Standards for Audio Electronics Measurements?

[MC_RME]

It's not that easy.

It is. Replying completely out of context seems a bit odd. This was the thread/topic, output of a dongle:

amirm: An example for a dongle: Output voltage: at least 2 volts on unbalanced, 4 volts on balanced.

beeface: Why isn't 2 volts sufficient for this purpose? Why is 4 volts considered an ideal minimum - why not 3v or 5v? Genuinely curious - I have no idea!

MC: Balanced automatically gives you double the output voltage. If it's below 4 V the circuit either has a problem, or unbalanced also is below 2 V - so requirement not met.

 

[amirm]

The irony of this all is 99.9% of the potential market doesn’t give a rats ass about the specs.

What "potential" market? Anyone buying products that I review is an enthusiast and large number of them care or we would not have become one of the largest audio sites on the Internet. If you mean mass market, we don't serve them but they may also benefit from better engineering.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Sonos is projected to have $1.66 Billion revenue for 2023. What do they publish for specs? What you’re dismissing is the difference between your “perceived” market for high end audio, and the actual “potential” market. Your perceived market is only 1% of the potential market. Specs are only the business of the engineering departments to use as a benchmark to deliver what the market wants.

You do realize you are agreeing with Amir's last post don't you? Other than the last sentence in your post.

 

[amirm]

Sonos is projected to have $1.66 Billion revenue for 2023.

Which is only 7% of the total audio market. By your notion they don't matter either as I am pretty sure there are millions and millions of people listening to music on their phone who have not even heard of Sonos.

Once more, we serve the enthusiast/audiophile market. And we own a large share of that. SONOS is a lifestyle audio company. While I think we will influence them one day as well, it is not a goal or target today.

 

[GXAlan]

They only care if the user experience meets their satisfaction. You guys can debate till blue in the face about what the 0.1% of online geeks care about.

What "potential" market? Anyone buying products that I review is an enthusiast and large number of them care or we would not have become one of the largest audio sites on the Internet. If you mean mass market, we don't serve them but they may also benefit from better engineering.

If we look at headphones, it’s possible to get mainstream products to perform well such as those from Bose

The Sonos Era 300 also measures incredibly well. Sonos has the largest anechoic chambers in the world, and the lead for the Era 300 project is from JBL Professional.

In a way, the mass market products occasionally benefit more from science than the audiophile hand waving that we see commonly because the margins are so tight. Mass market products have to work otherwise they go out of business.

If you sell snake oil cables for $20,000 you only need to sell a few to pay the bills.

But there are limits to physics. As good as the Era 300 is, you can only displace so much air with small woofers. You cannot use them in a 7.4.4 setup. As great as Sonos’s economies of scales are, and they likely have a BOM half that of a boutique company, there is still only so much you can do with a $850/pair (retail) wireless speaker with Atmos license, etc.

Asking for better performance is a pretty reasonable thing to ask…

 

[Blumlein 88]

If you want a hint at what the industry needs, use Sonos as an example as a shortcut. Offer the gear form-factors and usability they’re offering, only scale up the performance. That’s the only way to move forward. Not making the specs better on obsolete form-factor products.

This kind of thinking is why Porsche now makes an SUV. Is that good? I don't know.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Now their SUV outsells all their other products by 10x. I don’t know, if staying in business is important it may be something to consider.

The SUV's are about 64% of Porsche sales so not 10x. But hey you are on a roll right? I mean what is 10x vs actual 1.4 x.....

 

[amirm]

Anyways the the movers and shakers in this world who have any hope in hell in making positive change are never the ones advocating for staying the same. Just imagine from the beginning of time nobody was ever interested in innovation. We likely wouldn’t have even discovered fire unless struck in the head by lightning. I can just imagine the arguments of how stupid the wheel was during the conception. “ Why use a round wheel when the square one works perfectly fine!”

Says the guy who is trying to discourage us in making that change.....

 

[Doodski]

The change the market wants to see is a form-factor change.

How do you know this and what does this mean other than a packaged dimensions reduction?

 

[Blumlein 88]

How many models do they sell? Basic math tells us to add up all the products they sell, and divide the total revenue between all of all the models to get the end result.

All suv models were 64% of sales in numbers. I think all the non SUV models average higher cost. So revenue from SUV models is less.

 

[Blumlein 88]

OMG we’re calling this science? either say the exact number of every model sold, or your doing a disservice to the community

I didn't call it science. I looked at a yearly report that did list each model. It also describes how much of their total sales were SUV models.

My numbers are generally accurate and reality based unlike the 10x you posted.

