ONIX Audio?

[Geert]

Experienced listeners who have spent extensive time with different headphones, speakers, amplifiers, and source components recognize that these electrical and mechanical interactions are fundamental to perceived sound quality—and cannot be fully captured by laboratory measurements alone.

No I don’t.

 

[Mart68]

Just as I thought. How convenient! To gingerly avoid any responsibility by not doing real-world research or finding a single counter-argument. Anyone can call something false. It takes no skill or intellect. Understand what William Shockley was talking about in that quote, understand it well... and you will eventually unlock a level of fidelity to the input signal unbeknownst to you at any point in your audio hobby career. Otherwise, enjoy the 2nd, 3rd, and fourth order harmonics and the smearing of even/odd order harmonics which sounds sterile and clean, but never violent and authoritative like how you hear audio in real life...not listening to a machine, but listening to sound as it exists in the real world. I've gotten very close, so have my friends...

I'm curious to know what equipment you're using?

 

[Deleted member 89070]

Fascinating. Please, go on …

Here's a visual instead. I understand that sometimes, reading through something can sound like drivel. Although, I honestly could have structured my arguments more congruently. I'll admit that.

 

[voodooless]

All of these are non-sequiters. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

 

[Deleted member 89070]

All of these are non-sequiters. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

I respect your beliefs/opinions. It's alright if we don't agree.

 

[voodooless]

I respect your beliefs/opinions. It's alright if we don't agree.

It’s not a belief. It’s a fact. Logical causality has nothing to do with belief.

You just assert: because A, B and C we hear a difference. But you never make any connection between the assertion and the conclusion. You just postulate.

Basically you do exactly what this industry wants you to do: “look shiny stuff; therefore high-end, now listen for yourself and don’t ask any more questions!”

 

[whereisbrian]

I respect your beliefs/opinions. It's alright if we don't agree.

When I read your posts on ASR, I ask myself the same question: what is your objective?

If you hope to change the spirit of the forum, you're mistaken.
I joined precisely because I was fed up with the subjectivist mindset that pollutes every serious discussion elsewhere.

I've read your argument, and I struggle to understand what could possibly help a community like ours progress.

 

[Deleted member 89070]

It’s not a belief. It’s a fact. Logical causality has nothing to do with belief.

You just assert: because A, B and C we hear a difference. But you never make any connection between the assertion and the conclusion. You just postulate.

Basically you do exactly what this industry wants you to do: “look shiny stuff; therefore high-end, now listen for yourself and don’t ask any more questions!”

Very well then. We disagree 100%.
That's a fact. And it's alright.

 

[Geert]

Very well then. We disagree 100%.
That's a fact. And it's alright.

Facts do not seas to exist because they are being ignored.

 

[voodooless]

Facts do not seas to exist because they are being ignored.

That hasn’t stopped the industry one bit from doing it anyway…

 

[Deleted member 89070]

When I read your posts on ASR, I ask myself the same question: what is your objective?

If you hope to change the spirit of the forum, you're mistaken.
I joined precisely because I was fed up with the subjectivist mindset that pollutes every serious discussion elsewhere.

I've read your argument, and I struggle to understand what could possibly help a community like ours progress

You haven't read it in its entirety or completely at all. If you did, you would have researched for yourself and reached exactly the same conclusions.

The basic premise is that better electrical engineering costs more money, not less. And that less shortcuts taken by a manufacturer doubtlessly increase the level of fidelity, not make it worse. More shortcuts = cheaper for the manufacturer and the consumer. It's common sense. My life experiences have taken me around the world so I know these things I'm saying are true. Also, refer to the photo I included above. If you choose not to believe that at all, then more power to you. You may save a lot of money and time on this hobby in the short term, and the long run as well.

And I'm not going to overgeneralize by making the suggestion that higher cost = better performance.
Design intent, product description, and end user experience. Do these 3 align? If so, we have a successful product.

To change the sprit of the forum? No, of course not. I don't own this place - We know who does, and despite any level of disagreements we know he is well-intentioned and highly intelligent.

