Audio GD - bad rap in the past -new breed !!

[Veri]

Lets see what survives longer, the NFB-11.38 or D30 Pro

Well, sure. Let's see

 

[atmfrank]

Kinda pointless to jump into the fray so late, but I like to make a few subjective comments here. I value ARS, I also value the evolutionary nature of HIFI. To me Audio-gd is a grown-up DIY hobbyist business. The proprietor doesn't make any secrets about it. Plenty of components in the box? Sure because he is not connected with commercial chip factories that will condense whole circuit boards into a single chip. That cost $$, eliminates component failure potential but also removes further tinkering with the circuits. Because you better be 100% sure that your circuit design is rock-solid, tested, tried repeatedly. Less noise/better measurements for sure.

BTW, Burson makes a good business out of "discrete op-amp design".

Wind the clock back 50 years and imagine how people would react if the Dynaco ST70 self-assembled power amp hits the market. Was it taken seriously back then? Clearly, there were less equipment choices and it was a much smaller market.

I am operating two Precision 3 amps for 4 years now in two of my modest stacks: Dynaudio Contour 20, Excite 14, Denafrips Ares II, SMSL SU-9, Burson Conductor, plus vinyl gear. The amps are performing flawless so far, warm, rich sound, great dynamics under low and high gain conditions. Even when driving the Contour 20's hard, a single P3 holds up well. $500 incl. shipping. You get what you pay for.

In the marketing section for the P3, they directly talk about the diamond-cross output design (late 60ties design - not very successful) "not measuring well" and the pro and cons for using the design. I do not see deceptive advertising, perhaps some omissions with providing measurements.

I wonder how well a Dynaco ST70 would measure....people still love these amps.

 

[amirm]

I wonder how well a Dynaco ST70 would measure....people still love these amps.

It measures within shouting distance of a number of modern modern solid state amplifiers! See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...review-and-measurements-of-dynaco-st-70.7224/

 

[amirm]

Plenty of components in the box? Sure because he is not connected with commercial chip factories that will condense whole circuit boards into a single chip. That cost $$, eliminates component failure potential but also removes further tinkering with the circuits. Because you better be 100% sure that your circuit design is rock-solid, tested, tried repeatedly. Less noise/better measurements for sure.

Companies can build audio products out of anything they want. That is their concern, not ours. Ours (audiophiles) is to get a performant audio device. It is not like you are going to keep the top open and hang the thing on the wall and rave about all the parts. You listen to the thing. In case of Audio-gd products, they post measurements that are NOT representative of the product performance. Folks go by them and think they are getting something good with the explanation what you give: lots of parts so it must be good. Well, it is not. Spreading a design across large boards with tons of components with who knows what spec is a recipe for sub-optimal design. Again, if they can make it work, kudos to them. But they don't.

 

[amirm]

BTW, Burson makes a good business out of "discrete op-amp design".

They do make good business. Alas, in all the testing I have done, they only cost money but don't improve performance. Here is where one of their complete products ranks: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...urson-soloist-3xp-review-headphone-amp.34353/

Audiophiles need to stop being their own "brain surgeons" thinking they are design engineers and know what is good or is not. It is so easy to fool people who don't have proper engineering background with this and that story about the design. Instead, they need to learn to read measurements and insist on that data showing performance. If they think only the sound matters, then they should stop making arguments about this and that design being better. And ask for controlled blind tests that the sound is indeed better. Failing that, again, they need to trust the measurement data and information assessments you see here. There is no other logical path.

 

[lateralous]

Plenty of components in the box? Sure because he is not connected with commercial chip factories that will condense whole circuit boards into a single chip. That cost $$, eliminates component failure potential but also removes further tinkering with the circuits. Because you better be 100% sure that your circuit design is rock-solid, tested, tried repeatedly. Less noise/better measurements for sure.

You have this completely backwards, a minute of digging would show how easily one can obtain the exact same DAC chips used in many high performing products. I don't know where you live, but I'd wager you yourself could you have thousands of them on your doorstep within a couple days. Fully discrete designs are going to be more expensive in most cases. It also seems strange to conclude that (by your admission) the DIY hobbyist is capable of engineering a discrete design that can compete with SOCs produced by actual R&D teams with millions in backing.

