• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Review and Measurements of Audio-gd R2R11 DAC & Amp

tired_guru

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
100
Likes
79
This is an epic comedy.

Especially when providing such plots from AP on their site. I would immediately demand full refund including shipping costs if I got such unit after measurements. But hey - Z REVIEWS on youtube calls them audio-GOD and claims it superiority. EVERY single model. How can it be ? He knows everything and has tons of stuff to compare. This just can't be ...
 

Veri

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
1,546
Likes
1,367
This is an epic comedy.

Especially when providing such plots from AP on their site. I would immediately demand full refund including shipping costs if I got such unit after measurements. But hey - Z REVIEWS on youtube calls them audio-GOD and claims it superiority. EVERY single model. How can it be ? He knows everything and has tons of stuff to compare. This just can't be ...
He's just not very.. capable, and/or very gullible.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
7
Likes
2
In these days I have compared Topping dx7s with audio-gd r28 and for me r28 offers a superior listening experience and I prefer it clearly. More dynamic, more musicality and a more realistic sound. The topping sounds more digital, poor in dynamic and I hear the glare on highs which makes the singer a little robotic..
Later I also took an audio gd d27 (similar to the nfb 27.38 reviewed on this forum) and again there was no competition between the two, I clearly preferred the d27 (very different in sound from both Topping and r28).
I do not know why it gets those measurements here, but I honestly do not care. I prefer to rely on my ears and I'm very happy with my gd audio products.
In conclusion I tell you that with the Topping I have an audible background noise with my IEMs when no sounds are played.. the audio-gd instead is totally silent.
 
Last edited:

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
2,637
Likes
1,207
Location
Zg, Cro
In these days I have compared Topping dx7s with audio-gd r28 and for me r28 offers a superior listening experience and I prefer it clearly. More dynamic, more musicality and a more realistic sound. The topping sounds more digital, poor in dynamic and I hear the glare on highs which makes the singer a little robotic..
Later I also took an audio gd d27 (similar to the nfb 27.38 reviewed on this forum) and again there was no competition between the two, I clearly preferred the d27 (very different in sound from both Topping and r28).
I do not know why it gets those measurements here, but I honestly do not care. I prefer to rely on my ears and I'm very happy with my gd audio products.
In conclusion I tell you that with the Topping I have an audible background noise with my IEMs when no sounds are played.. the audio-gd instead is totally silent.
As you don't have any technical arguments to support your personal preference I suggest it stays personal.
 

Veri

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
1,546
Likes
1,367
the audio-gd instead is totally silent.
Would you look at that an audio-gd product without insane noise floor, what technical marvel :rolleyes:

Honestly the chinese themselves mock audio-gd for being a ridiculous product that is made to look over-engineered and appeal to those that don't know better. If something is a hard sell on the local market, well that usually means something..
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
1,204
Likes
1,861
Location
The Neverlands
In these days I have compared Topping dx7s with audio-gd r28 and for me r28 offers a superior listening experience and I prefer it clearly.

Later I also took an audio gd d27 (similar to the nfb 27.38 reviewed on this forum) and again there was no competition between the two, I clearly preferred the d27 (very different in sound from both Topping and r28).
A question: Did you test this level matched and blind or knew which one was playing and just connected them as they are ?

I do not know why it gets those measurements here, but I honestly do not care. I prefer to rely on my ears and I'm very happy with my gd audio products.
The DACS were tested by Amir. He then posts the measurements and that's why the measurements got here. :)

Do you not care why it gets those measurements here or do you not care about measurements at all as they don't mean much (if anything) to you ?
If the latter why post here ?

In conclusion I tell you that with the Topping I have an audible background noise with my IEMs when no sounds are played.. the audio-gd instead is totally silent.
Did you test this while playing a file with no sound on it (they do exist) or just pause/stop playing ?
It could be that the output is muted when nothing is played.
 
Last edited:

