So this thing costs 43k....

[KozmoNaut]

Hey man - it's a free country - sort of - so you are allowed to do exactly that

Money is just money - everyone on this board is gonna die and you can't take it with you - so spend it on silly audio stuff, cars, women, booze etc. Or not.

It is also a free for all to call BS on your nonsense, remember that and also remember that we are not "allowed" to do these things, we have the right to do them. Important distinction.

Spending money on snake oil and woo-woo is a false economy, it props up pseudoscience and a general distrust of facts. Spend money on something with actual value, instead of mediocre wildly-overpriced audio junk.

As to why you keep up your pointless defense of fraud, deception and charlatans the way you do, I suspect economic motives. You're rehashing every single long-debunked audiophool attempt at discrediting measurements and double blind testing, and it's getting extremely stale at this point. You try to hide your complete lack of proper arguments behind a wall of words and an ever-changing tirade of nonsense, constantly moving the goalposts.

 

[Human Bass]

It doesnt really make sense to say "measurements dont, but what we hear". Because what we hear is MEASUREMENTS. Your perception of a sound being low or high pitched is your brain measuring the frequentcy. The sound being woody or brassy is our brains measuring the harmonics.

 

[Robin L]

"What do I hear?"

"That's Metaphysically Absurd—How Can I Know What You Hear?"

"I heard that!"

 

[Frank Dernie]

Someone mentioned the Hi-Fi Critic - it should be noted that the reviewer of that $192k DAC is an engineer who formed the speaker company Monitor Audio, he has written several books on loudspeaker design, chaired the Audio Engineering society, and was the measurements taker at Stereophile before John Atkinson. So he is not the sort of reviewer who just gets sucked in by pretty looks (which AN doesn't possess) or Price - there are plenty of other expensive products.

I remember Martin noting at the end of one of his reviews "does it sound good despite the measurements or because of the measurements"
IME there is a typical range of distortions which seem euphonic and lots of people like, so my answer would be "because", but a digital filter is a cheaper way of achieving the same result.
I first met him when he worked for Audio T when they started up on the 4th floor of a building on Oxford Street. He had measured a Goodmans 1-10 tuner amp I bought there.
I have made recordings for 50 years. It is only on digital recorders that the microphone feed is indistinguishable from the recording IME, but the level must be set so there is no clipping. On analogue recorders setting the level into overload is a reasonable overall strategy since the peaks causing overload don't happen all that often and moving the general level higher makes the tape hiss less obvious on quieter passages. I was amused to find that the most popular limiter on the Metric Halo (the make of my recorder) discussion group turned out to be the one which emulates tape recorder overload
So yes often enough euphonic distortion will be preferred over accurate reproduction IME.
FWIW before Peter Qvortrup started importing Audio Note from Japan he had a shop near Newbury. Intrigued by his marketing push of a rather nice looking valve amp he was selling I went over and had a very pleasant evening listening.
I wasn't convinced I was hearing what he told me I should be, I surely have cloth ears, but he was very enthusiastic and saying exactly the same things then as now.

 

[Frank Dernie]

sounds better than the KEF LS-50

what you mean is "sounds nicer to me".
However much of a super VIP you are you are not the arbiter of better.

And it almost always comes from people who have never bothered to actually listen to stuff. I get it - I used to say the same things. Tubes suck - look at the measurements. That speaker sucks - look at the measurements.

Well here is somebody who has tried or owned mega expensive stuff and doesn't agree with you at all, though I have yet to hear speakers which I prefer to my 20 year old Goldmunds - bought after 2 years of auditioning every high end speaker I could though I do enjoy my Tune Audio Anima horns too.
I tried SET and they can't drive the very efficient Goldmunds at all.
On the opposite end of the valve genre I had Jadis JA200 on extended home loan and they often sounded lovely but it was not lovely on all music for me so I didn't buy them. honey is nice poured on pudding, less so on a beef carpaccio...

