Sigh. Okay, let's try one more time. Here's where you talked about the praising of bad equipment:
You clearly argue that "the reviewer" should "stop praising bad stuff because it's cheap," and that "the reviewer should not be recommending."
If you really want to, you can try to claim that you did not mean Amir when you said that - but given that you posted this in a thread and discussion that's questioning Amir's use of simple loads (or in the case of the Powercube, complex loads but not the right kind of complex loads), and given that Amir quite notably uses "recommended" and "not recommended" as his main review conclusions, it is obvious to any reasonable reader that you are referring to Amir here. Perhaps you were not referring
only to Amir, but it is not plausible to try to claim you were not referring to Amir.
Hopefully we can put that particular point to bed, because in my view it's not the main point anyway. The main point is that you claim that "bad stuff" is being "praised because it's cheap." The reason I asked you to provide examples or evidence of that being done in reviews here was not to play "gotcha." Rather, it was for precisely the reason I originally stated: to allow others to gauge the validity of your claim. If you were to provide one or more examples of reviews that led you to make that claim, then other members here could look at those reviews and think about the following key issues:
- What measurements, performance, build characteristics, or other aspects make it bad?
- Do they agree with you that the gear is in fact bad?
- Was the gear praised because of its price, or because of its performance regardless of price, or for some combination thereof?
- Is other, similar gear that performs better available at similar prices? Conversely, does the gear in question perform as well as other gear costing a good deal more?
By providing one or more examples, you allow people to learn about the criteria you are using to make your claim, and therefore you give them the ability to make an informed decision about whether or not they agree with you. In the absence of that, we're left only with your repeated complaint that cheap, "throwaway," Chinese gear "rapidly shoved into aluminum enclosures" bothers you and "grinds your gears." That's a lot of heat and very little light.
As for
@pma 's posts, I would first say that your request that I provide 3 examples is made in bad faith, simply to be disagreeable and to try to "top" my request that you provide a single example to back up your claim. But with that said, sure, no problem. Here are a few:
1. pma has far more engineering expertise than I do, and he absolutely devises specific tests and shares clearly documented results here. Good on him for that, 100%. However, he also has demonstrated a clear pattern of ignoring key factors that are important to take into account. For example, he's run unfiltered 20kHz square waves into Class D amps and on that basis claimed that they are fundamentally flawed or that "Class D has a long way to go" (note the sweeping claim that it's the whole topology, not just this or that amp or implementation).
2. Class D has a switching frequency by design, and of course you can exploit that by running certain kinds of signals into such an amp. He has steadfastly ignored or dodged the questions of (a) whether such signals represent what a musical source will actually send to an amp, and (b) whether it is reasonable or legitimate to design an amp to perform at its best with typical musical signals. By ignoring or dodging these questions, he often claims that
basic characteristics of Class D topology are not characteristics but rather
flaws. It is well-known - and pma himself has noted many times in other comments - that the best Class D designs use filters to control most of these issues, are load-invariant, and are capable of driving 2-ohm loads (and in some cases sub-2 ohm loads) without issue. But he does not generally acknowledge these facts when he writes about his amp torture tests.
3. He has also repeatedly asserted that a "20 year old design" - the Hypex UcD180 module - is superior to today's NCore and Purifi designs because the UcD's distortion levels are more consistent across all audible frequencies, while the NCore and Purifi's distortion levels start to rise from around 5kHz upwards. What he ignores when he makes this argument is that the NCore and Purifi designs have lower distortion at
all frequencies, even at their worst-performing frequencies, than the UcD has at
any frequency, even its best-performing frequency. So in this instance, pma's attachment to consistency of distortion, even if that distortion is
always higher, is in my view an excellent example of a subjective or aesthetic preference, which has nothing to do with the actual comparative performance or quality of the amps in question.
Personally I don't like calling other members "emotional" - I think it's dismissive. But by pma's use of the term, I would say his preference for the UcD based on how pretty its distortion curve looks is precisely an example of what he refers to as "emotional." For goodness' sake, one could simply reduce the feedback in an NCore or Purifi design and the distortion would rise at sub-5kHz frequencies - that would
degrade the overall measured distortion performance of those modules, but by pma's standard it would
improve those modules' performance because it would make their distortion more consistent across frequencies - and that distortion would
still be lower than that of his beloved UcD180.
So there are three examples.
But let me be clear - my issue is not with pma running these tests. My issue is with the conclusions he draws from them and how he writes about the issues. In my opinion, his posts create confusion and spread FUD. I'm not saying that's his intention; but it does seem to have that effect. In this thread, a member has posted that they are feeling that Class D is not a great choice for higher frequencies (I forget the exact words but it's easily findable above). IMHO that represents a step backwards in our collective clarity and understanding about Class D amps, particularly the many implementations that are load-invariant. And IMHO this backwards step, this increase in confusion and overarching fear of using Class D, is a direct result of pma's posts.
