The issue with 'reviewers' keeps showing up so I reiterate my earlier point on EISA. I believe this organization deserves a thread and some attention, don't you think? I mean I considered their award for QA 3050i and bought them, decent price for good performance. But who are these 'specialists' and what are their standards!?
-
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!
Roksan Attessa Streaming Amplifier Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Galliardist
Major Contributor
There is a difference these days. Over time, the reviews that have been published have become only of the devices that get a positive review from the subjective reviewers, at least in the English language press. Effectively, we only see a subset of reviews regardless of whether we would see the objective measurements or not.
This almost guarantees that much of the industry is designing and marketing to a very small group of people: the couple of dozen editors and subjective reviewers in the dead tree press, and the small number of biddable video reviewers that have a sufficient following. I don't see that the vast majority of them actually require or even want stellar objective performance (there are some who obviously appreciate such, including several on this site, though), so why bother?
I should I guess include whoever puts together the "news" and "previews" together for the magazines. It's not that uncommon for a product to get an enthusiastic "preview" but not a proper review. That's where the pure marketing comes in, I guess.
ocinn
Senior Member
What if I told you the majority of “audiophiles” have no idea what SINAD or most objective terminology we discuss on this forum are and only care about subjective sound (from a established reviewer, or themselves), watts, low frequency extension of their system, and arbitrary metrics like imaging, soundstage and impact.
In the same way I (engineer) would struggle to read a paper on classical philosophy, most consumers of audiophile publications would struggle to read a review which is based solely/mostly around objective analysis.
Stereophile does it right. Subjective report followed by relatively well implemented objective analysis at the end. Classical audiophiles will likely skip the measurement section, and those like us will likely skip the subjective section straight to the the measurements. Nevertheless, checks all boxes.
I have been lurking on this forum since 2018 or so, and even I have realized that exposure and understanding of such scientific and objective analyses has clouded my vision of real world perspectives and motives in other/general audiophiles. We (our perspectives and motives) are in the minority and it’s important to realize that before critiquing publications, they are simply trying to cater to ideal audience groups (even if the individuals in said groups happen to be misguided in their approach towards reading about audio and gear, in our eyes.)
ASR is unique in that there is a donation aspect for funding, but that is not the case for many publications. Strategic marketing and direction (esp. with regard to creating a desirable advertising outlet ) is the way they stay afloat. Most brands willing to spend $$$$ on running ads on review sites, likely do not want the upmost scrutiny on objective analysis, thus the cycle continues and the publication format is established.
Objectivist as you are, and sceptical as i am, It is the best that we can do...
Galliardist
Major Contributor
You're right. Most consumers should not need to know a lot though.
We tend to blame the consumers here more than we should.
The motives of your general audiophiles today did not appear from thin air. A generation of industry professionals, in the widest sense of the word, have - intentionally or otherwise - moulded the situation where now people pay for hundred thousand dollar cables and twelve thousand dollar fuses (those are US dollar figures), and where a product like the one under discussion here, which has real engineering faults, is praised to the hilt by people who may or may not have "golden ears" but don't bother to see if you can fry eggs on the lid after twenty minutes' use.
They aren't just "catering" to a broken market, they are sustaining it. Never mind a "rigorous objective approach" or such, just letting a little more honesty into the industry would go a long way. This product is badly engineered and it should be called out for it, for one. Maybe the Attessa 2 would still have iffy measurements, but at least they might pay attention to the layout and deal with the heat issue and the interface issues detailed in this and other reviews.
EDIT - as an aside, I should point out that some products are going to run hot regardless because of their technology, be it hot tubes or class A operation. Regardless of what I think about those, they are a different matter to this one.
As for Stereophile, the measurement section notes the heat issue, but if it's not in the main text, your general reader is most likely to miss it. The subjective report has to go beyond the flowery text about different types of sound and pick up on setup and app issues, on how hot the device runs, how good the instructions are, whether it has sharp edges or inadequate connectors, I'm sure we can think of a few more things that should be in a use based subjective review that rarely make it. Stereophile is better than some in this regard, this review points out some use problems. It's just a shame that "it runs hot!" never made it into the main part of the review.
You hit the nail on the head. It is not the way the industry works and you have to suck up to the advertiser and all that palaver. Why aren't there this level of dishonesty on camera reviews? How is it that those publications survive? Or car magazines, etc.?
There are a few dishonest people who had been running the show and until @amirm came along nobody made them look as what they are.
Oh Roksan.
The outcome of this review is a genuine shame, as I would love to support the local brands, whether it is Temple, Cyrus, Sugden, Slee, Rega, Roksan, etc.
