosphere cleaner so that harmonics shimmer into silent and the space around instruments is even more obvious" Amir would use his test equipment to prove these claims to be false so that we wouldn't waste our money on s.o. items like this. We have too many paid trolls aka influencers (or business owners themselves or with multiple user names) writing deceptive posts on this forum just to mislead viewers. Don't you want to say something about these trolls? It seems these trolls gang up on Amir.
|
Anyone with a difference of opinion get banned on the fanatic's forum...KEY DIFFERENCE! |
IMHO.... This thread is becoming an embarrassment and makes me want to leave Audiogon. Just a few posts back, the comment is made "Amir brings it upon himself. I find his responses to be childish insomuch that he portrays an attitude of self-righteousness and condescension towards anyone whose opinion differs from his." I suggest many members need to take a long look in the mirror. I see very little difference between Amir's adherence to what he believes and the steadfast adherence to the differing opinions held by so many Audiogon members. I neither support nor oppose Amir's position, but I do support his right to have them. All the rudeness and name calling that goes on in threads like this should be beneath us all and reflects so poorly on the community as a whole. |
@steve59 - That's somewhat my impression also as there is a lot of faux science and shallow claims. I've tried wading through a few threads to see if I can learn something (like optimizing streaming audio quality) and it always ends with some guy saying digital audio hasn't improved since the 80s and people are wasting their time/money then a group echoes those sentiments and it's the end of the thread. I prefer diyAudio when I'm trying to actually learn or repair something technical. There's a valid reason why someone may want a statement piece strictly for aesthetic purposes, which most audiophiles understand. That said, Amir's older posts tend to encourage bad behavior, while his newer posts have called for civility more often than not. Something else to be aware of is there are plenty of people that are monetizing this mindset, with ASR having its own dealers within its forum and also the Chinese audio firms pushing products into their reviews. It's not much different than Audiogon. Anyone thinking ASR is a nonprofit strictly involved in research is very naive.
@mapman - I went down a Chinese DAC rabbit hole recently, just to see how they compare to all their chart-topping ASR measurements. The Topping D90 III was one of the worst pieces of garbage I've heard, despite being at the top of Amir's charts. Sound is rounded off and utterly flattened to where it sounds worse than my much older Sabre-based DAC on my Yamaha A8. ASR members claim all DACs sound the same --there's even a thread dedicated to it!-- and I've found this to be the opposite of truth. In fairness, the SMSL/VMV DACs aren't bad for the price, but have their own weaknesses and even ones within the line with the same ESS chip sound slightly different, which ASR does not acknowledge. |
This is very simplistic but I see ASR as having two sides... The first is the review side...which is about numbers and measurements and if you participate in these threads, you better bring numbers and measurements...these are not threads for discussing feelings, preferences or theories. Nor do they attempt to do the detailed listening tests with stereo pairs in small and large rooms we would like to see in order to better correlate measurements with sound and preferences. The second side is everything else...for example, here is a thread about what speakers people own...some own speakers that do well on the ASR tests, others do not. But no one is "attacked" and numbers aren't required. Feeling preferences and theories are ok on these threads. And, at the end of the day, ASR calls out what they see as BS and as shoddy workmanship...who else does that? And aren't they entitled to their opinion? |
Amir would want us to believe that the resurgence of tube products and the associated happiness tube owner experience is based on something other than sound? No blathering about bias, coloration, nostalgia, etc can explain this. The simple fact is that many very experienced and respected audio experts and enthusiasts get from tubes something that they didnt from sold state. Designers like John Curl and Nelson Pass readily admit that they are unable to duplicate in their designs aspects of tube amp performance. They are unapologetic because they understand and have an open mind to the reality that there are things that cant be explained and are scientifically untidy. Their respective egos have been satiated by industry admiration and user respect. |
I agree with what you are saying and you’re right, it’s not all wrong. I just dislike when Amir takes matters out of context to suit his own agenda and gag others who have legitimate questions or concerns in his forum. Amir even allows his own moderators to trash products they literally have not even listened to themselves just because of a measurement. If Amir had simply answered some basic questions instead of trying to evade them, I would have more respect for him. It’s a matter of principle. I’ve even seen legitimate companies try to share an explanation regarding measurement settings just to try to constructively defend themselves and Amir will pull their posts down for questioning him. It’s awful not to allow a company to constructively and respectfully defend themselves just because one has the power to do it in their own forum. Amir reminds me of Commodus from Gladiator. It’s not humble and it’s disrespectful to hurt companies just trying to defend themselves with legitimate comments and concerns. I have more respect for a bad guy that lets you know he’s a bad guy than a bad guy who tries to act like a good guy. They’re called wolves in sheep’s clothing. Amir’s a big boy, he can handle himself. |