 

[Frank Dernie]

Everyone says this about tubes. Yet, despite countless comparisons I have performed, I have yet to hear this euphonic effect. There are no formal studies to validate that claim either. It is a fish story that has gotten life because it is repeated so many times.

What appeals to the ear is clean sound. Everything else is folklore.

I have heard euphonic distortion but I consider it to be created by transformers, not valves. Bass is poorly passed by transformers adding lots of harmonics into the lower and mid band. This is what I think people mean by euphonic colouration, I do.
The more transformers the more the cocktail of distortions is added. Simple harmonic distortion is harsh and horrid IME.
Audio Note stuff often has inter stage transformers as well as the inevitable output transformers of the power amps.

 

[NTomokawa]

Why oh why can I not cobble together some audio gizmo, stick my name on it and sell it for more than my car is worth.

Clearly I just need to use a bunch of obsolete parts, wire them together in a haphazard fashion to give it that "exclusive, hand-made" touch, pay off the right trumpeters, and rake it in.

 

[scott wurcer]

Why oh why can I not cobble together some audio gizmo, stick my name on it and sell it for more than my car is worth.

Go for it, what's stopping you?

 

[NTomokawa]

what's stopping you?

A conscience?

 

[Gradius]

The unit exploding:

 

[Richard Austen]

Martin Colloms was one of the three people who founded Monitor Audio, and he left the company after just three years. Mo is the one who made the company what it is today, not Martin.

The only reason Richard brings it up is to try to appropriate some industry credibility for Martin's reviews.

Hey that seems a little mean - I just provided his bio. Since I have never liked Monitor Audio Loudspeakers - having co-founded them is not, for me, a point in his favor. But I kept it in because well - it's part of the man's bio. I didn't know he left so early. For me that helps.

Perhaps I should have just quoted him directly
"... I qualified in Electrical Engineering and Electronics at the Polytechnic Regent Street ( now Westminster University), though not before an extended part time apprenticeship as a product tester and sales assistant lasting several student years at pioneering audio retailer Audio T (thanks be to founder John Bartlett). I then spent a few years on research and development in both high frequency communications, advanced pagers and then 1GHz oscilloscope instrumentation for a subsidiary of Tektronix, while continuing to deny my hobby obsession with high fidelity.
Then in 1972 an opportunity arose with two partners to found a loudspeaker company, Monitor Audio Ltd, which proved to be a formative business experience. After nearly three years of technical management and speaker designing I parted company with co-founders Mike Beeny and Mo Iqbal to work as an independent Hi Fi journalist, concentrating on audio writing and product reviews. The product research undertaken at Monitor Audio also gave rise to my enduring design book 'High Performance Loudspeakers' first published in 1977 and still around in its recent 6th edition.

I have written extensively for nearly all the major UK titles, but have put most effort into Hi Fi News, (33 years), also Hi Fi for Pleasure, and the A5 Hi Fi Choice series, not forgetting Stereophile. More recently Roy Gregory at Hi Fi Plus had encouraged me to produce some more challenging and extended investigative product reviews...." http://highfidelity.pl/@main-271&lang=en

 

[Richard Austen]

It is also a free for all to call BS on your nonsense, remember that and also remember that we are not "allowed" to do these things, we have the right to do them. Important distinction.

Spending money on snake oil and woo-woo is a false economy, it props up pseudoscience and a general distrust of facts. Spend money on something with actual value, instead of mediocre wildly-overpriced audio junk.

As to why you keep up your pointless defense of fraud, deception and charlatans the way you do, I suspect economic motives. You're rehashing every single long-debunked audiophool attempt at discrediting measurements and double blind testing, and it's getting extremely stale at this point. You try to hide your complete lack of proper arguments behind a wall of words and an ever-changing tirade of nonsense, constantly moving the goalposts.

If I made a misstatement earlier - then I will clear it up here.