 

[Palladium]

You have this completely backwards, a minute of digging would show how easily one can obtain the exact same DAC chips used in many high performing products. I don't know where you live, but I'd wager you yourself could you have thousands of them on your doorstep within a couple days. Fully discrete designs are going to be more expensive in most cases. It also seems strange to conclude that (by your admission) the DIY hobbyist is capable of engineering a discrete design that can compete with SOCs produced by actual R&D teams with millions in backing.

I dunno but all that seems to be a pointless exercise, when the music already goes through relatively horribly distorting mics, several thousand times of NE5532s bargain basement op-amps, single digit $ per meter cables and countless PC-based EQ/mixing in the recording studio. Some genres like pop might not even have an analog source for instrumentation.

 

[Malaj]

Audio GD is a perfect example how little measurements matter sometimes. Do I hear a ton of distortion in my cheap as hell audio gd c-2? No more then on my thx 789 AAA or topping A90.

The chinese to english translations seem to be one of the reason of course they get so much flac except for being chinese. They don´t use negative feedback they themself suggest they won´t measure well but if it´s all the negative feedback that cut off all transients short on the my thx 789 AAA in the hunt of insane SNR numbers I sure as hell don´t want that. I do feel there is some good ears at Audio GD

Topping A90 was not nearly quite as bad as the thx 789 AAA is and always has been. Costs quite a bit more too but it´s still really not something that sounds real to my ears. I rather take an amp that measure bad and actually sound good then something that on a paper sound good. The race is lost before you start as a neutral headphone don´t exist anyway.

I am looking into a master 19 to replace my C-2. I guess it measure worse as there is more components in it.

 

[Burkebang]

Sorry for waking up an old thread, but I cannot help myself.

A few months ago I bought a SMSL RAW-MDA 1. I have used it allmost every day since I got it, so it is definatly burned in, if you believe in that.

Tonight I some spare time and just for fun I setup my old Audio GD NFB-15 from 2014, which the SMSL replaced, for a proper A-B test session, with the intent to truely see how much better the SMSL was.

Both where connected to my SMSL PO100, driven with ASIO from the Qobuz windows app. The headphone used was the extremely revealing Beyerdynamic T90.
I volume matched the amps with my SPL meter and started to switch and listen.

I was shocked by how much better the Audio GD sounds. I have done extensive testing with a lot of different music, from Carlos Kleibers 5. and 7. to Diana Kralls Live in Paris and the result is allways the same. The SMSL sounds flat and dead in comparison. The Audio GD makes the music come alive, sharpens up the "edges" and my foot starts to follow the beat. I even switched the Toslink and Coax cables between the amps, to see if that made a difference, it did not.

This means the SMSL becomes the preamp in my bedroom setup and the Audio GD will drive all my good headphones again.

This is definatly not the result I expected or wanted. I really liked having the remote control also.
So I now trust Kingwas ears more than the near perfect measurements of the SMSL...

 

[VintageFlanker]

Welcome !

I volume matched the amps with my SPL meter and started to switch and listen.

Sorry, but that is wrong to begin with. Level-match has to be done in the analog domain, with a DMM to avoid unprecise and flawed matching.

and started to switch and listen.

If this wasn't done blind, not to mention randomised, then the "proper AB comparaison" is worthless.

so it is definatly burned in, if you believe in that.

We do not, because this concept does not exist in any shape or form.

 

[Malaj]

Synergy with your gear trumps everything. There is so many Amps that has low enough distortion and other technicalities it dont matter as much. But every headphones on earth is a coloured compromise and has to be

My two favourite closed backs want different sources as they kind of enhance the traits of each headphones and they are kind of yin and yang though still relatively neutral compared to what is out there.

 

[DVDdoug]

for a proper A-B test session,

ABX.

Controlled Audio Blind Listening Tests

Synergy with your gear trumps everything...

...My two favourite closed backs want different sources as they kind of enhance the traits of each headphones and they are kind of yin and yang though still relatively neutral compared to what is out there.

That CAN happen with a poorly designed headphone amp. Especially if the output impedance of the headphone amp is not low relative to the headphone impedance.* Headphone impedance (and speaker impedance) is not flat across the frequency range. If the amplifier's output impedance is too high, these variations get translated into frequency response variations... If the impedance has a bump-up in the bass range, the bass will be bumped-up etc. We DON'T want to "match" the impedance!

But a good headphone amp (or power amp) has low output impedance which means the performance of the amp is consistent with different headphone loads.