Regarding my argument and how you apparently struggle to understand what could possibly help a community like ours progress, I'm sorry... but that is just plain rude. I did include a lot of real information, terms, and industry-insider knowledge that you and others perhaps don't have. I'm not even asking for a thank you... for goodness sake.

So then, regarding my arguments...

--> My arguments point directly to manufacturing processes, parts selection, how manufacturers save money, and how a lot of what hobbyists think is truly accurate is as a matter of fact voiced to sound a certain way. This is all useful information and you can check any of the points I've made and how they align redundantly to what those in industry and electronics design constantly preach. AP themselves agree that measurements need to be used in context, rather than definitely.

 

[Deleted member 89070]

Facts do not seas to exist because they are being ignored.

I'm sorry, it was really tempting to correct your spelling!

Facts do not *cease* to exist because they are being ignored.

Like what many here are doing with the facts I have pointed out.
Thank You.

 

[voodooless]

Like what many here are doing with the facts I have pointed out.

That is the whole problem. You bring a few factoids and generalizations, then just postulate that they have an audible effect. “Common sense” you call it. That is not how it works. You have to provide some means to have the one follow the other. Just stating it as fact doesn’t make it so.

 

[Deleted member 89070]

That is the whole problem. You bring a few factoids and generalizations, then just postulate that they have an audible effect. “Common sense” you call it. That is not how it works. You have to provide some means to have the one follow the other. Just stating it as fact doesn’t make it so.

Talk to industry pros who actually build this stuff. Visit manufacturing facilities whether or not they relate to your career. Have one on one intellectual conversations which involve the topics I've listed with actual electrical engineers in real life. And do your own research online. Please do not keep pestering me about this. The world is your oyster... I've simply pointed you in the right direction. I am not directly responsible for how you learn, or if you learn at all. At any rate, enjoy the audio hobby and be well. Attached is another photo for consideration. If you disagree again, don't tell me about it. I'd rather not argue.

 

[voodooless]

Talk to industry pros who actually build this stuff. Visit manufacturing facilities whether or not they relate to your career. Have one on one intellectual conversations which involve the topics I've listed with actual electrical engineers in real life. And do your own research online. Please do not keep pestering me about this. The world is your oyster... I've simply pointed you in the right direction. I am not directly responsible for how you learn, or if you learn at all. At any rate, enjoy the audio hobby and be well.

Indeed…

• You list design parameters (gain, slew rate, parts, feedback), but you never explain which output parameter changes audibly or by how much.
• Different engineering approaches do not imply different sound unless they change frequency response, phase, noise, distortion, or output impedance at audible levels, which you don’t demonstrate.
• Higher part cost or “better” parts does not imply higher fidelity unless cheaper parts measurably fail audibility thresholds in the actual circuit.
• Manufacturing effort, QC, and part matching affect reliability and consistency, not automatically audible performance.
• Saying equipment is “voiced” does not bypass measurements — voicing is itself a measurable change you never specify.
• Reactive loads are not ignored in engineering; if load interaction causes audible change, it must appear in measured behavior under that load, which you don’t show.
• Claiming negative feedback worsens sound requires showing audible higher-order distortion, not just asserting it exists.
• Practices in HVAC, military, or industrial electronics concern lifetime and failure rates, not sound quality.
• Personal listening experience is not evidence of causality; it does not establish mechanism or audibility.
• The existence of a high-end market does not validate technical claims; markets do not test audibility.
• Saying “measurements need context” is true, but context means more relevant measurements, not abandoning causality.
• Recording flaws becoming obvious does not demonstrate electronics differ audibly once transparent.
• Shifting from engineering claims to “different listeners want different things” moves the argument from objective fidelity to preference.
• Shockley’s amplification analogy describes power control, not sound quality or parts selection.
• Repeatedly asserting that “engineering intent” matters does not show how it manifests audibly.

 

[Ralph_Cramden]

Talk to industry pros who actually build this stuff.

There are plenty of them right here on these august forums.