I am actually for DBT listening. My argument has been pretty consistent here. SET based systems and tubes measure rubbish compared to SS. SO the only leg I have to stand on is the merits of the sound quality. Therefore, because the only merit or way of convincing is by sound - then yes please do a DBT. After all there are many biases, price, looks, brand reputation, etc and since folks look at the measurements which suck, and the price which is high, etc. AN is at a serious disadvantage with all the biases we have when we "SEE" all these things that appear to be "wildly-overpriced audio junk" so the only way to combat that very deep loud aggressive bias is to listen level matched and blind. I am 100% behind you there.

I just hope that folks who are always on about DBTs - are folks who actually personally involve themselves as listeners.

 

[Richard Austen]

I remember Martin noting at the end of one of his reviews "does it sound good despite the measurements or because of the measurements"
IME there is a typical range of distortions which seem euphonic and lots of people like, so my answer would be "because", but a digital filter is a cheaper way of achieving the same result.
I first met him when he worked for Audio T when they started up on the 4th floor of a building on Oxford Street. He had measured a Goodmans 1-10 tuner amp I bought there.
I have made recordings for 50 years. It is only on digital recorders that the microphone feed is indistinguishable from the recording IME, but the level must be set so there is no clipping. On analogue recorders setting the level into overload is a reasonable overall strategy since the peaks causing overload don't happen all that often and moving the general level higher makes the tape hiss less obvious on quieter passages. I was amused to find that the most popular limiter on the Metric Halo (the make of my recorder) discussion group turned out to be the one which emulates tape recorder overload
So yes often enough euphonic distortion will be preferred over accurate reproduction IME.
FWIW before Peter Qvortrup started importing Audio Note from Japan he had a shop near Newbury. Intrigued by his marketing push of a rather nice looking valve amp he was selling I went over and had a very pleasant evening listening.
I wasn't convinced I was hearing what he told me I should be, I surely have cloth ears, but he was very enthusiastic and saying exactly the same things then as now.

Well listening to an unknown system in an unknown room for a short duration is difficult versus the guy who spent months or years designing or listening to the thing. With more time you may have heard what he was talking about. Or maybe not. Some people are more sensitive to things than others.

This is an article that just came out from Stereophile's new JA about DBTs and Long term listening versus short ABX listening or in yoiur case listening to an unknown system. So I highly doubt you have cloth ears.

"Subjectivist audiophiles have long maintained that long-term listening is necessary to assess the quality and character of an audio component. Scientific testing methodologies such as ABX, which require quick and conscious evaluation of a change in the sound, have long struck many of us as insufficient, seeming to miss much that affects our enjoyment of music. A pair of Genelec researchers—Thomas Lund, an audio professional with a medical background, and Aki Mäkivirta, a research and development manager and a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society—have published two articles ...
https://www.stereophile.com/comment/589858

 

[amirm]

I just hope that folks who are always on about DBTs - are folks who actually personally involve themselves as listeners.

What is with this garbage statement you all make? We all listen to music and a lot of it. Even non-audiophiles do too.

I am a trained listener so if you really want to go there, I am able to outdo many of you. Now what?

 

[amirm]

Well listening to an unknown system in an unknown room for a short duration is difficult versus the guy who spent months or years designing or listening to the thing.

Not difficult at all for those of us who pass double blind tests with ease when there are audible differences. What is it about you all that makes you fail such tests that we don't?

When I was at Microsoft, we tested large group of audiophiles in blind tests. They all failed miserably compared to our trained listeners. This is the problem, not unfamiliar rooms. Audiophiles as a group are not critical listeners. They know good recordings, dynamic range, etc. But they are terrible at detecting aberrations in sound reproduction. Sadly, their own self image is the opposite. Now, if they had passed some test to show their great hearing, that would be one thing. But they never have. When they are, the fail it and then look for excuses as you mention.

So no, this has nothing to do with familiarity. You either have good hearing or you don't.

