Buchardt A500 subjective review

[carnagymelton]

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 .


.

Perhaps you are right when it comes to DACs, but I don't think speakers could be looked at in the same fashion. Perhaps someone here, including ASR could put this "debate", insofar it is something that seems to be talked about a lot here, to rest by doing an ABX test with a highly-regarded $10k DAC and a $120 Topping E30. Hard to imagine that a test like that has not been done. But, again, my posts really relate to speakers, and the subjective reviews of speakers which I take more seriously than DAC impressions.

 

[andreasmaaan]

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

It wasn't, but it was measured by Stereophile and demonstrated to produce no audible noise or distortion:

 

[carnagymelton]

It wasn't, but it was measured by Stereophile and demonstrated to produce no audible noise or distortion:

View attachment 89390

View attachment 89391

It would be interesting to hear what Darko would reply, and it would be interesting to hear what manufacturers of high-end transparent DACS (Benchmark would come to mind) would say. Again, just surprised that by this point this issue hasn't been put to rest with regard to DACs. I tend to lean toward your argument. Wouldn't it make sense for ASR to have an ABX test which would put the issue to rest? Also, if what you are saying is true, what is the value of continuing to evaluate DACs when we already have so many transparent ones to choose from and there is no audible difference between any of them, and, to top it off, there will NEVER be a better DAC by definition.

 

[Chromatischism]

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.

Glad to see you guys liking the A500's. Buchardt seems to aim for a balanced sound. I hear plenty of sparkle from the S400's but I hear everything else equally, too, but never in a harsh or edgy way. And completely agree on bass note separation. Some of that is due to room EQ, though. Once you get your bass flattened you will hear those details without all the masking from adjacent peaks. Set up as an equilateral triangle, speakers at about 15-30° so I see the inside face of the cabinets, puts me in a very flat listening window (much better than directly on-axis which too many people focus on). The A500 are probably similar in their setup.

 

[Chromatischism]

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.

It would make sense to me that if people thought distortion sounded better, engineers would just mix in distortion so everyone hears it in their in-ear monitors. I'm doubtful of that.

 

[andreasmaaan]

It would be interesting to hear what Darko would reply, and it would be interesting to hear what manufacturers of high-end transparent DACS (Benchmark would come to mind) would say. Again, just surprised that by this point this issue hasn't been put to rest with regard to DACs. I tend to lean toward your argument.

I'd be interested to hear too. If you could get Darko or indeed any other prominent "subjectivist" reviewer to comment on this, I'd be most interested

Wouldn't it make sense for ASR to have an ABX test which would put the issue to rest?

It could be done, but it would be hard to conduct a very rigorous study involving a large and varied enough sample to guarantee a reasonable degree of statistical significance. Especially not in comparison to the rigorous research that has already been undertaken into masking, audibility thresholds and so forth (i.e. human hearing).

However, less formal/rigorous tests along the lines you're suggesting have been undertaken, e.g. this one.

Also, if what you are saying is true, what is the value of continuing to evaluate DACs when we already have so many transparent ones to choose from and there is no audible difference between any of them, and, to top it off, there will NEVER be a better DAC by definition.

This is exactly why I rarely read or comment on DAC reviews here. I've been perfectly happy with my €10 Apple USB-C dongle for general listening purposes for the past couple of years (although I also use a Focusrite Clarett or RME Adi-2 FS in the studio when higher output, greater functionality, balanced connections, and/or mic/instrument inputs are required).

 

[andreasmaaan]

It would make sense to me that if people thought distortion sounded better, engineers would just mix in distortion so everyone hears it in their in-ear monitors. I'm doubtful of that.

I don't know that it's so uncommon.

Often in mixing and mastering, processes that add audible distortion are chosen over equivalent processes that do not. And (not as often across the board, but particularly in some genres) engineers will use distortion effects to add "colour" to the sound. It's very genre-dependent obviously, but it's certainly not unusual.

 

[carnagymelton]

I'd be interested to hear too. If you could get Darko or indeed any other prominent "subjectivist" reviewer to comment on this, I'd be most interested



It could be done, but it would be hard to conduct a very rigorous study involving a large and varied enough sample to guarantee a reasonable degree of statistical significance. Especially not in comparison to the rigorous research that has already been undertaken into masking, audibility thresholds and so forth (i.e. human hearing).

However, less formal/rigorous tests along the lines you're suggesting have been undertaken, e.g. this one.