 

[kemmler3D]

Read it again. This time slowly and carefully. Glancing what someone has written assuming it's wrong is just jumping to conclusions.

These factual assertions can be backed up with real-life experiences. Visiting warehouses and production facilities. Talking to employees who work in wiring stations at consumer/professional electronics companies. Talking to quality control departments, electrical engineers who are working in the field; not just academics/earned degrees, and ultimately rationalizing that as with all industries there exists variation due to customer demands and targeting specific segments of that market. Audiophiles, audio professionals, and the occasional music enjoyer may have very different priorities about what good sound is to them. Everyone's different. So is the gear. The term "audibly transparent" has been thrown around far too much over the years. If an amplifier + source component is truly accurate, then you will easily be able to decipher differences in sound where one track could be virtually unlistenable due to excessive compression and limiting - shrinking soundstage and collapsing micro-dynamics and transients. Everything on a system that isn't resolving might sound "clean" but rather one or two dimensional. And imaging, which we all know is the illusion of a sense of space or locale in a recording (especially live recordings) is not so easily replicated just because an amplifier or DAC has high SINAD and low THD.

I'm actually sorry for being a bit overbearing. So I will try to explain myself a bit better. Parts do matter. You can say they don't, but they most certainly are the most important thing in all electronics; not just audio equipment. Remember - we are modulating electricity and reproducing sound through stored energy and drivers that have physical mass. The application of parts and furthermore the circuit design which these parts are centered around matter a lot.

Here is a bunch of solid info... research each of the points I've made if you care to.

Small surface-mount capacitors and cost-driven switching power supplies exhibit higher ESR than large radial electrolytic capacitors that are interconnected via metal or copper bus bars. The same principle applies to power supplies: dedicated EI or toroidal transformers generally provide superior current delivery and stability compared to inexpensive switch-mode designs. This trend can be seen across HVAC and military, for example. They commonly use what is more reliable and performant in the long term. The electrical characteristics of such parts can be contrasted very easily. It's rather obvious.


Capacitors rated at 85 °C versus 105 °C are not inherently inferior; in certain DAC output stages or analog circuits, 85 °C parts may actually be more appropriate to the design goals and, in some cases, even more expensive due to material choices or manufacturing processes. It's not just the higher number that counts. Material science can tell us plenty about long term reliability. Film capacitors and those made for an intended purpose (custom or otherwise) typically have very have low dielectric absorption, which also impacts sound quality. I could go on... but just research -->the measured metrics of capacitors that determine their behavior and reliability when used in electronics such as audio equipment, and why this matters for sound quality.


The use of off the shelf/inexpensive operational amplifiers instead of fully discrete transistor stages is often a shortcut employed in budget audio equipment. While op-amps can achieve excellent bench measurements, these measurements are typically obtained under ideal, resistive test conditions and are designed to be easily repeatable for marketing purposes. Sound familiar? Go to any of those budget gear websites and you will be bombarded with charts and graphics with high numbers... higher than you will ever need. Such data does not reliably translate to real-world performance with reactive loads, such as loudspeakers or demanding headphones. Of course, such manufacturers are aware of this.


Even advanced test methods, including multi-tone testing, remain relatively “safe” and do not stress an amplifier or DAC in the same way real transducers do. In practical listening scenarios, driver behavior in passive speakers, headphones, and even active speakers varies significantly depending on how the amplifier modulates current, manages stored energy, and delivers that energy cleanly and consistently to the driver. For example, in headphone amplifiers that are not truly performant, the voice coil is driven with more authority than the entire driver itself, which leads to smaller amounts of air pressure being created, and therefore sound waves that do not encompass what that speaker/headphone is truly capable of. This is directly related to how the capacitors are wired to the power transformer, and the sum of ESR/ESL along with the slew rate and rise time and damping factor which all, to a large degree, get to decide how linear and accurate the pistonic motion of driver unit(s) can be in real-world listening and professional applications, such as audio production and mastering.


