Stereophile's snide editorial on ASR and Amir

[Deleted member 19122]

I did read the article but I don’t see anything wrong. ASR is not mentioned and, to be honest, some reactions on forums are quite narrow-minded indeed. I hear a clear difference between a Topping D90se and an RME ADI-2 fs, both being superb. Amir must know that. That is something that cannot be said here, some people will jump on it immediately.

At the other hand, I love the measurements as second opinion. I would never buy poor measuring gear anymore BUT i want to have a subjective opinion too. Last week I bought the lovely (and ugly) Neumann KH420’s, relatively cheap in Europe. Because I wanted pure analog powered speakers and because Amir loved them (and I once owned the KH310).

The truth is out there, but not in the mind of a single person.

Sigh...once again "hearing" dac differences..without level matched double blind tests it's just another subjective opinion.Please don't try and denigrate the repeatable tests/ethos espoused here with vague psuedo-philosophical statements.And for the record everything is being said here to claim Amir wouldn't say something if he found a measurable difference/audibility kinda goes against the whole ethos here.

 

[Rednaxela]

I hear a clear difference between a Topping D90se and an RME ADI-2 fs, both being superb. Amir must know that. That is something that cannot be said here, some people will jump on it immediately.

Is that your conclusion from a discussion that started here some time ago?

 

[BDWoody]

Getting the kind of results you see measured these days is hard; every tiny little thing matters. And I seriously doubt many (any?) of the critics in the comments have remotely comparable expertise. I have not touched an AP unit in many years but even as a techie using one every day back then I recall running into some frustrating setups that made measurements challenging.

I bought a Quantasylum QA401 a while back to see if I could do some basic measurements on my gear just for fun. I learned very quickly that what Amir makes look easy, isn't.

I hear a clear difference between a Topping D90se and an RME ADI-2 fs, both being superb.

This may help.

 

[DonH56]

This entails a question that is more interesting to me: What measurements and equipment are prudent, for a magazine like Stereophile or individuals in general, in order to have a thorough analysis of an audio amp or preamp?

I can think of oscilloscopes that show the waveforms, FFTs that show the spectrograms, and spectrum analyzers. Can I make thorough measurements with an oscilloscope and loopback testing through a high-end audio interface, or do I need a spectrum analyzer (or something else)?

Most DSOs have 8-bit converters, though some have 12-bit and even 16-bit (the latter mainly in USB-based packages IMO). Not enough for high-resolution measurements.

If you have a good audio interface you do not need a 'scope.

 

[pma]

If you have a good audio interface you do not need a 'scope.

Even if you design amplifiers and investigate them for stability?? I have measured oscillations in a preamp at 250MHz and needed a GHz spectrum analyzer to find the issue. There was some rise of THD, but how would I fix it without a proper instrumentation? You do not need 16bit resolution for fast measrements. 8bits is often enough, because you have enough input range dividers by a selector.

 

[HuubFranssen]

Ah, the complete denial of the human ears and asking for a test that no one does! I think Stereophile has a point.

 

[Vacceo]

Oh gosh
This is tough and unfair for our host, yet it is a sure sign he's making his mark. A few years ago when I decided to take a serious look at audio quality I could have been an easy prey for the likes of Stereosnob. Right around that time Amir and Audio Science Review came online, a real life saver. They're angry because their economic model is threatened, I would look no further. My desk system which cost 1/5 to 1/20th compared to their typical budget I'm sure would have the stereosnobs pinch and turn up their nose. Yet there's not a thing to change in it unless something breaks down, a distant scenario. The only difference between them and I is peace of mind, not sound quality.

They don't dare playing Napalm Death on Kef Blades; I do.

Ah, the complete denial of the human ears and asking for a test that no one does! I think Stereophile has a point.

Quality evaluation with the ears is doomed. Because It typically involves Diana Krall.

 

[Rednaxela]

Ah, the complete denial of the human ears and asking for a test that no one does!

Why the frustration?