This is exactly why I rarely read or comment on DAC reviews here. I've been perfectly happy with my €10 Apple USB-C dongle for general listening purposes for the past couple of years (although I also use a Focusrite Clarett or RME Adi-2 FS in the studio when higher output, greater functionality, balanced connections, and/or mic/instrument inputs are required).

Thanks for the link to the test. It would have been much more impactful if they had just compared a $130 with a $10,000 DAC and not given people 4 choices to determine which was best.

 

[q3cpma]

I don't know that it's so uncommon.

Often in mixing and mastering, processes that add audible distortion are chosen over equivalent processes that do not. And (not as often across the board, but particularly in some genres) engineers will use distortion effects to add "colour" to the sound. It's very genre-dependent obviously, but it's certainly not unusual.

But then they would add more if more is needed. People should remember the difference between music production and reproduction.

 

[andreasmaaan]

But then they would add more if more is needed. People should remember the difference between music production and reproduction.

Yeh, that's an important distinction. But if someone wants to add distortion on the reproduction end, that's also fine by me.

My problem is with manufacturers pretending that their products are technically superior when they are not. Or telling people that differences between functionally equivalent products are audible when they can't be, etc etc.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Thanks for the link to the test. It would have been much more impactful if they had just compared a $130 with a $10,000 DAC and not given people 4 choices to determine which was best.

FWIW, just stumbled upon another similar test. This was a blind comparison between a couple of quality DACs including a SOTA Benchmark and a Realtek Integrated Audio Codec. Again, there were four DUTs, but I hardly think the result would have been different if they'd only been comparing two. Still, not quite the same level of rigour as the psychoacoustic studies I mentioned before which inform my view as to why these less rigorous tests should result in the outcomes that they do tend to result in.

 

[carnagymelton]

FWIW, just stumbled upon another similar test. This was a blind comparison between a couple of quality DACs including a SOTA Benchmark and a Realtek Integrated Audio Codec. Again, there were four DUTs, but I hardly think the result would have been different if they'd only been comparing two. Still, not quite the same level of rigour as the psychoacoustic studies I mentioned before which inform my view as to why these less rigorous tests should result in the outcomes that they do tend to result in.

I just came across this one too in a separate thread. This test is even less convincing to me. They ask people to consistently identify between 5 DACs and conclude that the inability to identify the DACs consistently means that no differences can be discerned. Can't imagine a more meaningless test. Why not just do an A B comparison? Why confuse things? An A B comparison would be cheaper and less time consuming. Almost seems like these tests are designed to fail.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I just came across this one too in a separate thread. This test is even less convincing to me. They ask people to consistently identify between 5 DACs and conclude that the inability to identify the DACs consistently means that no differences can be discerned. Can't imagine a more meaningless test. Why not just do an A B comparison? Why confuse things? An A B comparison would be cheaper and less time consuming. Almost seems like these tests are designed to fail.

Designed to fail? Well, given what we know about the science of human hearing, it would be surprising if these tests didn't fail

Anyway, another avenue you might wish to pursue can be found in this thread. One set of samples consists of original recordings, the other set of the same recordings that have been run through budget priced ADCs and DACs eight times.

You would think if there's an audible difference between a $100 DAC and a $10k, there would be an extremely obvious problem with a signal that had been run through the $100 DAC eight times and a similarly priced ADC eight times, right?

 

[richard12511]

Designed to fail? Well, given what we know about the science of human hearing, it would be surprising if these tests didn't fail

Anyway, another avenue you might wish to pursue can be found in this thread. One set of samples consists of original high-res recordings, the other set of the same recordings that have been run through budget priced ADCs and DACs eight times.

You would think if there's an audible difference between a $100 DAC and a $10k, you could tell the difference between a signal that had been run through the $100 DAC eight times, right?

Also @carnagymelton , try this test. That's an $8 DAC that so far has been audibly perfect to beyond the limits of everyone's ear that has tried. Perhaps there is someone out there though with sufficient ears to pass the test, as the OPs test clearly show it's not measurably perfect.

 

[carnagymelton]

Also @carnagymelton , try this test.

I'm not sure how this test has any bearing on whether the average person would prefer the sound of a $100 DAC to a $5000 DAC. The best way to answer that question is to do a simple ABX test between a $100 DAC and a $5000 DAC and it is almost comical that there doesn't seem to be a test like that (not that you or anyone has the obligation to conduct such a test).

