CHORD Hugo TT2 Review (DAC & HP Amp)

[amirm]

ASR does something in-between, advertising revenue is avoided but the material consideration of review product supply from makers/sellers is still open, so conflict of interest is implicit (note that this is distinct from expressed bias, which may or may not result).

This doesn't properly describe the context here. Most of what I test is sent in by members or I buy myself. To wit, you are in a thread where the products in question have been sent by owners.

On gear sent by manufacturers, if results are poor, I don't publish them. If a member sends the same thing, I will. The former avoids me the guilt of having to say good thing about a non-performant device.

Importantly, almost all of my review is objective measurements where emotions don't enter the equation. This is very different than Joe reviewer who gets gear and only talks subjectively about it. This indeed can create a very corrupt situation where the reviewer can butter the manufacturer's bread at the expense of consumer and there would be no way to call them on that.

Finally, in a number of cases I have either bought the same gear as sent by the manufacturer, or a member has for a re-test. Except for rare cases where a bug is found, we have no evidence of hand picked or hand tuned gear making it to me.

The reason I test manufacturer gear is because there is high interest in them due to newness. If I don't, then they typical random reviewer would, resulting in consumers being misled.

All, in all, we have a system in place that produces highly reliable test data with almost no risk of pollution. To imply that we are somewhere "in between" is quite misleading. We are very close to consumer reports model without having to spend millions of dollars a year purchasing our own products.

 

[amirm]

By the way @amirm Rob still claims his DACs are the only ones that don't show any measurable noise full modulation.

I spent a couple of days testing this. I decided to make it a fresh article. See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dulation-chord-dave-vs-topping-dx7-pro.37119/

 

[Lukino]

I will tell my case, a while ago, when I didn't know about this forum, I often believed subjective reviewers who described a new expensive product, how amazing it is, how it is layered, etc... I'll make it short. They were mostly more expensive things. If you buy them, you are greatly influenced by the value of the product or how much money you paid for the item. Cheaper things will start to be a waste for you, although this forum points to a product that is 5 times cheaper and has better measurements. Now I don't want to condemn quite expensive and good metered products. I personally bought the cheaper and perfectly measured Topping D90 Discrete based on Amir's measurements. I tried several comparisons /subjectively/... In short....Measured products that turned out well.. they really play much better. Keep in mind that I suppressed the feeling that I was listening to a product that is cheaper and measures better. I don't want to suppress anyone... I like reviewer Sandu ...soundnews. But now I know that such reviews are very misleading even if they mean well. Finally, I came to the conclusion that only a measured product, e.g. To Amir and similar people in the field, it can sound layered and HQ. That's why I'll say again that I'm grateful for this forum and I wish it even more products to test.

 

[voodooless]

I like reviewer Sandu ...soundnews. But now I know that such reviews are very misleading even if they mean well.

No they don’t. You are not the customer, the advertisers are! Never forget that.

 

[AdamG]

No they don’t. You are not the customer, the advertisers are! Never forget that.

To take this statement to its realistic conclusion. Most, not all, Reviewers out there will create an Audio experience fantasy story to get you the consumer to buy the product. They don’t get paid for a bad review. They don’t get paid for an honest review. They get paid for inflating everything about said device. They are Salespeople and work on commission or as Consultants. Some get paid from both ends. The manufacturer pays them for the review and Customers pay them via Affiliate Endorsement Agreements/Buy now links. Then there’s the Commercial pop up and Boarder Advertising. Another form of income stream. So if you are greeted by Klipsch or Beats Ads when you visit their sites. You will likely never read a bad review of any of the Brands buying Advertising Space on their website.

You will find None of that here! We are Switzerland of the Audio World. Welcome to Switzerland!

 

[Garrincha]

On gear sent by manufacturers, if results are poor, I don't publish them.

Wait, what, isn´t that concerning? This comes as a surprise to me. So manufacterers have no risk in sending stuff in? Is this really the proper way of doing it?

 

[Music1969]

Wait, what, isn´t that concerning? This comes as a surprise to me. So manufacterers have no risk in sending stuff in? Is this really the proper way of doing it?

I personally don't have a problem with it.

If they send it to ASR, and care about measurements and measurements are poor, they are probably motivated to fix the issues and re-send to ASR.

Then ASR can mesaure again and then we see measurements

If measurements are poor and they don't care to fix, then that's their poor choice.

Not really concerning to me

 

[Geert]

This explains why we never saw the review of Townshend Audio cables that was promised ;-)

 

[Robbo99999]

I personally don't have a problem with it.

If they send it to ASR, and care about measurements and measurements are poor, they are probably motivated to fix the issues and re-send to ASR.

Then ASR can mesaure again and then we see measurements

If measurements are poor and they don't care to fix, then that's their poor choice.

Not really concerning to me

Yeah, and if you say to yourself that you're only ever gonna buy gear that's measured here on this site, then it doesn't matter that the review wasn't published as you wouldn't have bought it anyway if it was published & measured bad.

 

[Music1969]

Yeah, and if you say to yourself that you're only ever gonna buy gear that's measured here on this site, then it doesn't matter that the review wasn't published as you wouldn't have bought it anyway if it was published & measured bad.

Yep but I wouldn't limit purchasing based on this site

Erin's Audio Corner is great for speakers.

