Amir vs. Abyss: The Battle We Need

[Helicopter]

The room is 13.8 by 18.5 by 10 - decent medium size and I can only get away with one system (for domestic bliss reasons). I do plan to audition the SA's before purchasing - then the rest of the budget for the electronics gets decided. I have heard quite often they do provide unbelievable accurate sound stage and dimensionality with good time coherence with excellent bass (no subs required) - so I will see what I think after auditioning and report back some time later. They are very efficient so I don't need much power - I just thought the AHB was one of the cleanest power amps even at low level, so why not? But I also heard these speakers are super with First Watt or with ZOTL ultralinear. How's that for mixing objective measurements and subjective listening? Thanks for your suggestions - I'll do some more research. P.S. I did fly that airplane way back when...

Objectively, the AHB2 is the best by a hefty 8dB SINAD margin. The runners up are close to each other, but don't touch the Benchmark, which is a bit of an anomalous stray data point. The performance is well into inaudibility with the Hypex and Purifi amps though, so AHB2 is more of a jewel than anything.

 

[charleski]

who we assume are acting in good faith

The sad fact is that the vast majority of manufacturers like this genuinely do believe they're acting in good faith. When your entire livelihood depends on a particular delusion, it's trivially easy to convince yourself that the delusion is true, particularly when the alternative consists of accepting that you're just fleecing wealthy fools.

 

[voodooless]

The sad fact is that the vast majority of manufacturers like this genuinely do believe they're acting in good faith.

Or: The sad fact is that the vast majority of manufacturers like this genuinely do make you believe they're acting in good faith.

How in good faith can anyone sell a meter of cable for € 20000,-?

 

[JustJones]

Here is a third party rundown of the Abyss, ASR back and forth, might add some perspective to threads intent.

https://www.headphonesty.com/2021/01/the-abyss-headphones-crinkly-controversy/

 

[ahofer]

One question to ahofer -- are dipole speakers ala Spatial Audio consider among the "good" ones?

I don't know anything about those speakers. Dipoles tend not to fare well under the measurement conventions used in this forum, and there's some debate about whether that's a problem of measurement or the speakers (see the Magnepan LRS thread for lots more). Personally, I think measurements tell you 99% of the sound story in electronics, but far less with speakers, which require auditioning. However, the loudspeaker measurements here are still a pretty good indicator of what a person is likely to prefer.

[warning: subjective observations incoming:] I recently commented on another thread that I have some small Genelecs and KEFs, and even JBLs that probably would score better in the 'preference score' method here than my Harbeth SHL5+ (model hasn't been reviewed, so I could be wrong). I do vastly prefer the Harbeths, in near field and especially mid-field. They just sound bigger and more enveloping, with natural timbre. I had Magnepan dipoles years ago, and they also had a large, spacious quality, although my perception of the image was very unstable with them. I haven't done any blind testing between them to isolate the audible from the subjective so everyone's MMV.

 

[ahofer]

okay who wants to go first??

Not me. Two levels to this:

1) Some speakers have a sort of gimmick in their sound that makes them stand out in showrooms or shows. I'm thinking of the Paradigm/B&W treble emphasis. But a broad/phase-y dispersion pattern can also really differentiate sound. This sort of thing can get really annoying when you get it home for long-term listening, IMO.

2) Sometimes it's a good gimmick, and you like it long term. What differentiates the good gimmicks? subtlety, probably. But nothing wrong with preferring a different dispersion/phase presentation if it makes the music seem more live and immersive, or just enjoyable. I suppose some of the underpowered SET stuff fits in this category, but if its just frequency or harmonic distortion, well, DSP can do that.

 

[ahofer]

The industry loves when people try to "pair" things, always changing this or tweaking that,

Yes, I'm afraid I have trouble assuming positive intent when I get the "synergy" speech from a dealer. In my profession, that's known as "too obviously talking book".

 

[ahofer]

The discussion here on philosophy of science is idiotic and I modestly ask we stick to more tangible subjects.

I don't mind the topic, it's the lack of humility and baseless condescension that makes it so irritating (much like a lot of "golden ears" audiophilia, come to think of it). But perhaps the topic deserves its own thread.

 

[peanuts]

One question to ahofer -- are dipole speakers ala Spatial Audio consider among the "good" ones?
Thanks

no, they dont remotely compare to the likes of linkwitz. a 2-way like these with 1" dome tweeters and 15" woofers will never work in a box and will certainly never work in open baffle. polars will be awful -not close to matching at xo, no dipole peak consideration, no EQ whatsoever and the response will be all over the place both on-axis and off. not to mention zero low-end.

 

[voodooless]

no, they dont remotely compare to the likes of linkwitz. a 2-way like these with 1" dome tweeters and 15" woofers will never work in a box and will certainly never work in open baffle. polars will be awful -not close to matching at xo, no dipole peak consideration, no EQ whatsoever and the response will be all over the place both on-axis and off. not to mention zero low-end.

