OP
- Thread Starter
- #101
Yeh.... the accident scene was gruesome. A head thrown this way, and an arm thrown the other....
-
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!
Review and Measurements of Audio-gd NFB2 192 DAC
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I agree it's good to see if specs are the truth and asr is very good for that.They actually do both. Countless people buy their products because they think they also measure well. Why do you think people send them in to be measured?
See this review for example where they even publish Audio Precision measurements which don't seem to show anything close to what I measure: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...audio-gd-nfb28-28-dac-and-headphone-amp.5147/
Here is an example for their website now: http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/NFB28.38/NFB28.38EN.htm
View attachment 27742
Until I started to rigorously review their products, most people though they presented the best of both worlds: great measurements and great sound. There were riots in the streets after my first review saying their gear that I have tested doesn't measure well.
Let's say what you say is true. They still need to provide measurements for their devices so that the consumer is well aware of what they are buying. There is "not great" and "horrible" measurements. It is not like the consumer is fully informed with what you say.
As to it sounding better or not, they need to demonstrate that, instead of just claiming it. As we have shown with measurements, what they claim doesn't seem to hold water.
If you think the dac sounds bad you must demonstrate it as well as lot of people will read the review.
New dacs are full of useless marketing too. (Not only audio gd)
32 bit is virtual.
ESS marketing:
Thd compensation we cannot imagine how it works with complex signal. As without it thd is already unhearable it's a crazy feature and we don't know if indeed it's better.
Same for jitter reduction by asynchronous hyperstream technic. If jitter is already good in synchrone mod is it really better this asynchrone mod?
In the reviews you could say also that it's only marketing and that claim that it sounds better is wrong.
Lot of complicate technics for marketing and numbers. Then you seems very happy with useless marketing numbers.
Audio gd fans are happy with no feedback marketing.
Classic dac care too much on specs that are useless.
Audio gd like dacs care about other aspects but not enough on specs.
Maybe we could have the best of both worlds.
But each side is only bout markettig.
Last edited:
Asr always ask for blind tests when someone detect differences.This is some new..how the hell a fact can be biased?
Also why the hell we should blind test with our poor human ears, when an Audio Precision gear can make much better measurements.
Human ear is one of the worst thing to test something, it can easily deceive you, even your mental state or mood can affect your hearing..
Its like you saying don't use laser equipoment for measuring a land, just go measure with your footsteps..
Measuring by ear, more or less only works with headphones or soundbars, because they are hard to measure by tools. But dac and amplifier signal is electronic so easy to measure.
Then if asr has lot of dac with some that don't measure so good it would be very interesting to see how the ear feels it.
Even if you re sure about the result it would be interesting and people who are not into science would believe more easily asr.
I get frustrated when i see that asr can do it but don't care and just say it measures bad.
Even i find it suspect as a free reader.
I think people would trust more asr if there were blind tests that confirm it doesn't sound good (because lot of people enjoy it)
@Calexico Given that audio gd stuff sounds good if not great and measures bad, what's the takeaway? I would try to build a software emulation of the audio gd sound, that allows me me to enjoy exactly that sound on any decent system. Or any other sounding, given it was modeled and built into a piece of software.
This is done in pro audio (vintage equalizers, compressors and effects, tube ampliferes) and its a really powerful concept. But it only works, if the key components of a system are free of any distortion of their own.
This is done in pro audio (vintage equalizers, compressors and effects, tube ampliferes) and its a really powerful concept. But it only works, if the key components of a system are free of any distortion of their own.
First nobody said that it's the distortion that is enjoyable. Maybe it's another thing.
Second In practice digital effects doesn't sound as good as analog ones. You won't see any musician that prefer emulated sound tube than real sound tube.
i played guitar on true tube amps and on emulated tube amps and it's totally different.
Also on computer i tried some vst like amplitube and it's far from real tube sound.
In general i prefer the sound of mastering that don't have too much digital effects.
From all cd i got i always prefer the sound of the ones that are recorded and mixed in analog .
(I got lot of cds)
Some producers like steve albiny always record and mix in analog.
When i was young i had a 4 track recorder that recorded on tape and i liked the sound.
Then i bought some emu 1202m soundcard to record.
It has far better specs but i don't like the sound better .i prefer the old 4 track tape sound.
I don't think i can have this sound with emulation on dsp.
Also on computer i tried 32 bit tube plug-ins in amarok to listen to music on linux with libsamplerate set to x4 oversampling but i didn't find it good.