FWIW, I do believe you heard a difference.





Edit: removed ‘for one’ because I think everybody does, plus fixed quote.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

Stereophile magazine is what the corpse of audio journalism smells like. Long ago they recognized that readership/subscriptions was declining and revenue was mostly dependent upon advertising. The writers/reviewers became the slave to the advertisers. This trend only became more obvious over the years. What has become even more embarrassing is that to justify high advertising rates they must show traffic to their website. As audio enthusiasts increasingly become aware of the scam of their subjective/creative reviews vs objective measurements of performance, traffic to their website decreases. This endangers their business model.

After spending decades reading that every new piece of exotic obscenely priced audio gear "lifted the veil, revealing new detail and nuance" the reader begins to wonder what was wrong with the state of the art equipment that the reviewer already possesses? Why only a system costing in excess of $950,000 is barely acceptable in this hobby? Why after spending one's hard earned money on a "Recommended Component" our home system doesn't sound any different?

Once upon a time they had a tincture of credibility and have been resting on their laurels ever since. However, over time the reviewers that built up the credibility of the publication drifted away. Gone were Tyll, Corey, Sam, Gordon and others.

One thing that is obvious is that a well engineered and excellent measuring piece of equipment always sounds good to great. It is extremely rare for poorly designed and measuring gear to sound great. Regardleess of price. That is what 50 years of experience teaches.

 

[HuubFranssen]

Why the frustration?

FWIW, I do believe you heard a difference.





Edit: removed ‘for one’ because I think everybody does, plus fixed quote.

I know that you believe I heard a difference. That is part of the doctrine.

FWIW: I’m not frustrated.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I know that you believe I heard a difference. That is part of the doctrine.

Hearing is believing. Take me for example, I’m a power cable believer. When I first tried them it lifted veils I didn’t know I was wearing. Today I cannot imagine going without power cables ever again.

 

[vert]

They don't dare playing Napalm Death on Kef Blades; I do.


Quality evaluation with the ears is doomed. Because It typically involves Diana Krall.

Diana is cool, though.

 

[Rednaxela]

I know that you believe I heard a difference. That is part of the doctrine.

Now I’m confused.

So the doctrine tells us to believe that you

hear a clear difference between a Topping D90se and an RME ADI-2 fs

. And we all do.

What is it then that

cannot be said here

?

 

[spartaman64]

I bought a Quantasylum QA401 a while back to see if I could do some basic measurements on my gear just for fun. I learned very quickly that what Amir makes look easy, isn't.



This may help.

i have an rme adi-2 dac fs and a smsl m300 mkii and im pretty sure i hear a difference but how do i test it properly? i can probably volume match by measuring the output voltage with a multimeter right? can i have both connected to the computer playing music at the same time? https://www.amazon.com/Nobsound-Aud...Selector/dp/B07QVKPR2V/ref=asc_df_B07QVKPR2V/ does something like this work as the switch? then i get someone else to switch the input

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

For ASR to be in the big leagues, they should have a reference system which commands respect from both the objectivist and subjectivist crowd. Then compare all equipment to that reference system (in addition to measurements and data). You bet that Stereophile will panic that way.

Unless that system uses vacuum tubes and horn speakers, its no good. Says me.

You get the point - a 'reference system' is impractical since different people will have different ideas on its makeup, even though all the approaches might be equally good at their task of reproducing convincing music.

A much better reference is an Audio Precision analyzer.

 

[Mr. E. Guy]

Ah, the complete denial of the human ears and asking for a test that no one does! I think Stereophile has a point.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. J. Gordon Holt founded Stereophile, and he made the definitive statement on the topic many years ago:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel." J Gordon Holt

45 Years of Stereophile

It was 45 years ago this month that the first issue of Stereophile, just 20 pages in length, went in the mail. It had been founded by one J. Gordon Holt. Gordon had been technical editor of High Fidelity magazine in the 1950s, and was tired of being asked to pander to the demands of advertisers.

www.stereophile.com

 

[DonH56]

Even if you design amplifiers and investigate them for stability?? I have measured oscillations in a preamp at 250MHz and needed a GHz spectrum analyzer to find the issue. There was some rise of THD, but how would I fix it without a proper instrumentation? You do not need 16bit resolution for fast measrements. 8bits is often enough, because you have enough input range dividers by a selector.

