Space Audio Space II Headphone Amp Review

[anphex]

LOL I bet the price was set after this review and reaction of this thread !
Kind of neat device, especially when it's a one man manufacturer.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Even for that market, doesn't it need at least the option of balanced inputs & outputs? The case looks like it deserves more functionality.

It really is a bit thin on features. No gain selection? No indication of volume setting? Feels a bit like the market in 2009, $500 16 dB boxes galore. The connectors give off a small-scale DIY / cottage industry vibe, too, which is rather at odds with the case design.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case looks like it may be diecast with CNC finishing or something? That would certainly seem a lot more appropriate than trying to machine the whole thing out of a solid block, which would produce a ton of metal scraps and be extremely expensive. I imagine it still makes up a good chunk of the BOM cost as-is.

 

[ninetylol]

For an handmade amp this is pretty cool imho. For most people price will be too high, but others who want something nice, sure. And the audio scene is full of different people.

 

[threni]

For an handmade amp this is pretty cool imho. For most people price will be too high, but others who want something nice, sure. And the audio scene is full of different people.

I think it's been sent here for a cheap technical measurement of a work-in-progress (this should have been highlighted in the review along with the fact that there's no actual price yet). Ideally the finished model would be reviewed and re-assessed taking the price into account as this will affect the chances of keeping Amir's recommendation. Is this review of a beta version with an inaccurate price something that's happened here before? Doesn't seem very fair on the competition.

 

[SpaceAudio]

Audio measurements are very important: they help engineers avoid mistakes and help audiophiles decide which products are worth attention and listening to, and which are not.
However, measurements can never replace listening.
If this point of view is considered controversial, I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I will simply quote from the fundamental scientific work of Lord Rayleigh, "The Theory of Sound," which still holds its scientific relevance today:

 

[solderdude]

Lots of things, insights and measurement techniques have changed since 1877 (no typo, 147 years ago)
Perhaps look into more recent literature ?

 

[mc.god]

Audio measurements are very important: they help engineers avoid mistakes and help audiophiles decide which products are worth attention and listening to, and which are not.
However, measurements can never replace listening.
If this point of view is considered controversial, I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I will simply quote from the fundamental scientific work of Lord Rayleigh, "The Theory of Sound," which still holds its scientific relevance today:View attachment 394642

Well, i think that 150 years ago measurements precision was a bit worse than nowadays.

That being said, the unit is nice and seems well built, measurements are also very good but please, at least a gain switch!

 

[Mulder]

Audio measurements are very important: they help engineers avoid mistakes and help audiophiles decide which products are worth attention and listening to, and which are not.
However, measurements can never replace listening.
If this point of view is considered controversial, I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I will simply quote from the fundamental scientific work of Lord Rayleigh, "The Theory of Sound," which still holds its scientific relevance today:View attachment 394642

I have a hard time seeing how Rayleigh is relevant in this case. Acoustic phenomena and how our hearing works is a completely different discussion than signal fidelity and the possibility of measuring electrical signals. As I see it, you are mixing apples and pears and saying they are the same fruit.

 

[Grotti]

Audio measurements are very important: they help engineers avoid mistakes and help audiophiles decide which products are worth attention and listening to, and which are not.
However, measurements can never replace listening.
If this point of view is considered controversial, I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I will simply quote from the fundamental scientific work of Lord Rayleigh, "The Theory of Sound," which still holds its scientific relevance today:View attachment 394642

The organ of hearing is not the ear and the organ of smelling is not the nose: it is our brain creating sound and smell from the information collected by this sensors. This is the reason we have to eliminate subjective bias from our hearing experience (proper blind testing) and correlate it with measurements in order to evaluate sound quality. I really can't believe that you refer to that "ancient" source in this context....

 

[threni]

Audio measurements are very important: they help engineers avoid mistakes and help audiophiles decide which products are worth attention and listening to, and which are not.
However, measurements can never replace listening.
If this point of view is considered controversial, I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I will simply quote from the fundamental scientific work of Lord Rayleigh, "The Theory of Sound," which still holds its scientific relevance today:View attachment 394642

Sadly there's no "the" ear but many ears, all faulty, fallible and/or otherwise unreliable and attached to equality faulty, fallible, unreliable brains.

 

[NTK]

Audio measurements are very important: they help engineers avoid mistakes and help audiophiles decide which products are worth attention and listening to, and which are not.
However, measurements can never replace listening.
If this point of view is considered controversial, I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I will simply quote from the fundamental scientific work of Lord Rayleigh, "The Theory of Sound," which still holds its scientific relevance today:View attachment 394642

Of course Lord Rayleigh was right. Ears only. No peeking.

And don't ignore what he wrote next: "But we are not therefore to infer that all acoustical investigations are conducted with the unassisted ear." Which means measurements with instruments often tell us enough, when we have figured out the presence or absence of relationships, and thus no need to always rely on "unassisted" listening tests.

Once the relationships between physical phenomena and sound have been discovered, we can formulate the physical laws, and "the sensations of the ears cannot but conform" — i.e. the ears must conform to the laws of physics. And how it sounds becomes predictable through science.

We haven't figured out all the physical laws yet, but we know a whole lot more than nothing. We have come a long way since the days of Lord Rayleigh. And Lord Rayleigh himself contributed by discovering a bunch of them too, for example the duplex theory of sound localization.

 

[Human Bass]

The product is good, but the price makes no sense when the Topping A50iii is half with bal in and out.

 

[renaudrenaud]

The measurements are ok but explaining the truth is elsewhere in the listening experience is a bit blasphemous in ASR.

I don't understand the process, don't understand the project, the price and the explanations from the designer, I don't understand the product, the market and probably I am not alone.

 

[amirm]

It is probably best fit to the local market and folks willing to pay some premium for locally made product. It is darn near impossible to compete with high volume players, US or Chinese.

 

[shuppatsu]

I personally have no problem with our subjectivist brethren getting their gear measured at ASR. It's good to get respected, repeatable measurements from people who don't have any ideological bias towards that product succeeding. And the measurements are very good.

But since we have @SpaceAudio here, what say you? Do you think you could reliably differentiate between your product and a Topping L30 II in a double blind, volume-matched comparison? If so, what differences would you hear? Besides measurements, do you achieve your superior sound by trial and error or through engineering principles of good sound (that don't measure)?

 

[JSmith]

However, measurements can never replace listening.

Yes listening is the only way to ascertain if a measured difference, or any perceived difference is audible. The key of course is proper controls, as sighted listening "tests" are subject to biases and tells;

Statistics of ABX Testing

Statistics of ABX Testing By Amir Majidimehr ABX is by far the most talked about type of listening test on the Internet to demonstrate audible difference between two devices, or two audio files. As the name implies, the test involves two inputs, "A" and "B" and the listener is asked to vote...

www.audiosciencereview.com

One can only ascertain any preference once a clear difference has been properly established.


JSmith

 

[NwAvGuy]

The Atom amp is still better, and the Magni Heresy and... all under 150 USD. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ents-of-new-jds-labs-atom-headphone-amp.5262/

Quiet part out loud. Shhh!

 

[Billy Budapest]

Very impressive distortion performance.

I am concerned that the chassis isn’t earthed.

 

[SpaceAudio]

Unfortunately, it often happens that in order to achieve a good subjective result, you even have to compromise the formal parameters of the amplifier.
By the way, I’d like to know who the 16 people are that voted for "Great".
Feel free to send me a DM, guys.

 

[shuppatsu]

Unfortunately, it often happens that in order to achieve a good subjective result, you even have to compromise the formal parameters of the amplifier.

What's the procedure for ascertaining this? Trial and error?