Only good thing on computer is oversampling i think.
Then i bought a tube buffer and i am more satisfied than with tube plug ins on computer.
That's why i'm sceptical with buying only based on measurements
Last edited:
Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,599
- Likes
- 12,041
If it isn't measureable it isn't there. Music does not somehow transcend the limits of what Amir's audio analyser shows in terms of performance
There is a lot of processing involved before it reaches you in CD format, of which manipulating the overall harmonics / trying to replicate an 'analog' sound character can surely be one such thing depending on the approach of whoever's mastering it. It's a little silly to state that 'no' musician or artist would use such digital processing because they most definitely do.
I was talking about tube distortion that isn't yet good emulated. Try it yourself.If it isn't measureable it isn't there. Music does not somehow transcend the limits of what Amir's audio analyser shows in terms of performance
There is a lot of processing involved before it reaches you in CD format, of which manipulating the overall harmonics / trying to replicate an 'analog' sound character can surely be one such thing depending on the approach of whoever's mastering it. It's a little silly to state that 'no' musician or artist would use such digital processing because they most definitely do.
Guitarists in general prefer analog effects and true tube distortion. Only when it's too expensive for them they will buy a digital multi effect.
Of course some will choose transistor distortion but it will be a different sound.
No one has yet proven to discern no difference between a dsp effect that simulate tube distortion and true tube distortion .
So don't state everything can be emulated.
Even expensive digital piano don't render the same as true ones.
I'm sure that THD is influencing the output sound, see attached pic that proves that in A/B tests people can identify different THD amplifiers.
(source:
Also, pre and post ringing, but also channel volume difference may count in the soundstage department.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #110
ASR does plenty of that kind of testing. You are simply not aware of it. Here is one on Audio-gd no less: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-measurements-of-audio-gd-r2r11-dac-amp.5779/
I perform listening tests on all DACs plus headphone amplifier. Without the amp, levels need to be adjusted some other way and that is hard. But the message remains the same: in all the instances that I have compared high-distortion units to low distortion one, no magic whatsoever has come out of the high distortion one.
You have to stop listening to folklore online.
What would they be measuring since they don't match what the actual products can produce? I mean they must be measuring something, a piece only in preproduction and maybe they cannot hold these standards in production, or just a set up difference in AP?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #112
I don't know. I was told in one bit of feedback that they measure at different output levels (?). They could also be prototypes not matching actual production.
@amirm
When you read reviews on qobuzz some dacs that measure good are qobuzzisime some that don't measure good are qobuzzissime and some that measure good are not qobuzzissime
Some cheap dac with pcm5102 with direct output (no opamp) are also qobuzzissime.
I don't know why they would lie.
Pcm5102 qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-fi-guide/bancs-d-essai/audiophonics-pcm5102-dac176783
Topping dx7s not qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/LU-fr/info/Hi-Fi/Bancs-d-essai/Topping-DX7s-un-DAC-avec180566
Audio gd 19 r2r qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-res-guide/bancs-d-essai/audio-gd-dac19-et-de-trois177606
Audio gd 2 qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-fi-guide/bancs-d-essai/audio-gd-nfb-2-qobuzissime-pour-ce177050
audio gd nfb 28 not qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/BE-fr/info/Hi-Fi/Bancs-d-essai/Audio-gd-NFB-28-un-DAC-avec179335
aune s16 qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/FR-fr/info/Hi-Fi-Guide/Bancs-d-essai/Aune-S16-Qobuzissime-pour-ce-DAC176486
smsl Sanskrit pro not qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-res-guide/bancs-d-essai/dac-s-m-s-l-sanskrit-pro-jusqu-a177644
So the preference is not correlated to classic measurement performances.
When you read reviews on qobuzz some dacs that measure good are qobuzzisime some that don't measure good are qobuzzissime and some that measure good are not qobuzzissime
Some cheap dac with pcm5102 with direct output (no opamp) are also qobuzzissime.
I don't know why they would lie.