Shadrach

Active Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
206
Likes
260
In these days I have compared Topping dx7s with audio-gd r28 and for me r28 offers a superior listening experience and I prefer it clearly. More dynamic, more musicality and a more realistic sound. The topping sounds more digital, poor in dynamic and I hear the glare on highs which makes the singer a little robotic..
Later I also took an audio gd d27 (similar to the nfb 27.38 reviewed on this forum) and again there was no competition between the two, I clearly preferred the d27 (very different in sound from both Topping and r28).
I do not know why it gets those measurements here, but I honestly do not care. I prefer to rely on my ears and I'm very happy with my gd audio products.
In conclusion I tell you that with the Topping I have an audible background noise with my IEMs when no sounds are played.. the audio-gd instead is totally silent.
I don't have any problem with this and I get a bit annoyed when such posts receive heaps of derisive comments; not annoyed enough to bother commenting normally I might add.
As amirm notes in his conclusions, he was hard pressed to pick out any differences when listening.
What has incurred contributors and owners displeasure on a number of subjectivist forums (I've even been banned for daring to point this out) is there is no way you could call this a better product, or transparent, or even Hi Fi and certainly not call others deaf or having a pile of crap that they haven't spent enough money on for a Hi Fi, if one accepts amirm's measurements (a point overlooked in general. Subjectivists have been known to 'bend the truth in reviews so the same level of doubt needs to be applied to any presented measurements by objectivists).
For me the benefit of this site and amirm's measurements are, I tend to have more faith in them than an opinion (It takes a lot more trouble to doctor up some graphs than it does to wax lyrical on a forum) and it shows that there is often no relationship between cost and presentation with performance.
I'm sure I've had some kit that measures horrendously, but I know through listening to other better measuring kit that any differences I believe I may hear are so slight that they become inconsequential to my listening enjoyment. There is a valid argument that states I don't care how it measures I like how it sounds and I support this.
However, the great thing about this site, assuming the measurements are correct, is I can make a better informed choice. I like that a lot. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll like the better measuring kit though.
As long as people are prepared to keep their subjective preferences applied solely to their listening experience and make no further inference regarding the fidelity of their kit, or the shortfalls of the kit of others, I'm more than happy to accept their views as perfectly valid.
 

bravomail

Active Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
275
Likes
94
My feeling is the measurements don't tell the whole story, but they are a good start. You wanna see both good measurements and good audiophile reviews (transparency, brilliance, engagement, speed, color, muah-powah etc). But sometimes badly measured product will still sound good for many people. Especially if it costs ton of money. Psychology.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
Messages
55
Likes
19
Location
Detroit, MI
My feeling is the measurements don't tell the whole story, but they are a good start. You wanna see both good measurements and good audiophile reviews (transparency, brilliance, engagement, speed, color, muah-powah etc). But sometimes badly measured product will still sound good for many people. Especially if it costs ton of money. Psychology.
Yeah, I always feel my shit $50 DAC sounds much better than Topping stuff, muah-powah!!(dynamic :p), always feel sleepy when listening to DX3, pale...
 

Veri

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
1,546
Likes
1,367
Yeah, I always feel my shit $50 DAC sounds much better than Topping stuff, muah-powah!!(dynamic :p), always feel sleepy when listening to DX3, pale...
My DX3 sound crystal clear, dynamic...

Maybe yours is faulty if you compare it to a shit $50 DAC :facepalm::rolleyes:
 

solderdude

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
1,204
Likes
1,861
Location
The Neverlands
Dynamics can be measured, but the 'dynamics' used by audiophiles can not as it isn't what they think it is in a technical sense.
This is almost never shown in graphs.

The funny part is that audiophiles usually mistake dynamic compression for dynamics.
When they can hear a loud sound and softer sounds after it they say dynamics is good cause they can hear both and hear the decay of instruments.
They complain when there are true dynamics (which would have to be played really loud) when a loud sound is not followed by clearly heard softer sounds.
When audiophiles speak of 'impulses' and 'dynamics' they think it has to do with HF extension and pre-ringing and filter characteristics while in music those loud short sounds are in the 2-5kHz range.

There is a gross miscommunication and misconceptions between the technical dudes (that only measure and never listen to music) and the golden eared audiophiles, that believe their ears are trustworthy measurement 'devices' that can hear more than any measurement can.

When looking at measurements and interpreting them one needs to understand a whole measurement suite and understand what the measurements mean.
 

tired_guru

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
100
Likes
79
I think that some people just like specific kind of added distortion/noise. Without it, source and amp can sound too transparent, sterile, boring, lifeless. It is a bit hard to blame, because even in nature there is a lot of natural sound distortion when reflecting/bouncing from objects, changing phase etc. Especially even order harmonic distortion is produced in nature from what I recall. Maybe we have used to it during our lifetime and when the signal is so pure, we find it artificial ?

But from other point of view, this distorted by nature signal when playing for instance acoustic concert, should be recorded with this distortion and having audibly transparent gear, should be played back like in real life. So the argument about added harmonics/noise has no point here.
 

Veri

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
1,546
Likes
1,367
I think that some people just like specific kind of added distortion/noise. Without it, source and amp can sound too transparent, sterile, boring, lifeless. It is a bit hard to blame, because even in nature there is a lot of natural sound distortion when reflecting/bouncing from objects, changing phase etc. Especially even order harmonic distortion is produced in nature from what I recall. Maybe we have used to it during our lifetime and when the signal is so pure, we find it artificial ?

