Review Article on Audioholics

[Taiga]

I am often perplexed by the subjective findings and conclusions in many of the review, and even news, articles on Audioholics. Usually I simply disregard them. Tonight I saw this recent “review” of the Rotel DX-5 integrated amp and wondered how one could make certain statements in a sighted listening comparison. Also, if the review controlled for volume, I did not see it. Here is an excerpt and a link to the article:

Rotel vs NAD Listening Comparison​

I listened to the song three times in a row before switching to the NAD M10 V3 for a side-by-side comparison using that amp’s built-in streamer and DAC, since that is how 99.9% of M10 users would go about streaming music. At $3K, the NAD costs a few hundred more than the Rotel combined with the Cambridge stack, but for many, the draw of Dirac Live will more than make up for the price difference. The NAD/SVS combination sounded markedly different from the same speakers driven by the Rotel rig. It was both drier and leaner sounding, with a greater emphasis on transients and detail — more pluck and less resonance on the acoustic string instruments featured on Why Should The Fire Die?. The presentation was more laser-focused. Individual performers were easier to pinpoint within the soundstage because they all sounded a bit smaller and a bit narrower than through the Rotel. Although some listeners might appreciate this more precise placement of voices and instruments, it came at the cost of a narrower soundstage and a less enveloping, less 3D sound. Depending on the speakers being used and the personal preferences of the listener, I could easily see some folks preferring the NAD’s more purposeful presentation, while others might go for the Rotel’s more lush and liquid way of reproducing the music…

… To keep things as fair as possible, the above comparisons were made without Dirac engaged.

Rotel DX-5 Review: Compact Integrated Amp with ESS DAC for Desktop

The Rotel DX-5 is small enough for a desktop, but offers more power than you might expect. It boasts great design and build quality, and high-quality Class AB power.

www.audioholics.com

Do they know something that I simply misunderstand?

 

[Beave]

The author is an audio enthusiast with no technical background and no understanding of the need to implement basic controls in his listening comparisons.

 

[JSmith]

There are no measurements, so any comments about sound quality or comparisons to other devices can be safely ignored.


JSmith

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Do they know something that I simply misunderstand?

There is no need to understand bullshitters

 

[Svend P]

This should tell you everything about the "review"

 

[TheKoC]

Audioholics is a very mixed bag, they have some good reviews with measurements (mainly by James Larson, also some Amp measurements by Gene), but lots of it is just marketing babble, especially most of the recent videos. Interviews with John Siau are good though, even if they could be considered marketing.

 

[Trdat]

I don't know why I feel strongly about this and I have mentioned this once or twice with not many people taking notice, but Gene had a couple videos on how acoustics isn't necessary in many living rooms. I totally understand this as both Floyd and Amir still advocate this concept. And furthermore, the topic is very nuanced no one is saying acoustics are not necessary rather many rooms can get away with it.

But the point here is that Gene made a 180 degree about turn and started promoting the importance of acoustics for small rooms without any justification on why he originally was against it. Straight into marketing hype and sales, again which is fine but not when you were advocating against it and then found a sponsor for advertising and switched sides.