 

[carnagymelton]

Designed to fail? Well, given what we know about the science of human hearing, it would be surprising if these tests didn't fail

Designed to fail as in purposely designed to show that people cannot tell the difference. How about I make you listen to 1000 DACs and ask you to identify them consistently and then infer that there is no difference in sound between the DACs when you can't? Would that not be a test designed to fail? Why all the complexity? Where is the $100/$5000 A B DAC comparison? You mean there hasn't been one yet? All this debate and nobody has thought or had the time to conduct such a powerful and simple test?

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'm not sure how this test has any bearing on whether the average person would prefer the sound of a $100 DAC to a $5000 DAC. The best way to answer that question is to do a simple ABX test between a $100 DAC and a $5000 DAC and it is almost comical that there doesn't seem to be a test like that (not that you or anyone has the obligation to conduct such a test).

Designed to fail as in purposely designed to show that people cannot tell the difference. How about I make you listen to 1000 DACs and ask you to identify them consistently and then infer that there is no difference in sound between the DACs when you can't? Would that not be a test designed to fail? Why all the complexity? Where is the $100/$5000 A B DAC comparison? You mean there hasn't been one yet? All this debate and nobody has thought or had the time to conduct such a powerful and simple test?

But if you can't tell the difference between a signal that has passed through a $8 DAC and a signal that hasn't passed through any DAC at all, isn't that far more conclusive evidence that the $8 DAC is perfectly transparent?

I mean, why test it against one specific DAC when you can go a step further and test it against no DAC at all (other than whatever DAC you choose to use to perform the test, which could be $100k if you wanted it to be)?

 

[carnagymelton]

But if you can't tell the difference between a signal that has passed through a $8 DAC and a signal that hasn't passed through any DAC at all, isn't that far more conclusive evidence that the $8 DAC is perfectly transparent?

I mean, why test it against one specific DAC when you can go a step further and test it against no DAC at all (other than whatever DAC you choose to use to perform the test, which could be $100k if you wanted it to be)?

You are assuming that signals tell the story, but I don't necessarily believe that. I mean sure, it's a good start, but to REALLY REALLY convinced, I'd like to see an ABX test. THEN I will believe without even knowing the reason for the result. I don't want to have to believe that signals and your reception and analysis thereof tell the whole story and make the ABX test unnecessary. As they say in sports, "that's why they play the game". Again, shocking that such a simple inexpensive and powerful test does not exist given the constant debate on the subject. Obviously if you ask anyone making expensive DACs whether people can tell the difference they would say "of course". And you would counter "they are snake-oil salesmen trying to sell" and I have the signal data to prove it. All that is missing to end the whole debate is a simple ABX test on 2 DACs, not 4 or 5 DACs or degenerating loops from DAC/ADC conversion, but a simple AB test involving actually purchasers of these products.

 

[Emlin]

You are assuming that signals tell the story, but I don't necessarily believe that. I mean sure, it's a good start, but to REALLY REALLY convinced, I'd like to see an ABX test. THEN I will believe without even knowing the reason for the result. I don't want to have to believe that signals and your reception and analysis thereof tell the whole story and make the ABX test unnecessary. As they say in sports, "that's why they play the game". Again, shocking that such a simple inexpensive and powerful test does not exist given the constant debate on the subject. Obviously if you ask anyone making expensive DACs whether people can tell the difference they would say "of course". And you would counter "they are snake-oil salesmen trying to sell" and I have the signal data to prove it. All that is missing to end the whole debate is a simple ABX test on 2 DACs, not 4 or 5 DACs or degenerating loops from DAC/ADC conversion, but a simple AB test involving actually purchasers of these products.

Just crack on do this "simple inexpensive" test yourself then, as it's clearly so important to you.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Again, shocking that such a simple inexpensive and powerful test does not exist given the constant debate on the subject.

TBH, I find it more shocking that decades of research into the human auditory system seem to count for nothing to you. That you insist that people perform some very peculiar, specific little test that you say will prove something to you, when far more rigorous research has already been done that answers the questions you're asking in a far more fundamental fashion.

If the only test that will satisfy you is a test involving some specific expensive DAC and some other specific cheaper DAC, I suggest you perform it yourself.

FWIW, I planned to do such a test myself, very informally, with an Apple USB-C dongle (€10) and an RME Adi-2 DAC FS (€1200), both of which I own. However, given that, even sighted, I could not tell the difference, I didn't bother following through with it.