The guy from upscale is just another salesman right? “It’s so good, I’m using it at home!” EtcLying to themselves as much as they are lying to us.
"They won't upsell you...we don't roll that way here"
Riiiiiiiiight.
The guy from upscale is just another salesman right? “It’s so good, I’m using it at home!” EtcLying to themselves as much as they are lying to us.
"They won't upsell you...we don't roll that way here"
Riiiiiiiiight.
Ugh. before i found ASR, i used to read headfonia a lot for reviews. Now that I see the truth of the matters via scientific data, I feel no remorse for not ever going there to read their horses**t reviews on products.Headfonia review at: https://www.headfonia.com/audioquest-niagara-1200-review/
Loved this: "The first thing I noticed, was that my system had a bump in volume. My Gain Cell pre-amplifier automatically starts at volume 25 out of 100, but with the Niagara 1200 in the mix, the volume was a good five to six clicks above as before." What...??? A bump in volume!!!! Is it a first? I don't think I had seen this type of claim before...
Oh and there is a typo in one of the introductory statements: "Power conditioners haven’t really set foot in the headphone business, though their use case would be relevant in it as well." I am sure he meant "irrelevant in it as well"
How do you know it wasn't subconscious biases influencing your perception of what you heard? What would be the theory behind such "massive" improvements?Has anybody here done a blind listening test with any of the Audioquest Niagara lineup?
I have heard (yes with my ears) Niagara products really help stereo systems become more resolving and sound significantly better. They didn't always make a difference but sometimes they made massive improvements. Also, headphone listening is not always the best test for all accessories. If you didn't listen test on various amplifier/speaker pairings then your listening test is irrelevant. It seems odd to spend so much time measuring and so little time listening when the end goal is to have a system that is pleasing to listen to.
You are mixing your opinion with science. They are totally different things.Has anybody here done a blind listening test with any of the Audioquest Niagara lineup?
I have heard (yes with my ears) Niagara products really help stereo systems become more resolving and sound significantly better. They didn't always make a difference but sometimes they made massive improvements. Also, headphone listening is not always the best test for all accessories. If you didn't listen test on various amplifier/speaker pairings then your listening test is irrelevant. It seems odd to spend so much time measuring and so little time listening when the end goal is to have a system that is pleasing to listen to.
Unfortunately for you nothing on the power side can have any influence on sound quality. It isn't possible, and you are therefore mistaken.Has anybody here done a blind listening test with any of the Audioquest Niagara lineup?
I have heard (yes with my ears) Niagara products really help stereo systems become more resolving and sound significantly better. They didn't always make a difference but sometimes they made massive improvements. Also, headphone listening is not always the best test for all accessories. If you didn't listen test on various amplifier/speaker pairings then your listening test is irrelevant. It seems odd to spend so much time measuring and so little time listening when the end goal is to have a system that is pleasing to listen to.
Can we not turn every review into subjectivist vs. objectivist greatest hits rehash? Any responses to review threads which pop the "but my ears" argument should be moved to a dedicated "So you think your ears are golden" master thread.
Nice now upload a video of acing the blind test and change the world, you will be the first guy in history who did thishave heard (yes with my ears) Niagara products really help stereo systems become more resolving and sound significantly better.
Don't forget the missus, too!...and get a couple for the kids!
Did he say why he thought testing was flawed?I did bring up measurements and testing to Bill and he went into a spiel about how much of this testing is flawed and blah, blah, blah.
I don't remember exactly and I don't have the technical expertise to mount an intelligent argument. I was just thinking to myself, "from the mouth of snake oil royalty".Did he say why he thought testing was flawed?
He said much of the testing is flawed and that no testing at all is the best evidence.Did he say why he thought testing was flawed?