Buchardt A500 subjective review

[asruser2020]

Here’s the article I was referring to. Turns out my memory was slightly off, and Darko is “only” recommending a $10k DAC to pair with Genelec 8341’s (instead of a $50k one), but obviously this does not change my message at all since this is still abysmal advise from him.

To me, this reads like a giant ad for various DAC and preamp products. But you be the judge: https://darko.audio/2018/02/genelecs-the-ones-8341-think-inside-the-box/

Some key excerpts:




No matter how generously you try to interpret this, it’s terrible advise. Whether it’s due to ignorance, bias due to financial incentives, or deceit — I make no judgement.

I wasted an hour carefully reading that article twice. I did not see where in the article did Darko "recommend a $10k DAC to pair with Genelec 8341". In fact, he loves the all-in-one Genelec 8341's . He brings up the Chord DAVE as basically a separate review. His review is meandering and poorly organized, but nowhere does he recommend using the Chord DAVE to use with the Genelec 8341.

 

[asruser2020]

Ahhh- I see the game is now afoot. Care to enlighten us as to what EISA is? What is required to become a member?

I think I know , but I would love to hear your take on it.

I'd like to see your LinkedIn profile to see if you have any right to criticize Darko.

 

[Jimbob54]

I'd like to see your LinkedIn profile to see if you have any right to criticize Darko.

Good one. So you're not going to tell us what EISA is and what is required to be a member?

 

[Jimbob54]

I'd like to see your LinkedIn profile to see if you have any right to criticize Darko.

And let's get something straight. Darko isnt without merit, but let's not lose sight of the fact that he is part of the marketing machine. That might explain his membership of EISA.

 

[Sukie]

I'd like to see your LinkedIn profile to see if you have any right to criticize Darko.

Surely EISA is just an industry body for audiophile magazines.

 

[BDWoody]

Good one. So you're not going to tell us what EISA is and what is required to be a member?

About $100

 

[Jimbob54]

Surely EISA is just an industry body for audiophile magazines.

Technically it was for photography and they must have been struggling to keep the tea fund solvent so let some ear people join.

 

[Jimbob54]

About $100

View attachment 89095

It's possible we are all talking about different EISA..... https://eisa.eu/. This seemed relevant.

 

[Taddpole]

I'd like to see your LinkedIn profile to see if you have any right to criticize Darko.

You are getting a bit weird now.

 

[Harmonie]

There should be a dedicated thread for these recurrent threads that come over and over again.
So that all you do is put a link to the thread and basta !

 

[mfgillia]

The great irony in all this is that Darko concludes the Kef is better than the Buchardt in terms of value. Call it snakeoil salesmanship if you like - thats really scientific. Great objectivity here.

Anyway my concern with the Kefs is the bass response and that you need to crossover to subs well above 100hz. How do people do this in reality? Does the sub become audibly locatable?
I think I prefer the looks of the buchardt and like their hub concept as an all in one.

In his standalone review of the A500s he also said they were more or less 2x better than the original Kef LS50 wireless, which may seem a bit shocking at first but I did find his rationale to be generally persuasive. I suspect his point in this last review was most likely more simple and direct - i.e., its a better value because its significantly cheaper and perhaps also because it corrects some of the usability problems in the first version.

Regarding bass response, I agree with your concerns. I used subs with the Kefs before and was never completely happy with the performance likely due to my inability to integrate them effectively in my room. My entirely subjective opinion though is that based on general sound quality the A500s drastically outperform the Kefs and few will think both systems are in the same class. With that said, I haven't heard version II and no doubt somewhat pre-conditioned to have a negative opinion of the Kefs influenced by suffering through tons of usability problems.

 

[carnagymelton]

You really are having a bad day. Try and relax, it won't seem so bad then.

Posts like this really bother me. SO passive aggressive and just totally annoying. Either address the man's arguments or sod off.