Well, it could be not that bad. By default, you don't even get a crossover. I definitely would not want to have that with a passive crossover. With a DSP you could actually make a fairly decent setup out of this. The horn and woofer directivity match pretty well, and the horn itself will give quite smooth polar. The tweeter should be crossed < 1000 Hz though preferably, so it better be a decent unit, which is within budget for $14K/piece. The woofer looks to be from AE. Those are special high Qts woofers, negating a bit of the dipole issues. You'll still need some heavy EQ and lot's of excursion though.

Edit: above is based on the X1, which seems does not seem to be an active model anymore. The current M3 and M5 models I would not touch, X3 and X4 look better.. horn needs to be bigger though.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Subjective versus objective discussions always seems to get a set of emphatic arguments from both camps. I will admit to feeling a sense of "validation" if something I am using measures well. On the other hand if I like the way my system sounds and read a measurement review highly negative to something in my system - I won't be running out to replace it based on said review.

One variable I have not seen mentioned with any kind of comparison - whether sighted, unsighted, blind, or double blind is the participants hearing ability. Seems like all participants would need their hearing tested prior to listening. The hypothesis being hearing ability will track measurements - i.e. bright system (includes room) sounds balanced to those individuals with poor high frequency hearing. Considerable food for thought as "weighted" fudge curves could be applied to estimate how different measured systems are likely to appeal to various groups based on hearing tests.

Blindfolds would be useful during listening tests. It would remove the "visual bias" from the equation - at least during the blind tests......

As long as we are satisfied with sound quality, visual quality, and impact on the wallet - all should be good.....

 

[VintageFlanker]

Subjective versus objective discussions always seems to get a set of emphatic arguments from both camps.

Thing is: There is no possible "argument" between those who are right and those who are wrong.

If you will: those who know VS those who don't. Sounds a bit extreme but that's the way it is.

As long as we are satisfied with sound quality, visual quality, and impact on the wallet - all should be good.....

Agreed.

 

[ahofer]

The sad fact is that the vast majority of manufacturers like this genuinely do believe they're acting in good faith. When your entire livelihood depends on a particular delusion, it's trivially easy to convince yourself that the delusion is true, particularly when the alternative consists of accepting that you're just fleecing wealthy fools.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

 

[das]

Correct the SAs do not have an active xo. According to the onsite data: "the M3 pure sapphire tweeter (576 Hz-40kHz) goes down to the passive xo with the 15" woofer/mid which provides bass down to 30Hz (specs say 32 Hz-40kHz in typical room response). Impedance is 4 ohms. The newest model is the X3 and X5 (no X4).

The newer X5 (X5 | Spatial Audio Lab ) is a powered 3-way vs the M3 which is an unpowered 2-way. So maybe I won't need the amp. The Air Motion Transformer "covers the upper midrange, up to the ultrasonic region in a single element, with low distortion and controlled directivity radiation properties. This dipolar unit’s intrinsic high efficiency and large surface area provide unparalleled upper register reproduction, eliminating listener fatigue while maintaining true fidelity to the input signal. Our new 12 inch lower midrange driver is lightning quick by virtue of its low moving mass and powerful rare-earth motor design for excellent signal tracking down to 90Hz." And, "Crisp, detailed low registers are produced by the new Spatial Sub12" Dipole bass driver weighing in at 22 lbs, establishing a firm foundation to the music down to 25 Hz. Absolute speed and authority without the loose, boomy side effects found in box speaker designs." The X5 is 8 Ohm with 25Hz-22kHz freq. response +/- 3 dB and 97 dB efficiency. The San Francisco Audiophile Society seems to be quite enamored with these speakers (u-tube video of discussion of design principals and results) so I got interested.

I have spent some time chatting with Clayton Shaw (owner and designer) about his speakers. We both have a physics background so I feel quite comfortable with his design rational and objectives (he has extensive experience designing speakers to specific audio objectives). Thus I will make a special trip to Salt Lake to audition both pair to find out what I hear (understanding it will be in a different room). There is no retail outlet/store with salespeople pushing these - which I like. I have been through the Wilson Audio demos and sales pitches (very good coherent speakers with great 3-D spatiality but missing lower bass and toooooo expensive) along with B&W (too pitchy for me), and others.
Thanks for the feedback everyone!!

 

[amirm]

One variable I have not seen mentioned with any kind of comparison - whether sighted, unsighted, blind, or double blind is the participants hearing ability. Seems like all participants would need their hearing tested prior to listening. The hypothesis being hearing ability will track measurements - i.e. bright system (includes room) sounds balanced to those individuals with poor high frequency hearing.

Three points. Standard audiologist tests only go up to 8 kHz. So getting tested requires special effort, not just getting a standard test. I was told in my last test that I had to go to a hospital to get full bandwidth test and that they only did such testing to scan for some cancers.

