WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Not to butt into anyone’s conversation… there are a ton of subjective reviewers out there. I wonder if anyone of them could distinguish an MP3 from a Hi-Rez download if they were blindfolded. I wonder if I could? I also wonder what they were doing five years ago.
My mind works different than most lol.
In my opinion ASR is and has shaken up much of the audio world, and no longer can many of these manufacturers get away with… what they’ve been getting away with.
I made another post recently, and years ago we would never think about buying a piece of gear unless the manufacturer at the bare minimum posted specs. Then they were often measured independently, but sadly people are measuring with their ears anymore.
The only thing that was broken was an RCA input. The solder joints on the PCB was physically broken, and that's it. There's no way that's going to affect the measurements. THD+N was identical to the spec from EarMen, dynamic range was not.
Nobody's being deceived. It probably sounds just fine.
There's two ways you can be deceived. You can look at the measurements and think that because the performance isn't SOTA, the DAC will sound terrible. Or you can listen to all the lyrical reviews elsewhere and think that it will sound like angels singing. Both of those are something you'll be doing to yourself.
The measurements in this thread simply shows that the performance is subpar compared to other DACs at the same price point. Whether that lack of performance is audible is a completely different discussion. Personally I don't believe it is.
All I see is a piece of audio jewelry that does not suit my taste.
I still don't agree with you. If the device has been broken, what is the purpose of measuring and testing. Readers are just being deceived. If the device is broken, you contact the company to request a replacement.
The RCA plug was loose-hardly a "broken" unit and Amir reported he used the balanced output, thereby bypassing the faulty plug. The device is not broken, just poorly constructed.
The RCA plug was loose-hardly a "broken" unit and Amir reported he used the balanced output, thereby bypassing the faulty plug. The device is not broken, just poorly constructed.
Amir said “As you see, one channel is dead.” The RCA output in the graph confirmed that. By my definition, that’s a broken product. It could still function from its balanced plug, but the RCA plug is still broken. When we refer to a “broken” design, that applies here, too.
Amir said “As you see, one channel is dead.” The RCA output in the graph confirmed that. By my definition, that’s a broken product. It could still function from its balanced plug, but the RCA plug is still broken. When we refer to a “broken” design, that applies here, too.
Yes, that one. If you said to me “I could feel the connector moving left and right and I could briefly get it to work if I held on to the cable”, I would be inclined to return the unit if I had purchased it. Obviously, Amir did not own this unit but tested it, as is.
I think the discussions are getting nowhere because a too literal definition of "broken": one of the RCA was loose... therefore the entire device is "broken" and should not be tested... What if the RCA was not loose but that channel happened to be noisier than the other: would the DAC be considered broken? What if both RCAs were OK, measured identical, but the results were lower than the manufacturer spec: should it be considered broken and sent back without publishing any measurement? What if it exhibited the not uncommon pops & clicks when switching between different bit rates: a broken firmware, send it back without testing?
To me, as long as the "broken" feature does not impact the rest of the measurements--and I trust Amir knows his stuff enough to correctly assess each case--the review and measurements remain perfectly legit. Heck, even if it affects the measurements, it is still a manufacturer problem, not an ASR problem, and it is still valid data if perhaps not representative.
So... im not good with numbers or care a lot. Did the DAC actually sound better or worse than anything else? Or did this not involve any listening? Ears and brain are not mic and CPU, so measurement is one thing, emotional perception another.
That's why it's important to take the emotion part out of the evaluation of electronic devices. The equipment used to take these measurements is much more sensitive than our ears will ever be.
If you can't argue with the data, discredit the method with which the data was collected, and discredit the character and motivation of the people collecting the data.
I bet this is the guy that was attempting to start a argument with me and saying I said things that I never said. He had a ax to grind because ASR did not contact Earmen and get a 2nd unit for test. Very annoying prick he was.
"If you can't argue with the data, discredit the method with which the data was collected, and discredit the character and motivation of the people collecting the data."
It's not clear to me exactly whom you are referring to here, but it accurately describes Doodski's approach in his post above.
"If you can't argue with the data, discredit the method with which the data was collected, and discredit the character and motivation of the people collecting the data."
It's not clear to me exactly whom you are referring to here, but it accurately describes Doodski's approach in his post above.