Headphones are spec'd and measured with a good-consistent headphone amp.



* The amplifier specs usually don't tell you the output impedance. Usually they are giving you the recommended headphone load. It's the same with power amplifiers... The amplifier might be rated for 4 or 8-Ohm speakers but the actual output impedance is usually a fraction of an Ohm. If there's a spec, it's listed as the ]damping factor. Tube amps are often an exception with a lower damping factor, so again the frequency response can be different with different speakers.

 

[Burkebang]

Welcome !

Thank you

Sorry, but that is wrong to begin with. Level-match has to be done in the analog domain, with a DMM to avoid unprecise and flawed matching.

The level matching was done with a good old analog sound pressure level meter. It was fixed between the earpads and never moved while I adjusted the volume of the amps. With the pot meter on the Audio GD, the match was perfect on the meter.

If this wasn't done blind, not to mention randomised, then the "proper AB comparaison" is worthless.

I was not looking for a blind test, I cannot do that by my self. I was looking to se how much better the SMSL was. Considering the 11 years of DAC and amp improvements and the great meassurements of the SMSL and I had even watched a number of rave reviews on youtube, praising the SMSL. I had absolutely no doubt that the SMSL was totally superior, that is why I bought it. So confirmation bias was very solidly on the side of the SMSL.

We do not, because this concept does not exist in any shape or form.

Thank god! I totally agree with that. I have heard speakers and headphones change slightly as the drivers breaks in with in the first hours, but never with solid state electronics.

I must add that the difference in the quality of the sound reproduction between these devices is so large that that the Audio GD would have won even if I boosted the SMSL with 5 DB or more. I wish there was a way to meassure this...

I must add that I am NOT saying that the SMSL sounds bad. I have lived with it for close to 6 months and have felt completely satisfied with the sound quality. I just took its superiority for granted. I just have not compared them directly before now.

 

[Burkebang]

Synergy with your gear trumps everything. There is so many Amps that has low enough distortion and other technicalities it dont matter as much. But every headphones on earth is a coloured compromise and has to be

My two favourite closed backs want different sources as they kind of enhance the traits of each headphones and they are kind of yin and yang though still relatively neutral compared to what is out there.

That is good points you make. The next time I get bored, I might just A-B my other cans also

 

[Beave]

Thank you


The level matching was done with a good old analog sound pressure level meter. It was fixed between the earpads and never moved while I adjusted the volume of the amps. With the pot meter on the Audio GD, the match was perfect on the meter.

When he wrote that level matching must be done in the analog domain, he meant that it must be done in the analog *electrical* domain, not in the acoustical domain.

Level matching in the acoustical domain is insufficiently precise.

 

[SuicideSquid]

I was not looking for a blind test, I cannot do that by my self. I was looking to se how much better the SMSL was. .

Without proper level matching and blinding you cannot find out how much better the SMSL is (or is not).

 

[dasherzx]

I was a/b-ing for fun with my original focal utopias connected to an smsl raw mda1 to my pc. My pc also has a digital out dongle to neumann kh150 monitors. All three have good reviews here, sounds excellent and at one point I forgot I had switched to the headphones instead of my speakers!
This isn’t me saying good objective scores mean good sound but more towards me saying that we can be easily biased.

 

[Burkebang]

The difference in sound quality that I hear is obvious without any form of level matching, so there is no way that the SMSL will sound better, even with much higher volume.

It is also obvious to me that the headphone amplifier in the Audio GD is vastly superior to the SMSL. So to do the SMSL justice, I am on the lookout for a higher end separate headphone amplifier. Then I can actually compare the sound quality of the DACs on the same amplifier.
As you can understand with this, I actually WANT to be able to use the SMSL ;-)

 

[Burkebang]

I was a/b-ing for fun with my original focal utopias connected to an smsl raw mda1 to my pc. My pc also has a digital out dongle to neumann kh150 monitors. All three have good reviews here, sounds excellent and at one point I forgot I had switched to the headphones instead of my speakers!
This isn’t me saying good objective scores mean good sound but more towards me saying that we can be easily biased.

I am completely aware of how much bias can mean. My bias was completely and fully on the side of the SMSL. It is 11 years younger, has a great NEW DAC, has rave reviews and meassures near perfectly, as I read on this website. I thouroughly absorbed ALL this information before purchasing the unit. I was honestly flabbergasted by the results I got.

 

[VintageFlanker]