 

[carnagymelton]

I don't think you will agree with me on this, but my primary point is that his opinions on DACs really has nothing to do his assessment of speakers. To me they are barely related, even if they are both about audio. One doesn't really impact the other. You might as well be discussing his taste in food or whether New York or Italian pizza is better(New York Pizza is better, obviously, but don't sleep on connecticut).

When it comes to subjective reviews, they're just that:, subjective. Of the speakers I've overlapped with Amir, for instance, I don't find I agree with him any more than any other subjective reviewer -- even though we've gotten very similar measurements. And I don't mean whether something is good or bad -- I'm in general much more positive than amir -- but whether something is bright or dull, bassy, forward, wimpy, etc.

Of course, things are different once you factor in measurements, that's where the true objectivity comes in. But even then I often disagree with the interpretation of data.

Anyway, I don't mind anyone feeling one way or the other, but I do think it's an interesting to discussion to assess what subjective reviews should be like -- what constitutes a good subjective-only review.

In a nutshell: the tests conducted by ASR can determine which amps and dacs are the most transparent. But those tests cannot and do not 1) prove that a given amp or dac "sounds better" to the listener, or, wait for it, that 2) transparency should always sound better simply because it is a more true reproduction of the original source (this is actually a philosophical argument, not a scientific one). That is simply a fact. In order to prove what many here want to prove, that less distortion "sounds better", you would need to conduct testing involving individuals. All said and done, there is no proof that more transparency always sounds better to the individual.

 

[skumflum]

Well here is my very unscientific and subjective opinion on the A500. They replaced a pair of Dynaudio Contour S3.4 powered by a Musical Fidelity A5 and a MINIDSP DDRC-24 with Dirac Room correction. My jaw dropped. The A500 digs deeper and it is not a one-note base (Don’t know about the THD but to my ears there is no audible distortion). At first, they seemed a little darker and I was missing a little “sparkle” if this make any sense. What I realized the other day was that I was listening to music and not hyper focusing on details. I never notice the tweeter it just that well integrated. Overall, I am a happy customer .... And they look great (my wife agrees) and the family can stream Spotify and airplay making it more accessible

 

[andreasmaaan]

In a nutshell: the tests conducted by ASR can determine which amps and dacs are the most transparent. But those tests cannot and do not 1) prove that a given amp or dac "sounds better" to the listener, or, wait for it, that 2) transparency should always sound better simply because it is a more true reproduction of the original source (this is actually a philosophical argument, not a scientific one). That is simply a fact. In order to prove what many here want to prove, that less distortion "sounds better", you would need to conduct testing involving individuals. All said and done, there is no proof that more transparency always sounds better to the individual.

I agree that we don't have proof that less distortion "sounds better" to everyone (or even most people). In fact, there is some evidence that mild, just-audible levels of distortion sound better to some people with some program.

However, there is also (indeed much stronger) evidence that the levels of distortion present in many of the devices that a reviewer like Darko prefers or does not prefer (and therefore believes sound different from each other) are below audibility thresholds for humans. This is the problem.

The absolute threshold of audibility of sound in quiet (that is, far quieter conditions than a typical home listening room) is just below 0dB, and only in the frequency range in which our ears are most sensitive.

Moreover, when a complex signal is present, our auditory systems mask components that are lower in level than louder/lower frequency components. The effectiveness of masking is dependent on the relationship between the masker and the maskee and the absolute level of the masker. But it is generally very effective, and raises the threshold of audibility far above the ≈0dB that would apply in the absence of a masker.

There can be no disputing either of the above two facts. They are the result of rigorous and repeatable scientific research.

Therefore, when a reviewer claims that two devices that generate distortion/noise that is no louder than 100dB below the signal level are differentiable from each other, this implies that all of the following conditions were satisfied:

• SPL at which the reviewer listened was 100dB+.
• Listening was undertaken in an anechoic environment.
• Playback signals were heavily band-limited to avoid masking effects at higher frequencies.

None of which appear to be close to satisfied in the case of Darko's listening room, habits, or program.

