• 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 R2R11 DAC & Amp

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Those Topping are totally crap, there's smth wrong or we are measuring the wrong things, I said it a year ago..

What should we be measuring then ?
Please enlighten us.

consider the 'smth' might be your perception... and this seems to have been going on for about at least a year. ;)
 

amorr01

New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
2
Likes
0
Test frequencies represent just a minute way of evaluating the musicality of a product. The review here is very unhelpful. Very little is mentioned about the sound in this review which is what matters in the end, and not sterile frequency tests. Listening is, in my view, the best way to evaluate a product if the aim is to determine how good the sound is. This should includes coverage of how close the sound is to the instruments being played, and not just emphasising wavy frequencies.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
Test frequencies represent just a minute way of evaluating the musicality of a product. The review here is very unhelpful. Very little is mentioned about the sound in this review which is what matters in the end, and not sterile frequency tests. Listening is, in my view, the best way to evaluate a product if the aim is to determine how good the sound is. This should includes coverage of how close the sound is to the instruments being played, and not just emphasising wavy frequencies.


If it can't do the easy wavy frequencies well, why should it be expected to get the hard stuff right?
 

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
9,596
Likes
12,036
Test frequencies represent just a minute way of evaluating the musicality of a product. The review here is very unhelpful. Very little is mentioned about the sound in this review which is what matters in the end, and not sterile frequency tests. Listening is, in my view, the best way to evaluate a product if the aim is to determine how good the sound is. This should includes coverage of how close the sound is to the instruments being played, and not just emphasising wavy frequencies.
These measurements are abysmal. Kingwa's no feedback output stage is an engineering disaster. You can't try and disregard that by saying 'but it sounds fine'... it's honestly a disaster.
 

Hemi-Demon

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
435
Likes
514
Test frequencies represent just a minute way of evaluating the musicality of a product. The review here is very unhelpful. Very little is mentioned about the sound in this review which is what matters in the end, and not sterile frequency tests. Listening is, in my view, the best way to evaluate a product if the aim is to determine how good the sound is. This should includes coverage of how close the sound is to the instruments being played, and not just emphasising wavy frequencies.

Wavy frequencies?:D:D, so what is sound?

While I agree, "how it sounds", is valuable in reviewing equipment, that's not the basis of this forum. Best way to counter any review on a open forum is to buy the device listen to it, compare it to other gear you own, and post your a/b testing results.

You can't combat data, with your subjective opinion. Yes I have owned a few devices from this manufacturer, and they sound fine.
 

CerealKiller

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
99
Likes
70
Amir, thank you very much for this and all your work, what type of conection have you tested it on? I have myself an R2R-11 combo and form my experience I can say that the clocked jitter spikes, the high noise flor are both present and audible when conected bia USB rendering the unit unusable, going the optical toslink way improved the output by miles, I could not say how big of an improvement in absolute terms will that be as I dont have any means to make measurments, but via usb it's not usable, and toslink is fine and enjoyable.

Right now my two dac/amp combos are, topping dx3 pro and audio-gd r2r 11, noticeable aubible diferences in character, dx3 sounds sterile in comparison, extremely clean tho, r2r is noisier but fuller to me, so I might ofend everybody, but thats my 2 grains of salt. =)
Cheers form the very south of the world.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,395
Location
Seattle Area
Amir, thank you very much for this and all your work, what type of conection have you tested it on? I have myself an R2R-11 combo and form my experience I can say that the clocked jitter spikes, the high noise flor are both present and audible when conected bia USB rendering the unit unusable, going the optical toslink way improved the output by miles, I could not say how big of an improvement in absolute terms will that be as I dont have any means to make measurments, but via usb it's not usable, and toslink is fine and enjoyable.
My pleasure. As I note in the review, I started with USB but due to glitches, switched to S/PDIF after the dashboard test for the other measurements. Good to hear that you heard the same thing.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,395
Location
Seattle Area
Test frequencies represent just a minute way of evaluating the musicality of a product. The review here is very unhelpful. Very little is mentioned about the sound in this review which is what matters in the end, and not sterile frequency tests. Listening is, in my view, the best way to evaluate a product if the aim is to determine how good the sound is.
The review included a listening section with music. Did you not read that?