Second, much of what we think is brightness is below 10 kHz which vast majority of us hear. The amount of spectrum above that in music shrinks substantially in volume.

Finally, a lot of audiophiles are later in age so representing what a young person can hear, may not apply to everyone.

All of this said, yes, in formal research people are screened using such tests. And there are artifacts that require someone hearing the upper octave to detect.

 

[voodooless]

There really is no need to screen anyone. Just have the people making the subjective claims proof them by proper double blind testing. I really don’t care how death they are.. if they pass the test, they can hear a difference.

 

[ahofer]

There really is no need to screen anyone. Just have the people making the subjective claims proof them by proper double blind testing. I really don’t care how death they are.. if they pass the test, they can hear a difference.

..or deaf. But yeah, they are making a claim, they should back it up.

But when/if WE generalize about audible differences, our tests should compromise people with unimpaired hearing. A large circle in the Venn diagram that only overlaps slightly with audiophiles, who skew older.

 

[joentell]

I find it hard to believe that so many people spend tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, after listening to multiple systems, and still haven't been able to collectively figure out a basic truth that diminishing return happens around $200.

Like you said, this hobby has been going for decades. And we still haven't figured this out? A super obvious truth that Amir is showing us right in our faces? Like nobody has simply recorded and compared $200 dollar equipment next to $200,000 equipment and noticed that the measurements were identical?

That is an extraordinary claim on its own.

Sorry, a bit late to this. Welcome to the audio community!

I did an experiment where I exhibited at a high-end audio show and demoed $129/pr speakers with a $99 amp, a $49 tube buffer, $20 cables and a $35 Chromecast Audio. The guys next door had systems well over $500K. I would tell people that I wasn't with the company and I did not care at all what they thought. I played some demos, and I let them pick the music they wanted to hear. Then I asked them how much they thought the system was worth. Almost all the guesses were in the $5000+ range. I thought it was funny because a good $5000 system can sound way better than what I had setup. What this told me was that this event, and the prices/performance ratio of the other systems in other rooms, may have screwed up their perception of value, at least for that day. And just to prove they weren't pulling my chain, I allowed them to buy the system I was showing. Around 30 people out of the maybe 500 people (I don't remember the exact number, it's been a while) who came in ended up buying a system. What would they have thought if I brought a well setup $5000 system using all of the top recommended, high value products here? How much would people think that system would be worth?

I don't think anyone argues that performance can increase as you go higher in price, but there's also a ton of overpriced audio gear that makes the picture less clear. After a certain point, you're paying for status, aesthetics, exclusivity, luxury, but not for improved audio quality....and that's ok as long as you know which is which.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Three points. Standard audiologist tests only go up to 8 kHz. So getting tested requires special effort, not just getting a standard test. I was told in my last test that I had to go to a hospital to get full bandwidth test and that they only did such testing to scan for some cancers.

Second, much of what we think is brightness is below 10 kHz which vast majority of us hear. The amount of spectrum above that in music shrinks substantially in volume.

Finally, a lot of audiophiles are later in age so representing what a young person can hear, may not apply to everyone.

All of this said, yes, in formal research people are screened using such tests. And there are artifacts that require someone hearing the upper octave to detect.

Everything you are saying makes sense to me.
I agree the vast majority of what we hear as music is below 10 KHZ. Listening to a 1 KHZ test tone will shock most folks at how high it sounds.

A specialized hearing test verifying “distortion perception” could be useful in validation of the listeners perceived sound quality. Find out the percentage distortion- total, odd, and even harmonics- that is perceived. Might help explain why some folks hear differences others don’t.

 

[617]

I don't know anything about those speakers. Dipoles tend not to fare well under the measurement conventions used in this forum, and there's some debate about whether that's a problem of measurement or the speakers (see the Magnepan LRS thread for lots more). Personally, I think measurements tell you 99% of the sound story in electronics, but far less with speakers, which require auditioning. However, the loudspeaker measurements here are still a pretty good indicator of what a person is likely to prefer.

[warning: subjective observations incoming:] I recently commented on another thread that I have some small Genelecs and KEFs, and even JBLs that probably would score better in the 'preference score' method here than my Harbeth SHL5+ (model hasn't been reviewed, so I could be wrong). I do vastly prefer the Harbeths, in near field and especially mid-field. They just sound bigger and more enveloping, with natural timbre. I had Magnepan dipoles years ago, and they also had a large, spacious quality, although my perception of the image was very unstable with them. I haven't done any blind testing between them to isolate the audible from the subjective so everyone's MMV.

The magnepan's test poorly not because they are dipoles but because the motion of their enormous diaphragms is chaotic and full of resonances. Dynamic dipole designs do not suffer from these problems, and can have a very smooth DI. Their chief advantage over other designs is that they have a flatter power response, with far more treble energy bouncing around the room than all other speaker designs, which beam treble in one direction only.