 

[ahofer]

You don't have to *hope* we're listening, there's evidence here in the forum, in endless threads:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-are-we-listening-to-right-now.40/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/a-millennials-rant-on-classical-music.9365/

 

[amirm]

Well listening to an unknown system in an unknown room for a short duration is difficult versus the guy who spent months or years designing or listening to the thing.

By the way, we are all happy to let you all test your hearing in your own system, with your own music and setup. Here is a great example of a major audiophile in our area with half a million dollar audio system which could NOT tell the difference between his favorite MIT cable and another when tested blind:

----------
Well, back in 2011 he was so sure that he could tell his MIT Opus cable from others that he accepted a blind test challenge in his own home with his gear. The results are were this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...41184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html

"So our results with Mike as our listener were clear: for this particular methodology, Mike could not accurately identify a difference in the cables."

Here he was so sure of his ability hear differences in cables but the moment all but the sound of cables were presented to him, he was unable to do so.

Mike posts this about the experience: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...184-observations-controlled-cable-test-2.html

"yes; i have, to some degree, changed my perspective on cable differences....but...my mind is still processing the results and what they mean for me. i hope that i can coherently relate the various thoughts that go thru my mind. as Chris mentioned; the controls were successful at keeping me from knowing which cable was which. for each test i felt confident about my choice (except #6...see below).
[...]
when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'. we had discussed prior that any result 7 out of 10 or better or 15 out of 20 or better would mean a positive result and to continue. once we got to only 3 out of 7 it was clear that we were not going to get a positive result.

why did i fail?.....or put another way.....why did this test show no real difference? was i overconfident?

yes; regardless of the eventual answer i was not respectful enough of the challenge.

[...]

in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it."

After countless years of believing in cable difference through the same type of experiences you talk about, he was shown to be completely wrong.

Sadly he has forgotten all of this now and is back to believing in his faulty methodology. Which is fine but in this forum we don't do that. We learn from such data and advance our knowledge of proper audio evaluation.

 

[MRC01]

When Tyll first sold InnerFidelity, Arnott's purely subjective reviews took the site a step downhill but I gave him the benefit of doubt. This DAC is frankly ridiculous and that he refuses to say the Emperor has no clothes removes all doubt. I seriously wonder if Audio Note secretly laughs at every customer because the joke is on them. The car analogy falls short because at least a McLaren F1 has over 600 HP and handles great. This is like dressing up a Trabant and selling it for 6 figures, saying 1/4 mile and track lap times don't express its unique ride quality.

Very expensive audio gear can make sense if it at least has great performance and the owner is paying for exceptional build quality and parts, and low production. This thing is nothing of that sort.

 

[jsrtheta]

When Tyll first sold InnerFidelity, Arnott's purely subjective reviews took the site a step downhill but I gave him the benefit of doubt. This DAC is frankly ridiculous and that he refuses to say the Emperor has no clothes removes all doubt. I seriously wonder if Audio Note secretly laughs at every customer because the joke is on them. The car analogy falls short because at least a McLaren F1 has over 600 HP and handles great. This is like dressing up a Trabant and selling it for 6 figures, saying 1/4 mile and track lap times don't express its unique ride quality.

Very expensive audio gear can make sense if it at least has great performance and the owner is paying for exceptional build quality and parts, and low production. This Audiogon thing is nothing of that sort.

The crime is that there is no way to justify the price. None.

Years ago I got a great deal on a used 20-bit Theta DS Pro Gen Va, which was supposed to be top of the line (though by no means the most expensive one out there). I think it went for $3k-$5k new, somewhere in there.

The thing was stuffed to the gills with primo parts. DBT'd against a PS Audio DL-3, also 20-bit, bought new for about $250. Couldn't tell a difference if my life depended on it. The beginning of the end for me when it came to spending real money on DACs. (Though I did make a profit flipping the Theta.)

 

[NTomokawa]

Trabant

Stick an electric engine in it and you'll have something. At least that cotton-plastic body shell won't rust!