This should includes coverage of how close the sound is to the instruments being played, and not just emphasising wavy frequencies.
But what if I told you all that and even more. How would you know what I am telling you is correct? See the problem with anecdotal reports like that?
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
My DX3 sound crystal clear, dynamic...

Maybe yours is faulty if you compare it to a shit $50 DAC :facepalm::rolleyes:
May I point out something here? First before I do, I will disclose that I am a head-fi member with contributor status, but I am a member at other forums and I enjoy many sources around the web. I spend plenty of time at head-fi on the Sound Science forum (as do far more members than you folks here seem to like to admit) and I have conducted multiple subject, multiple trial per subject blind listening tests that clearly demonstrate that users can't tell a 320mp3 from the lossless master so I am no "audiofool". In fact, based on research here and elsewhere I have ordered the SMSL SU-8 even though I didn't really need it.

I wanted to point out that one of the biggest tenets of this community is that all of those fools on other audio forums are being fooled by big expensive boxes when in reality these expensive pieces of gear may not measure or sound any better than affordable options. Despite that, you quickly denigrate the other persons opinion and point of view mocking his/her shit $50 DAC/amp. So what is it around here? Is it the price or measurements? With the line of reasoning built off of this derisive reply of yours the implication is that you have to have more than a $50 DAC/amp to really be in the know. So going through the door you opened, why would those expensive designs often panned here not be likely better if you are suggesting a $50 device is shit?

It isn't really that I'm spoiling for a fight, but when people start that well your gear is too cheap to hear differences therefore you are wrong, that worries me. Those rich boys with their big toys always double down on cost of gear to defend their positions/opinions so it is a shame to see the same thing used here.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Interesting. I thought this forum was about testing equipment performance. Comparisons are inevitable but are based on measured results rather than price. Of course price is an unreliable indicator of performance and design/build quality.

I think the general view here is if you prefer something, that is fine. When unproven or false claims are made they are subject to scrutiny.
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
I am going to add another related post that touches upon a fundamental schism in the community. It is no more valid for objectivists to say we are holders of the truth than it is for subjectivists to make such a claim. This hobby and the enjoyment of audio belongs to all of us, however we want to experience it. Who are any of us to scoff at somebody's subjective experience? Do not get too enamored with measurements alone, there is a snowballs chance in hell that they alone determine how our brain creates the internal experience of music perception.

We mapped the human genome, guess what, despite all that wonderful measurement (it is measurement of sorts) we are no closer to any real comprehensive understanding of genetics. There are no gene therapies that I am aware of despite billions of dollars of research. In fact, it actually complicated the picture for science as so many new questions have arisen. We also have seen the death of the dogma of molecular biology, one gene = one protein, long held as fact. It was destroyed by the realization of epigenetics that the gene can alter what protein it produces. My point here is that nobody should sit on the altar of measurement and be absolutely sure that you sit on truth and that they can see all things clearly now. It is entirely possible that we are not measuring the right thing, or the right way , or the right combination of things. It is arrogant to feel in possession of the truth and disregard the experiences of others simply because they don't agree with you. There was a time science believed that you could predict who was going to be a criminal from facial features and bumps on our head. We laugh in retrospect, but it was a pretty widely held belief for a time.

It is entirely possible that for many, many, many people gear that measures poorly can still sound good. Audio equipment is not intended to measure well by design, it is intended to provide the listener with a pleasurable experience. Nobody says I want to design a device that measures well and focus on that, they want to use sound design principles to make it sound great to the end user. Great if it measures well at the same time, ideal in fact, but it is in reality not what consumer audio devices are for. If you go too far down that road you end up with the specifications battles where somebody is impressed that DAC a has .000065 % THD and it must be better than DAC b at .00045% THD, or arguments over jitter or balanced circuits for home audio, when in fact there is no difference at all between them in any audible sense that you could derive from those numbers alone.