Experienced listeners who have spent extensive time with different headphones, speakers, amplifiers, and source components recognize that these electrical and mechanical interactions are fundamental to perceived sound quality—and cannot be fully captured by laboratory measurements alone.


And yes, I wrote all of the above by myself because these are facts I've known for at least the last decade. It's not just the measurements - it's how we got there that counts. That's all I'm saying. Peace and happy listening.

CTRL+F: "Harmonics"

Not found

OK, so you have no intention of backing up stuff you claim affects the sound. I guess you thought you could just say stuff like "higher order harmonics" and "smeared harmonics" and like on most forums where people pretend to know what harmonics are, we'd just nod along.

You just are totally sure it does because different capacitors behave differently. "Reactive loads and test signals are different" NO, REALLY?

You think you're the first person to come in here and point this out?

It happens almost every week.

You know what doesn't happen? Someone showing the measurements that demonstrate "bench measurements" are actually wrong in the ways you're talking about. Which would be fairly trivial to do if you really wanted to, AND the claims about sound quality were true.

There are plenty of ways to do this. Just take one of Amir's reviews of an amp, then measure the output with an actual speaker (electrically, acoustically, take your pick) and show the difference between bench and real-world measurements. Easy! A smart high school student could do it. But instead I'm supposed to take your word for it based on "real world experience"?

This is Audio Science Review, not Audio Take My Word For it, Bro, Review.

Do you think I enjoy the fact that amps are boring in 2025? I'm interested in audio because I find audio interesting. If you can show me evidence that the prevailing narrative is wrong, that's interesting, and that's science. I would find that very valuable. You know what is neither interesting nor science? Your ultra-long-winded, condescending opinion pieces.

 

[MAB]

Here's a visual instead. I understand that sometimes, reading through something can sound like drivel. Although, I honestly could have structured my arguments more congruently. I'll admit that.

Fascinating, please start over then!

 

[whereisbrian]

You haven't read it in its entirety or completely at all. If you did, you would have researched for yourself and reached exactly the same conclusions.

The basic premise is that better electrical engineering costs more money, not less. And that less shortcuts taken by a manufacturer doubtlessly increase the level of fidelity, not make it worse. More shortcuts = cheaper for the manufacturer and the consumer. It's common sense. My life experiences have taken me around the world so I know these things I'm saying are true. Also, refer to the photo I included above. If you choose not to believe that at all, then more power to you. You may save a lot of money and time on this hobby in the short term, and the long run as well.

And I'm not going to overgeneralize by making the suggestion that higher cost = better performance.
Design intent, product description, and end user experience. Do these 3 align? If so, we have a successful product.

To change the sprit of the forum? No, of course not. I don't own this place - We know who does, and despite any level of disagreements we know he is well-intentioned and highly intelligent.

Regarding my argument and how you apparently struggle to understand what could possibly help a community like ours progress, I'm sorry... but that is just plain rude. I did include a lot of real information, terms, and industry-insider knowledge that you and others perhaps don't have. I'm not even asking for a thank you... for goodness sake.

So then, regarding my arguments...

--> My arguments point directly to manufacturing processes, parts selection, how manufacturers save money, and how a lot of what hobbyists think is truly accurate is as a matter of fact voiced to sound a certain way. This is all useful information and you can check any of the points I've made and how they align redundantly to what those in industry and electronics design constantly preach. AP themselves agree that measurements need to be used in context, rather than definitely.

Okay, I misread and didn't understand your arguments, and I apologize in advance.

I don't see the point of your demonstration, and perhaps I lack the necessary perspective.

Aside from trying to evangelize the uneducated and ignorant masses, I still don't grasp your intentions and objectives.

That said, in every forum I've frequented, there was invariably a member dedicated to illuminating the darkness for those who didn't know where the switch was.

I have no doubt that you can fulfill this mission perfectly.

 

[voodooless]

I have no doubt that you can fulfill this mission perfectly.

I think the light we see and @DillonK1992 sees are in two vastly different wavelengths… flipping the switch won’t do us any good…

… at least we can all enjoy the music