Pcm5102 qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-fi-guide/bancs-d-essai/audiophonics-pcm5102-dac176783
Topping dx7s not qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/LU-fr/info/Hi-Fi/Bancs-d-essai/Topping-DX7s-un-DAC-avec180566
Audio gd 19 r2r qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-res-guide/bancs-d-essai/audio-gd-dac19-et-de-trois177606
Audio gd 2 qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-fi-guide/bancs-d-essai/audio-gd-nfb-2-qobuzissime-pour-ce177050
audio gd nfb 28 not qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/BE-fr/info/Hi-Fi/Bancs-d-essai/Audio-gd-NFB-28-un-DAC-avec179335
aune s16 qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/FR-fr/info/Hi-Fi-Guide/Bancs-d-essai/Aune-S16-Qobuzissime-pour-ce-DAC176486
smsl Sanskrit pro not qobuzzissime
https://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/hi-res-guide/bancs-d-essai/dac-s-m-s-l-sanskrit-pro-jusqu-a177644
So the preference is not correlated to classic measurement performances.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #114
They don't lie. They just don't understand the proper way to evaluate a piece of audio equipment using their ears.
I can't tell you how many times I have fallen victim to the same thing. I have been known to say there is a big difference between two audio files, only to do a binary comparison and find out that they were identical! After that, I could hear them sounding identical or different, all with changing my frame of mind! Read that again. Even with full knowledge of two files being the same, I could hear differences if I let myself do that.
You can try the same. Copy a well recorded music file to another file. Then listen to them and pay attention to small detail, air around music, etc. I guarantee you that you will hear differences, discover instruments that you thought were never there, etc.
Your hearing is like a thermometer that can show you 20 degrees in one instant, and 30 in another with the air temperature not changing at all! That's because we don't detect sounds. We interpret sound using our brain. And our brain takes into account many variables with sound being but one factor.
The problem is, none of this is intuitive to us. Had I not managed a team that developed audio technology, requiring our decisions to be correct, and having countless occasions where my listening results could be compared to what the technology could really do, I would be no different than you, Qobuz, etc.
Take this simple example: sound comes at you and also bounces by the side wall. Intuition says you will hear an echo. But you never do. The brain suppresses that echo (otherwise you would go crazy constantly hearing them in every room). Nothing about this so called Haas effect is intuitive. Yet that is exactly how your brain works in interpreting sound.
This is why for the last 40 years or so, blind, controlled testing is *the only* method where listening results are accepted in research and professional engineering world. You can't find a single subjective test like Qobuz submitted to AES, ASA, IEEE Spectrum, etc. because it would be as good as garbage.
As an audiophile, at some point you need to have your observational powers graded. You can't keep comparing A to B and say one is better and run with it. Who says one or the other is better? Or they are the same? You need a formal test where this answer is known in advance, and then you can compare your answer. If you do just a couple of these, you will forget about every Qobuz review you have read.
We exist because just about everything out there is throwing out audio science and creating its own reality. Only in audio is science so readily ignored as to be in vogue. Don't let your guard down and pass on common sense. The entire audio research community is not stupid. Their work has to be valid or it impacts their career, reputation, their company's revenue, etc.
Also, pay attention to who is writing these reviews. I see that the main author is PHILIPPE DAUSSIN. I searched and searched for him and all I could find is that he is a hifi writer and used to work in a studio. None of that provides the type of training and knowledge he needs to know what I just described to you. No engineering experience. No member of any organization. No authoritative work on the topic. Just good skills in writing and some technical background, recipe for knowing enough to be dangerous!
At least if you want to stick with subjective listening impressions when comparing, say some DACs, first order would be the do it with the same speakers, amp, tracks,..each times it's different on Qobuz, while measurements are done on the same ground, with a brief sort of validation of them using the same two pair of headphones, which makes a lot more sense already.
qobuzzissime ?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #117
I think it is the same as Editor's Choice in Qobuz lingo.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Just the name is enough to put me off.
Zog
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2019
- Messages
- 255
- Likes
- 290
I had a similar experience last year. I intended to compare a PCM file with DSD. I played the PCM file and listened. Then I played the same PCM file thinking I was playing the DSD file. I pronounced the 'DSD' file as having more detail until my friend pointed out that I was playing the same file. Oops. I put this faux pas down to two possible causes. The first is that I had some 'recent memory' while playing the first ie the order in which they are played may make a difference. The second possibility (which may be related to the first) is that in the first playing I had no point of reference as I was listening to the music. In the second listening I was listening for differences.
As an aside a nice thing to do with orchestral works is to check out the music on video. You often see details, for example a horn playing during a string tutti. Then later when you listen to the music on your stereo you notice with some smug satisfaction (smug in a nice way) the slight coloration of that 'string' passage.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