Aside from when measurements clearly enter audibility in a meaningful way, many of the measurements used here and elsewhere may very well be completely inaudible and inconsequential. I actually value measurements, they are the first thing that I start research with, and I take them seriously, but I also know that they are but one aspect of how music is perceived in our hearing brain and it is easy to over-state the importance of some measures. If 500 people are played music as interpreted by the R2R11 and 500 of them say it sounds wonderful, great, it doesn't matter a lick of spit if it measures poorly, people don't measure, they listen. Do not take that as me suggesting measurements have no value, or aren't actually very important, they are, they just aren't everything and for objectivists to deride subjectivists and feel that they are somehow in the position of being the chosen "knowing people", well that is a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

Until everybody here can reliably pass a multiple trial, blind listening test, it is quite possible that some of these bad measuring designs you scoff at (without hearing in some cases I'll bet) you might actually like over a design that measures better. In fact, I would be shocked if there wasn't plenty of conflicting results which simply means that the perception of what sounds good for each of us, is a combination of things and something that measures poorly could still, counter-intuitively sound good and I am quite sure that a device that measures well could be perceived as unenjoyable for some so tell me, what is the right approach to audio? If a designer is actually able to tune a wonderful sounding design by ear, I am willing to listen (pun intended) as in the end I use my ear so listen, and if it happens to work for me, great, if not great, it works for others so who am I to mock and belittle their choices?
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
Interesting. I thought this forum was about testing equipment performance. Comparisons are inevitable but are based on measured results rather than price. Of course price is an unreliable indicator of performance and design/build quality.

I think the general view here is if you prefer something, that is fine. When unproven or false claims are made they are subject to scrutiny.
I couldn't agree more, I am a hybrid of sorts, an objectivist who refuses to throw the subjectivist baby out with the bath water. My point was exactly your point, the price of the device should be one of the last factors, actually the last factor we consider.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,395
Location
Seattle Area
I am going to add another related post that touches upon a fundamental schism in the community. It is no more valid for objectivists to say we are holders of the truth than it is for subjectivists to make such a claim. This hobby and the enjoyment of audio belongs to all of us, however we want to experience it. Who are any of us to scoff at somebody's subjective experience?
Oh, we absolutely have the right to stand taller. We rely on proven audio science and years of research. Our bibles come from published papers in AES, ASA and in some cases, the very researchers who performed that who kindly post here.

The subjectivists bible is writing in subjective reviews where the first thing they do, is throw out audio science and perform totally unreliable listening tests.

Now, if by subjective you mean performing controlled listening tests, then that is what us, the objectivist like and do. But the made-up world of audio subjectivism with no way of proving anything they say, is not a compass we look at, equal to ours.
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
Oh, we absolutely have the right to stand taller. We rely on proven audio science and years of research. Our bibles come from published papers in AES, ASA and in some cases, the very researchers who performed that who kindly post here.

The subjectivists bible is writing in subjective reviews where the first thing they do, is throw out audio science and perform totally unreliable listening tests.

Now, if by subjective you mean performing controlled listening tests, then that is what us, the objectivist like and do. But the made-up world of audio subjectivism with no way of proving anything they say, is not a compass we look at, equal to ours.

Often you are correct, but not always. I am the first to tell anybody that a sighted listening test, or a test without proper level matching is bogus. This does not in anyway guarantee that we are right (although we likely are). I am trained in research psychology and I believe in evidence, but I also believe that there is a great deal that we do not know and as it becomes learned, much of what we held as knowledge may be challenged or discredited. My point remains, if something measures badly, but people like it, that should at least be worthy of consideration. It is entirely possible that it the people do like it, may even prefer it. From that it can't be concluded they just don't know better, perhaps they don't, maybe it is even likely, but that is not a certainty. It is not correct to say they are wrong for liking it because certain measures seem to indicate that they shouldn't like it.

Edit: And to be fair when it comes to burden of proof, providing measurements does not in anyway establish causality. We still don't know all of the factors that may confound these measures. Is distortion at .8% universally audible, in what situations is it not audible in if at all? Even if IMD is a factor, at what ratio is it a factor, and for who? Does it vary by age, gender, health, time of day? I am not saying these measurements are not related to the final construction of sound that our brain does, but I am suggesting that there is probably far more unknown about how our brain uses them to construct an experience than is known. To this day we don't even know the exact mechanisms by which many drugs work, so I am quite confident that there is no causative linkage that guarantees that these measures aren't subject to a vast amount of variation.