The alternative, of course, is that the reviewer was mistaken or lying (I suspect the former in the majority of cases).

 

[carnagymelton]

I agree that we don't have proof that less distortion "sounds better" to everyone (or even most people). In fact, there is some evidence that mild, just-audible levels of distortion sound better to some people with some program.

However, there is also (indeed much stronger) evidence that the levels of distortion present in many of the devices that a reviewer like Darko prefers or does not prefer (and therefore believes sound different from each other) are below audibility thresholds for humans. This is the problem.

The absolute threshold of audibility of sound in quiet (that is, far quieter conditions than a typical home listening room) is just below 0dB, and only in the frequency range in which our ears are most sensitive.

Moreover, when a complex signal is present, our auditory systems mask components that are lower in level than louder/lower frequency components. The effectiveness of masking is dependent on the relationship between the masker and the maskee and the absolute level of the masker. But it is generally very effective, and raises the threshold of audibility far above the ≈0dB that would apply in the absence of a masker.

There can be no disputing either of the above two facts. They are the result of rigorous and repeatable scientific research.

Therefore, when a reviewer claims that two devices that generate distortion/noise that is no louder than 100dB below the signal level are differentiable from each other, this implies that all of the following conditions were satisfied:

• SPL at which the reviewer listened was 100dB+.
• Listening was undertaken in an anechoic environment.
• Playback signals were heavily band-limited to avoid masking effects at higher frequencies.

None of which appear to be close to satisfied in the case of Darko's listening room, habits, or program.

The alternative, of course, is that the reviewer was mistaken or lying (I suspect the former in the majority of cases).

Fair enough, but my point was not in support of Darko or subjective reviews. My point was that there is no proof that less distortion equals "better sound" to the listener, and its corollary, that subjective reviews are worthless. At the end of the day, the subject is PRIMARY since it is the subject's opinion (as confirmable in ABX testing) that we are all after. I think this thread touched on this when many people remarked that the KEFs should, from a numbers perspective, be more deserving of praise. It may very well be the case that adulteration of the sound, either intentionally or unintentionally, sounds better to the average listener ("sounds better" being defined as "preferred" consistently in ABX testing). The majority of posts in this thread simply assume that transparent means better sound. The entire basis of laughing off people who recommend $10k DACs is that transparency means better sound when really it only means more or less transparency. Until someone actually tests whether people PREFER transparent sound consistently, then that assumption will remain only an assumption.

 

[mfgillia]

Well here is my very unscientific and subjective opinion on the A500. They replaced a pair of Dynaudio Contour S3.4 powered by a Musical Fidelity A5 and a MINIDSP DDRC-24 with Dirac Room correction. My jaw dropped. The A500 digs deeper and it is not a one-note base (Don’t know about the THD but to my ears there is no audible distortion). At first, they seemed a little darker and I was missing a little “sparkle” if this make any sense. What I realized the other day was that I was listening to music and not hyper focusing on details. I never notice the tweeter it just that well integrated. Overall, I am a happy customer .... And they look great (my wife agrees) and the family can stream Spotify and airplay making it more accessible

Thanks for the post - I was wondering how someone coming from a higher end system than mine that included room correction and dsp would feel about the Buchardts.

Your impression is very much aligned with my own experience - i.e., not a marginal improvement but a significant, immediately recognizable improvement and also being able to much more clearly differentiate between different bass notes.

Coming from the LS50 wireless, initially I was a tad bit disappointed in the A500s mids / highs, which is perhaps that absense of sparkle you noted above. To my ears this was easily remedied once I downloaded the more mid-focused master tuning.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Fair enough, but my point was not in support of Darko or subjective reviews. My point was that there is no proof that less distortion equals "better sound" to the listener, and its corollary, that subjective reviews are worthless. At the end of the day, the subject is PRIMARY since it is the subject's opinion (as confirmable in ABX testing) that we are all after. I think this thread touched on this when many people remarked that the KEFs should, from a numbers perspective, be more deserving of praise. It may very well be the case that adulteration of the sound, either intentionally or unintentionally, sounds better to the average listener ("sounds better" being defined as "preferred" consistently in ABX testing). The majority of posts in this thread simply assume that transparent means better sound. The entire basis of laughing off people who recommend $10k DACs is that transparency means better sound when really it only means more or less transparency. Until someone actually tests whether people PREFER transparent sound consistently, then that assumption will remain only an assumption.