Are you asking me what it takes to measure? I have a pretty good idea, having done it for decades... I understand what instrumentation is required for thorough testing, but I took the question in the context of a consumer looking for frequency response and distortion measurements, not a designer or manufacturer, since the question seemed to be if a DSO was good enough for FFTs to measure say 100 dB SFDR. Range (V/div) selection does not help doing full-scale measurements unless you have a notch filter for the fundamental going into the 'scope -- you are still limited by the signal range going into the inputs without clipping. I know you know this, surprised you think I don't. Fundamentally a DSO is a time-based measurement tool; you would use something different for spectral analysis. That is an AP or similar for audio, and a good sound card is probably enough for exploration. I use a 60 GHz spectrum analyzer but for a different application.

I may have completely misunderstood the OP and he was asking what equipment and such a designer would use. A discussion of the tests, test equipment, and methodology required would interesting but this is not the thread for it IMO.

 

[GXAlan]

Sigh...once again "hearing" dac differences..without level matched double blind tests it's just another subjective opinion.Please don't try and denigrate the repeatable tests/ethos espoused here with vague psuedo-philosophical statements.And for the record everything is being said here to claim Amir wouldn't say something if he found a measurable difference/audibility kinda goes against the whole ethos here.

Level-matching is a big if. If you look at the DA-500 reviewed here

Denon DA-500 Vintage R2R DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the vintage (?) Denon DA-500 DAC. It was kindly purchased by a member on the used market and drop shipped to me. Interest was to find historic products with something cool about them. In this case, it is the "alpha" processing in the DA-500 which...

www.audiosciencereview.com

you can see that "Blind" controlled testing where you were only changing the DAC itself and left everything else untouched would have resulted in unmatched volumes.

Once you either increase or decrease the volume of your pre-amp/amplifier, you potentially introduce differences if you just happen to stay in the Class A region most of the time vs. the Class B region (for a class AB amp), etc. So, I think it's fairer to say that audible differences can be heard, but it more likely than not is due to the not-trivial challenge of truly level matching.

 

[tmtomh]

This statement is absolutely correct. Below please see 2 signals with the same, equivalent amplitude frequency spectrum, but they do differ in phase of individual signal components. The result is a big difference in peak amplitude of the time domain plot and, of course, a big danger of clipping with the second signal. This may easily happen in long-lasting low frequency signals. Low frequency AC coupled square may have up to 2x higher amplitude compared to the original square. Click on the thumbnail to see the full image.

View attachment 219685 View attachment 219687

Can we start a donation campaign here - pool our money and buy the squarewavereview.com domain so pma can properly pursue his true passion instead of having to hitch his wagon to whatever the current hot thread here is?

 

[thegeton]

Engineering is not science. Engineers do not use the 'scientific method'. They don't send out their designs for peer review. They don't publish measurement protocols that can be replicated. There are no retractions. Most of the work is anonymous.

Apologies, but I humbly disagree in the strongest possible way. I don't know you, but your written opinion sounds like that of someone who is well read but has little practical experience in the world to which your criticism is directed.

Engineering is applied physics. Physics is science. Therefore, engineering is applied science. The diligent practical application of that science by many engineers is identical to that of 'scientists.' You are committing a serious dicto simpliciter.

I have been a degreed and working engineer for over 25 years. I use the scientific method as often as is practicable. I send out my designs for peer review within our corporate network. I publish measurement protocols that can be and have been replicated by others. I retract bad data, misinformation, poor designs, etc. And none of my work is anonymous. 100% of what I do is made public within our company.

Obviously, I can't speak for all engineers, but I stand as one example that in general, what you wrote is not true.