But from other point of view, this distorted by nature signal when playing for instance acoustic concert, should be recorded with this distortion and having audibly transparent gear, should be played back like in real life. So the argument about added harmonics/noise has no point here.
Imo, it should be the people mastering the music who guarantee that the final mix does not sound sterile, boring, lifeless. There is already distortion and noise in most recordings to begin with, I'm not sure why someone would really want more on top of that. I definitely believe in the idea here on ASR to strive for transparency! the bits to be converted before conversion should be good to go. :) rather than adding distortion in analogue domain. I'm not convinced engineering flaws will result in true "euphonic" qualities, at all.

Then again I like the sound of roll-off so I'm not really following my own credo lol
 

sonci

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
172
Likes
58
In these days I have compared Topping dx7s with audio-gd r28 and for me r28 offers a superior listening experience and I prefer it clearly. More dynamic, more musicality and a more realistic sound. The topping sounds more digital, poor in dynamic and I hear the glare on highs which makes the singer a little robotic..
Later I also took an audio gd d27 (similar to the nfb 27.38 reviewed on this forum) and again there was no competition between the two, I clearly preferred the d27 (very different in sound from both Topping and r28).
I do not know why it gets those measurements here, but I honestly do not care. I prefer to rely on my ears and I'm very happy with my gd audio products.
In conclusion I tell you that with the Topping I have an audible background noise with my IEMs when no sounds are played.. the audio-gd instead is totally silent.
NO, you don't know what you are listening, you like distortion, you are wrong, look at the graphs, look at them, you'r not supposed to listen..

Ha Ha just kidding, those Topping are totally crap, there's smth wrong or we are measuring the wrong things, I said it a year ago..
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
18,320
Likes
17,110
Location
Seattle Area
Ha Ha just kidding, those Topping are totally crap, there's smth wrong or we are measuring the wrong things, I said it a year ago..
What is wrong is the way people do listening tests. Get that right the conflict with measurements disappears. Suggest reading the measurements FAQ: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...erstanding-audio-measurements.2351/post-65101

2. We don't listen to graphs, we listen to sound. Why look at graphs?
Agreed. We value listening tests even more than others. But per #1, the listening tests must be controlled and devoid of bias before it is accepted. Once there, I would be the first to put them ahead of graphs and measurements.

Sorry, but subjectivists, uncontrolled testing is of no value so please don't keep saying "your ears" say different. It is your ear+brain that is saying something different. You have to exclude all the other factors your brain takes into account beside sound before we look at your feedback.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
Messages
55
Likes
19
Location
Detroit, MI
I think that some people just like specific kind of added distortion/noise. Without it, source and amp can sound too transparent, sterile, boring, lifeless. It is a bit hard to blame, because even in nature there is a lot of natural sound distortion when reflecting/bouncing from objects, changing phase etc. Especially even order harmonic distortion is produced in nature from what I recall. Maybe we have used to it during our lifetime and when the signal is so pure, we find it artificial ?

But from other point of view, this distorted by nature signal when playing for instance acoustic concert, should be recorded with this distortion and having audibly transparent gear, should be played back like in real life. So the argument about added harmonics/noise has no point here.
Yep, you are right, I mean, in the real world, how "Pure", "clean", "transparent" is the audio interface used in the recording studios really are? How much harmonic distortion were they having when they are mixing the track? The musician may feel the track is lively enough with "harmonic distortion" or something else when they do the recording, but when you playback it on the "clean" Dac, maybe there is a little bit difference between what you hear and what musician expected?
 

Ilkless

Active Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
122
Likes
134
In these days I have compared Topping dx7s with audio-gd r28 and for me r28 offers a superior listening experience and I prefer it clearly. More dynamic, more musicality and a more realistic sound. The topping sounds more digital, poor in dynamic and I hear the glare on highs which makes the singer a little robotic..
Later I also took an audio gd d27 (similar to the nfb 27.38 reviewed on this forum) and again there was no competition between the two, I clearly preferred the d27 (very different in sound from both Topping and r28).
I do not know why it gets those measurements here, but I honestly do not care. I prefer to rely on my ears and I'm very happy with my gd audio products.
In conclusion I tell you that with the Topping I have an audible background noise with my IEMs when no sounds are played.. the audio-gd instead is totally silent.
Your total denial and contempt for empirical evidence and experimentation in favour of anecdotal experience is highly anti-intellectual. You are free to state your opinion but please don't articulate them as falsifiable, generalised claims.
 
Top Bottom