If the engineering is nevertheless not up to scratch and the prices are distorted, it makes much more sense to go for the tried and tested brands on ASR. Thanks again, @amirm for an eyeopener.
The outcome of this review is a genuine shame, as I would love to support the local brands, whether it is Temple, Cyrus, Sugden, Slee, Rega, Roksan, etc.
If the engineering is nevertheless not up to scratch and the prices are distorted, it makes much more sense to go for the tried and tested brands on ASR. Thanks again, @amirm for an eyeopener.
Lol, It is clear that the members of the jurassic audio park you mention, and their prices, have been derailing badly during the last decades. But they seem to have found a cosy niche market with customers that apparently have no need that Amir take care of their money...
Lol, It is clear that the members of the jurassic audio park you mention, and their prices, have been derailing badly during the last decades. But they seem to have found a cosy niche market with customers that apparently have no need that Amir take care of their money...
Which is a shame. There is nothing wrong with innovation and engineering excellence from the local 'boutique' brands, and I am sure the vast majority of users would pay a few quid extra to support a local manufacturer. But if the engineering isn't up to scratch, there is little one can do.
Yes, as long as something better that current loudspeakers remains un invented
audio transparency will remain an audiophile myth, whatever the Sinad...
One would think that a design-engineer (even a noob) would not be so myopic as to ignore the possible contributions of the power supply in an audio product.
Never was a rocket science to begin with and no designer really needs an AP to determine a noisy supply issue.
Heck, you don't even really need an oscilloscope to hear it.
Thank you @amirm, you can take the rest of the weekend off!
Never was a rocket science to begin with and no designer really needs an AP to determine a noisy supply issue.
Heck, you don't even really need an oscilloscope to hear it.
Thank you @amirm, you can take the rest of the weekend off!
AndreaT
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Yes…like the papers in the Medical Literature…it took at least 400 years of publishing to achieve any measure of objectivity in assessing results…and we are still far, very far, from excluding observer’s bias and defining “significant improvement” when drug A is compared with drug B. And like in consumer’s electronics other factors are poorly evaluated by SOTA double blind studies: ease of administration, cost, availability, procedure requested to release the drug from hospital pharmacy…what made me very suspicious about Stereophile was that hardly ever there was a less than positive review of equipment: cables were always great, and often ranked higher as their cost increased, amplifiers often up-ranked in spite of audible distortion and noise, speakers with obvious flaws still recommended. Exceptions were few and the guidance of the magazine for a discerning listener dubious.
DSJR
Major Contributor
Late reply and I'll try to keep it short and non specific... In the UK 70's market, inflation was high and it seemed to me at the time that each year, when a fresh range seemed to appear from so many far eastern brands, the products became cheaper in build and well *feel* too, facilities still ruled and as the power supplies dwindled and more corners were cut, performance as well which did have a subjective effect when driving real speaker loads. The very best stuff never arrived here, or maybe a couple of samples from Germany were shown around the higher end UK dealers (I'm deeply ashamed to say we had a sample of the Pioneer Spec 1 and 2? pre/power amps to evaluate and dismissed them out of hand *and unheard I recall* due to the plethora of knobs and switches coupled with shiny brushed-bling finish when the burgeoning trends of utter simplicity were taking hold here by the late 70's. I'd suggest that by the 80's, subjectivism ruled here and most seemingly capable far eastern amps (HK had one or two I remember) were criticised for having a 'lean' or 'thin tone' and one or two Sony ES amps had seemingly awful phono stages all over the place on the bench...
Nah, this Roksan box seems to be bare(ly) basic with minimal and cramped production engineering inside. Those 50V caps could quite easily be 63V ones at 105 degrees and I'm sure in bulk, the costs wouldn't be very much more.
Ein
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2021
- Messages
- 39
- Likes
- 25
EISA aWKward
Didn't know HFN was a "sister" publication to Stereophile.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Yes, but that happened relatively recently, some time this century I think. There's also a partnership between Hi-Fi + and The Absolute Sound.
Last edited:
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Exactly.
Subjective does not necessarily mean "without scientific merit". What it means is usage, aesthetics, quality, usability, foibles, functionality, enjoyment and a whole lot of other intangibles, all of which are massively important- something ASR completely ignores, belittles and dismisses to their own detriment.
And then we have the well implemented test regimes. ASR is superficial but at least, somewhat consistent. Stereophile is extensive. ASR is soundbite style testing. Stereophile is almost too far the other way.
We need proper testing, by industry luminaries like John Atkinson. Plenty of others have fallen by the wayside, retired or passed on. I miss them all.
Similar threads