Which just circles back to my point, to be so confident in measurement to the point of certainty (in the context of this discussion) is demonstrably unscientific itself in that it denies the possibility of an alternative explanation. In fact, one of the major criterion of a valid theory is that it must be falsifiable. So when somebody says they like some distortion in their music to say that they just like things wrong is not a valid theory as it can't be falsified.
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,395
Location
Seattle Area
It is entirely possible that for many, many, many people gear that measures poorly can still sound good.
That's a fact. Or better said, audiophiles have non-critical ears despite boasting otherwise, which allows them to listen through the distortion unbothered.

What we do here is to reveal the truth about what is designed and engineered poorly. There are always alternatives without any cost penalty that are designed exceptionally well. All else being equal, there is no reason to support people who sell poorly designed gear on the basis that the listeners can't hear the flaws but religiously follows voodoo audio marketing.

When going to a restaurant, I feel better if I knew an inspector had gone in there to make sure hygiene is followed to the letter. I may not get sick if they don't wash their dishes. But I sure as heck feel better if they do.

It is an odd thing but I find there is a group of people in both subjectivist and objectivist camp. The former doesn't want to know that the equipment they pay dearly for, has poor measured performance compared to something much cheaper. The latter worries that their argument that no one can hear audio impairments is in peril. Both are wrong. We are always better off if we have more information. We seek out car reviews. Why not for audio? We seek out audio science that researches value of nutrition. Why not audio?

All of this is beside the point: I created this forum and site with one mission: with clear direction due north. And that is what we can prove. Not what we can speculate. Not what science we invent. But what we can demonstrate to be part or all of the truth. Objective measurements are one aspect of that. Just as important is discussion of audio science. And design of equipment. It is through this trio of information that you wind up with informed opinion about gear and audio science.

If we want to put or head in the sand and say it is all the same, then this is not the forum for you.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,395
Location
Seattle Area
I am trained in research psychology and I believe in evidence, but I also believe that there is a great deal that we do not know and as it becomes learned, much of what we held as knowledge may be challenged or discredited.
We are very much right about stuff people complain about. If we were not, evidence to the contrary would be out by now but none has. No one has tried for example to show that a DAC that has SINAD of 60 sounds better. Or that tube amp. Myths abound, but the data is not there.

No, we don't go overboard. I have post double blind tests of 320 kbps MP3 against original where I passed the test. Here is an example:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/31 15:18:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.mp3
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav

15:18:41 : Test started.
15:19:18 : 01/01 50.0%
15:19:30 : 01/02 75.0%
15:19:44 : 01/03 87.5%
15:20:35 : 02/04 68.8%
15:20:46 : 02/05 81.3%
15:21:39 : 03/06 65.6%
15:21:47 : 04/07 50.0%
15:21:54 : 04/08 63.7%
15:22:06 : 05/09 50.0%
15:22:19 : 06/10 37.7%
15:22:31 : 07/11 27.4%
15:22:44 : 08/12 19.4%
15:22:51 : 09/13 13.3%
15:22:58 : 10/14 9.0%
15:23:06 : 11/15 5.9%
15:23:14 : 12/16 3.8%
15:23:23 : 13/17 2.5%
15:23:33 : 14/18 1.5%
15:23:42 : 15/19 1.0%
15:23:54 : 16/20 0.6%
15:24:06 : 17/21 0.4%
15:24:15 : 18/22 0.2%
15:24:23 : 19/23 0.1%
15:24:34 : 20/24 0.1%
15:24:43 : 21/25 0.0%
15:24:52 : 22/26 0.0%
15:24:57 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 22/26 (0.0%)

So don't confuse us with some objectivist forums where blood has covered their eyes so much that they believe more what they read, than understand. Head-fi science forum unfortunately falls in that camp.

