• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Paul McGowan throws in the towel (Not really but it’s movement in the right direction)

To me this is funny because it is choosing to accept and repeat a subjective review because it fits with the desired outcome. Where is the call for a double blind test?

Anybody that would say they prefer the other equipment based only on sighted listening would be dismissed and told to do a double blind test.

Accepting expectation bias in one direction is not very scientific.

What are you talking about? By mentioning some trends I see on a traditional audiophile forum I'm only reporting we I see. I'm not justifying what members say there one way or the other. In this case going on about double blind testing strikes me as gratuitous.

Members' impressions are what they are. IMO, if it's reasonable to assume anything, it would be a long-term expectation bias against class D amps and solid-state amps in general; that was the case for the 20+ years I've visited the place.
 
It is a simple question: If someone reported a trend in people liking class A amps would it be accepted in the same way as your 'report' about Class D?

How is it in any way gratuitous to ask for double blind testing? I have not seen a single post about people liking amps, that don't rate highly on this site, which did not result in a call for double blind tests.

"Members' impressions are what they are"
Once again, if those impressions agree with your opinion then they are accepted. If the members had compared the Class D amps to Class A and said they found the Class A to be better are you honestly saying you wouldn't have dismissed them as sighted bias?

Your assumption in expectation bias is ignoring that the people reporting clarity in the sound have likely read over and over how clear sounding those specific amp modules are.

Add to that the fact that we don't know what amps they were coming from and what their performance was and it means there isn't even an indication that any difference would be audible.

You are accepting and endorcing sighted, biased opinions only because they fit the narrative that you want.
 
listen first without measurements....all reviews should be done first without measurements
With electronics....maybe don't bother.
 
I still have my 1337 coding skills I learnt on my Sinclair ZX81 when I was 8 years old. Look, I can still write code!

10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10
Not stylish without a loop and a GOSUB
 
I still have my 1337 coding skills I learnt on my Sinclair ZX81 when I was 8 years old. Look, I can still write code!

10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10
That's pretty danged BASIC there, Keith. :cool:
 
...or the fact that their "power conditioning" products don't do squat for audible or measurable audio performance.

In general they don't. Unless the DAC or the amplifier has a very bad power supply of its own AND the circuitry is very sensitive to noise, which means that it is BAD at rejecting power line noise.

In other words power conditioning products work, but only because they power crap.
 
Some companies also enjoin their employees from publicly listing current job info on sites like LinkedIn (some do it anyway, with various repercussions if caught, up to termination).

Really? Wow. I never heard of this, but these are companies for which i would never work.
 
Paul Mc. has stated that they will be publishing test results. I think this will result in more questions than answers. Questions similar to "How did you test it?"
 
Paul Mc. has stated that they will be publishing test results. I think this will result in more questions than answers. Questions similar to "How did you test it?"
Or what measurements he will actually publish. I doubt he publish anything that paints a negative picture but I could be wrong.
 
Or what measurements he will actually publish. I doubt he publish anything that paints a negative picture but I could be wrong.
It doesn't matter what test results he publishes without describing a repeatable test. Again, meaningless.
 
Without objective third party testing, any published measurement by the manufacturer or their representative should viewed with caution. There many ways to paint test results in a favorable light. That is why ASR and other similar testing based sites are important to the consumer. There is also the fact that the analyzers and microphones capture things that are impossible to hear and displayed on a graph giving a positive or negative slant that may not be of any improvement or detriment in audible quality over similar devices.
 
Paul Mc. has stated that they will be publishing test results. I think this will result in more questions than answers. Questions similar to "How did you test it?"
I compare one of PS Audio's measurements with my own in a followup review of the PS Audio DirectStream Mk2 DAC in the July issue of Stereophile.

When I last visited PS Audio, in 2019, I saw that they did use Audio Precision analyzers both in their design room and on the production line.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
 
That issue just arrived at my place and John's measurements and PS Audio's measurements are basically in agreement. In fact, PS Audio's are a little worse since they did not average sweeps.

AP test systems are referenced several places on the PS Audio web site. I have a vague memory of a video tour showing the test bays but could not find it in a quick search. I personally have no doubt that PS Audio does employ engineers and has the usual test equipment in use for design and product testing.
 
My son on the subject of software engineers:

1717715195227.png
 
AP test systems are referenced several places on the PS Audio web site. I have a vague memory of a video tour showing the test bays but could not find it in a quick search.

PS Audio clearly have multiple AP test stations including what looked like a semi-portable station I saw in one of their videos.

There's 555s and 515s and I think I spotted a 2700 series in a video.

Here's just a few quick screen grabs from random Paul videos:

ap01.JPG
ap02.JPG
ap03.JPG


They have literally tons of test gear.
 
Where did anyone say PS Audio don't have testing equipment? The discussion is they haven't published full test results in the past and now propose to do so. I would hope they will share the APx project files upon fair request as well.


JSmith
 
Where did anyone say PS Audio don't have testing equipment?
That was never an issue other than for John AFAICT. I certainly didn't contend or imply anything of the sort in the OP.
 
The issue is the perverse sense of entitlement some misguided people possess these days. It's permeating the very fabric of decent society and rotting it from the core.

I don't hear anyone demanding Sony release their internal testing regimes or results. And Sony have used Audio Precision since the very first system ones. Why? Because they wouldn't know where to start with a company that large. It's too hard, so they turn to PS Audio instead. A decent, long term manufacturer and employer producing gear that lasts and performs well.

Paul has put himself out there and so people think he's fair game to attack, discredit and demand this and that from his company. That's just typical ASR poor behaviour.

And @Bruce Morgen , your thread and title is absolutely an implication/insinuation and you know it. Clickbaity title and all. Yawn.
 
Back
Top Bottom