Fair enough. Firstly, I assumed you were referring to reviewers' opinions of expensive DACs rather than speakers, since in @napilopez's post that you quoted he said that he actually generally values/agrees with Darko's reviews on loudspeakers, but can't take seriously his reviews of DACs. And yes, I don't think there should always be an assumption that transparent = most preferred by everyone. It's the assumption that high-quality DACs sound different from each other, which forms the basis of many reviewers' writing, that I object to.

Regarding speakers, my take is that the existing research into loudspeaker preference gives a fairly strong indication (I'm cautious personally to say strong evidence at this stage, as I think more work needs to be done) that tonally neutral speakers are the most likely to be preferred by most listeners (notwithstanding ofc that average ≠ everyone).

There's also strong evidence that we are poor judges of sound quality in uncontrolled conditions, as various well-documented psychological effects combine with the well-understood frailty of long-term auditory memory to confound judgement.

So I will take the results of research involving controlled subjective preference ratings far more seriously than the writings of a reviewer working in uncontrolled conditions (in fact, I don't place any stock in the latter whatsoever - but perhaps I'm a little extreme on that point).

EDIT: re: that specific point about criticising people who recommend $10k DACs, I think it is justified if the DAC in question measures well enough that it can't possibly sound different from a competently-designed $100 DAC. And if it doesn't measure well enough, I agree with others in the thread (or was it another thread I was recently reading?) that there may be cheaper, more effective ways of introducing desired noise/distortion that also offer the user more control.

 

[richard12511]

In a nutshell: the tests conducted by ASR can determine which amps and dacs are the most transparent. But those tests cannot and do not 1) prove that a given amp or dac "sounds better" to the listener, or, wait for it, that 2) transparency should always sound better simply because it is a more true reproduction of the original source (this is actually a philosophical argument, not a scientific one). That is simply a fact. In order to prove what many here want to prove, that less distortion "sounds better", you would need to conduct testing involving individuals. All said and done, there is no proof that more transparency always sounds better to the individual.

I agree that the science has not been sufficiently done to conclude that inaudible levels of distortion are always preferred by all users over audible levels of distortion. My problem isn't so much his impressions of certain tube amps that very well may have audible(and pleasant) levels of distortion. My problem lies more with his reviews and recommendations of super expensive DACs. With these devices were often talking -115 vs -110. They sound exactly the same(and yes we do have sufficient research to support that claim), and yet he almost always says the one that costs more sounds better. This isn't a victimless crime. People waste money on these devices expecting better sound quality when the truth is it sounds exactly the same as the device they had before. They could have purchased better loudspeakers with that money.

It's their money, though, and they have the right to spend it on what ever they want. I just feel bad when people looking for better sound quality get duped into purchasing a device that can't possibly improve sound quality. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any youtube DAC reviewers who take the proper steps to insure they aren't being tricked by expectation bias(and thus also tricking their viewers). Anyone looking to Youtube for DAC purchasing device is almost certainly going to be guided towards a waste of money .

The entire basis of laughing off people who recommend $10k DACs is that transparency means better sound when really it only means more or less transparency.

I don't think that's the entire basis. I think the basis is more that (almost) all of these devices are transparent to well beyond the limits of the human ear, so transparency is effectively irrelevant.

 

[carnagymelton]

I don't think that's the entire basis. I think the basis is more that (almost) all of these devices are transparent to well beyond the limits of the human ear, so transparency is effectively irrelevant.

I am not familiar with the DAC that Darko recommended, was it tested here?