SoundStage

HiFi News

Has everyone forgotten the OG @John Atkinson still does a great job at Stereophile

 

[Robbo99999]

Yep but I wouldn't limit purchasing based on this site

Erin's Audio Corner is great for speakers.

SoundStage

HiFi News

Has everyone forgotten the OG @John Atkinson still does a great job at Stereophile

Yep, good idea re Erin, he's got the Klippel too. I'll look up the others because I haven't been on those.

 

[amirm]

This explains why we never saw the review of Townshend Audio cables that was promised ;-)

It doesn't. Their boxes are still here unopened.

 

[amirm]

Wait, what, isn´t that concerning? This comes as a surprise to me. So manufacterers have no risk in sending stuff in? Is this really the proper way of doing it?

Companies that send me gear think their devices measure great. When they don't, it is a major shock to them.

The big issue with my policy here is the time I waste on something I don't publish. This year the problem has gotten a lot worse, sharply reducing my productivity at times.

 

[voodooless]

The big issue with my policy here is the time I waste on something I don't publish. This year the problem has gotten a lot worse, sharply reducing my productivity at times.

Oh boy, are we ever curious about that Blacklist

 

[Robbo99999]

Companies that send me gear think their devices measure great. When they don't, it is a major shock to them.

The big issue with my policy here is the time I waste on something I don't publish. This year the problem has gotten a lot worse, sharply reducing my productivity at times.

On the plus side it makes it more likely that companies will send you free gear to test though, keeping your cash payouts lower, albeit increasing your hours. And as you said it gives them an opportunity to improve their gear behind the scenes......although it might make you feel as if you're an unpaid part of the R&D......but it's no loss to the overall "audio world", but a positive effect instead. You'd think though that a lot of companies would have your Klippel or GRAS and your audio analyser (AP50 something or other).

 

[srkbear]

Companies that send me gear think their devices measure great. When they don't, it is a major shock to them.

The big issue with my policy here is the time I waste on something I don't publish. This year the problem has gotten a lot worse, sharply reducing my productivity at times.

Interesting—is this a reflection of a depressing deterioration in the general quality of audio gear of late, a selection bias, or both? I certainly haven’t noticed any decline in your output—maybe a little more weight towards A/V gear and room speakers/monitors than I’ve noticed before, but I might be imagining that…

 

[amirm]

Interesting—is this a reflection of a depressing deterioration in the general quality of audio gear of late, a selection bias, or both? I certainly haven’t noticed any decline in your output—maybe a little more weight towards A/V gear and room speakers/monitors than I’ve noticed before, but I might be imagining that…

The biggest impact is in speaker testing. It takes me two days of setup and testing to get final results of speaker measurements. By then a lot of effort has been put in. I have tested far fewer speakers this year than I did last. With electronics, the dashboard immediately gives good indication of device performance so the impact there is not as large.

 

[KeithPhantom]

The big issue with my policy here is the time I waste on something I don't publish.

Is there any way you can publish data even if the manufacturer disagrees? I think what we’re doing here is scientific research using pretty sound methods, not trashing their products. If they send an item, they should be held liable on the repercussions of doing such action, even when it goes against their plan.

 

[Axo1989]

This doesn't properly describe the context here. Most of what I test is sent in by members or I buy myself. To wit, you are in a thread where the products in question have been sent by owners.

On gear sent by manufacturers, if results are poor, I don't publish them. If a member sends the same thing, I will. The former avoids me the guilt of having to say good thing about a non-performant device.

Importantly, almost all of my review is objective measurements where emotions don't enter the equation. This is very different than Joe reviewer who gets gear and only talks subjectively about it. This indeed can create a very corrupt situation where the reviewer can butter the manufacturer's bread at the expense of consumer and there would be no way to call them on that.

Finally, in a number of cases I have either bought the same gear as sent by the manufacturer, or a member has for a re-test. Except for rare cases where a bug is found, we have no evidence of hand picked or hand tuned gear making it to me.

The reason I test manufacturer gear is because there is high interest in them due to newness. If I don't, then they typical random reviewer would, resulting in consumers being misled.

All, in all, we have a system in place that produces highly reliable test data with almost no risk of pollution. To imply that we are somewhere "in between" is quite misleading. We are very close to consumer reports model without having to spend millions of dollars a year purchasing our own products.

The quote you refer to was part of my response to @srkbear and specific to his Consumer Reports comparison, not a general/comprehensive overview of ASR method. There was no implication whatsoever, it was a direct factual statement (which you confirm, as "very close" meets the criteria "somewhere in-between"). How close can be argued, of course but that's outside scope of my comment, my interest and this thread.

I'm aware that users supply devices to ASR to test. However, the relevant point of difference between ASR and Consumer Reports on purchase of devices to test is that the manufacturer supply channel is open for you but closed for them. I'm not implying any judgement beyond the factual difference of protocol. I appreciate that you make that compromise in order to avoid capital outlay. If I recall correctly ASR declares where manufacturers supply review samples. That amounts to a declaration of conflict of interest which is normal practice and generally sufficient.

As an aside, I wasn't aware that potential reviews of devices that measure "poorly" weren't published. That would be another difference compared to Consumer Reports.

 

[amirm]

Is there any way you can publish data even if the manufacturer disagrees?

Of course. The rule is mine to use or not. Question is, in the larger scheme of things, is it the right thing to do? Manufacturer gets penalized for offering a product for us to test.