So please don't stereotype us. Stay with us, read our discussions and then you will see that while nothing is perfect, we do have our head screwed on more straight than others. And by far.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,395
Location
Seattle Area
My point remains, if something measures badly, but people like it, that should at least be worthy of consideration. It is entirely possible that it the people do like it, may even prefer it.
I have tested that hypothesis countless times. I routinely test tube headphone amplifiers and or amps that have high distortion in controlled tests. I have yet to find a single instance of the high distortion product sounding better. Not one. Yet, there are subjective testimonial from countless people and reviewers alike that they find the sound better. As I noted and you agree, their tests are invalid and non-scientific. So the start of any such discussion needs to be: throw out what you think you know from uncontrolled test. It is not reliable in any form or fashion.

As objectivists, we are used to give this card to the other side. Oh it is your preference? It is allowed to have that. My answer is no. It is only your preference if you performed the test right. if the warm glow of the tubes made you think the music sounded warm, then please, save that remark for another place. Not here. I rather not read yet another random comment this way with nothing provable backing it.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,395
Location
Seattle Area
Edit: And to be fair when it comes to burden of proof, providing measurements does not in anyway establish causality. We still don't know all of the factors that may confound these measures. Is distortion at .8% universally audible, in what situations is it not audible in if at all? Even if IMD is a factor, at what ratio is it a factor, and for who? Does it vary by age, gender, health, time of day?
I don't know what it is about people outside this forum thinking all we do here is to produce numbers and sit back. The reviews and discussions that follow routinely have psychoacoustics information applied to the numbers. We discuss the audio science. We produce research papers. We quote them. We have top designers and researchers in the forum who bring first-hand engineer and science here.

Stick around read all that we are about, then you will see that your picture of who we are is wrong. We answer precisely the questions you ask. Read threads like this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/understanding-audio-measurements.2351/

And excerpts like this:

1561952984838.png

Or this:

1561953177883.png


If the answers are not here, just ask. Great group of people where will give you the best that is known on the topic.

People who create doubt about what we do are really doing a disservice to audio science. By casting doubt, they are creating uncertainty causing people to revert to using subjectivist nonsense to pursue their hobby. We know tremendous amount to guide you in your journey. Don't look for reasons to not believe it.
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
I am not saying high levels of distortion, that would be a silly claim to make (although doubtless in blind listening tests I would bet some might still prefer it). My point of contention is the certainty of being right, it seems it is far too all-encompassing and leaves no room for alternative explanations.

I am not making claims, actually to the contrary, I am simply suggesting that not all is known about how we perceive, and if anybody here thinks all is known, well I don't know what to say. I believe in what has been proven to be meaningfully audible, not simply measurable. You can denigrate me all you wish, but I am actually a fan of science and measurement. I do not believe in cables, I do not believe in power conditioners, I do not believe in mechanical break-in, and I still don't believe anybody can reliably tell a 320mp3 from the lossless master. I have conducted multiple trial, multiple participant blind listening tests and so have many others and the results are always the same, nobody given enough trials can reliably pick out one file from the other.
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
I don't know what it is about people outside this forum thinking all we do here is to produce numbers and sit back. The reviews and discussions that follow routinely have psychoacoustics information applied to the numbers. We discuss the audio science. We produce research papers. We quote them. We have top designers and researchers in the forum who bring first-hand engineer and science here.

Stick around read all that we are about, then you will see that your picture of who we are is wrong. We answer precisely the questions you ask. Read threads like this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/understanding-audio-measurements.2351/

And excerpts like this:

View attachment 28684
Or this:

View attachment 28685

If the answers are not here, just ask. Great group of people where will give you the best that is known on the topic.

People who create doubt about what we do are really doing a disservice to audio science. By casting doubt, they creating uncertainty causing people to revert to using subjectivist nonsense to pursue their hobby. We know tremendous amount to guide you in your journey. Don't look for reasons to not believe it.

I am not casting doubt, and I am a fan of what this community does. I have been visiting here for a few years as a lurker. I like what your community is about believe me. I love head-fi, but I do find the lack of science very frustrating. I just made a purchasing decision based off of research done here so I do actually value the discussion. I am however, also somebody who does not accept that all is known, and as long as there are alternative explanations possible, I try to always consider that. I know you aren't a bunch of objectivists without any common sense or ability to be critical, I am just trying to make sure that these conversations don't become simply an echo chamber where everybody confirms each other's opinion without a measure of humility and uncertainty. I think that is what science requires.
 
Top Bottom