 

[IAtaman]

OMG we’re calling this science? either say the exact number of every model sold, or your doing a disservice to the community

Ha! So you make stuff up on the go and we have to provide data to prove you made stuff up?

Here, let me help.

The models with the highest demand again in 2022 were the brand’s SUVs: the Porsche Cayenne was delivered a total of 95,604 times. The Macan followed in second place with 86,724 units delivered. With 40,410 deliveries (+5 per cent) the Porsche 911 remains very popular as well. The sports saloon Panamera was delivered to 34,142 customers (+13 per cent)

https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2023/company/porsche-delivieries-2022-30886.html

You guys realize he is trolling, right?

 

[IAtaman]

Ok thanks for providing additional data that in absolutely no way furthers the objective we are talking about. This only serves to reinforce what I was saying earlier about the bubble mentality of those in the industry. Goodluck!

Hey now, you sidetracked your own argument by making up stats that is demonstrably incorrect. Do not blame the whole industry for that.

The irony of this all is 99.9% of the potential market doesn’t give a rats ass about the specs. They only care if the user experience meets their satisfaction. You guys can debate till blue in the face about what the 0.1% of online geeks care about. While the rest utilize audio analyzers as an engineering tool, and deliver products the consumers actually buy because they enjoy the user experience and end results.

This was your original argument correct? It was explained the target audience of these measurements and "specs" are the enthusiasts, not your average consumer who prefers a soundbar because it fits better with the decor. I did not understand what exactly was your response to that. Maybe you can clarify and we can bring the discussion back on track?

 

[Galliardist]

I have explained this before. Every product a member sends is reviewed without exception.

If a company sends me something, and i find issues in measured performance, I run it by them. If there is a solution, I deploy it. Otherwise I give them a choice to give up on the review. This is a courtesy I provide. I hate having someone volunteer to send me something, and I then tell the world to not buy it. People who do subjective reviewing can get away with writing positive stuff even when the device is no good. I don't have that luxury.

Keep in mind that majority of gear is sent to me by members. Of the gear that is sent by companies, almost all of them have excellent performance. So the number of reviews you don't see is very small. But enough to be extra work for me.

The proposal here would avoid this issue altogether. If a company reaches out to me to test something, I can point them to these recommendations. That way even if they didn't know about them before, they would before a review.

So again, every product sent by a member (or bought by me) gets reviewed. So you will continue to see many reviews if products don't perform.

I see a huge problem for you here. You receive newish product X from the manufacturer. You find something which you perceive to be a flaw in the product, and the manufacturer responds that they don't see it as a problem, and gives up on the review. They expect that to be the end of the matter and send X off to The Absolute Sound or whoever for a subjective review instead.

A week later, you are offered the same product by a member. What do you do then?

 

[Galliardist]

It was explained the target audience of these measurements and "specs" are the enthusiasts, not your average consumer who prefers a soundbar because it fits better with the decor. I did not understand what exactly was your response to that. Maybe you can clarify and we can bring the discussion back on track?

I think that's somewhat limiting, don't you? In a site called Audio Science Review, there should be space for discussion of the science around soundbars. Come to that, audio science applies equally to why a typical 1940s tube radio sounds the way it does. It shouldn't all be about dedicated room treatments and IEM targets at the end of the day.

If Sonos have 7% of the audio market, then applying audio science to their products, and explaining how and why they do or don't work is important to at least 7% of the target market. That's actually more important in the real world we should want to address, than fighting battles against whatever YouTuber has said something dumb about measurements this week, or the performance of whatever is calling itself an LS3/5A but isn't (despite my own posting history, of course).

The success of the mission that ASR seems to set itself should be measured by whether people who have never heard of any of the measurements, let alone ASR, get better audio products in the home.

Apart from that, despite Amir's emphasis on transparent performance, we don't all have to hold that as the key thing here. In fact, the value of the forum is that it can present other viewpoints and other angles on science. So if some people want SET amps for a different sound, it is not beyond the purview of ASR to ask why, how they work, what the measurement parameters are for people who buy them, what SET amps are good and bad for that market.

And from that viewpoint, I'm not sure about guidelines for reviewing manufacturer sent products. All it will do is:

• invite criticism and scorn from subjective minded audiophiles, as ever:
• set a target that manufacturers can investigate before presenting products, weeding out some useful borderline cases, perhaps:
• cause issues for manufacturers of expensive products that pass the guidelines but don't meet "excellent". Remember the SA-10 and TuneTot reviews?
• force a set format on the reviews. This may be a good thing in some ways, but prevents further exploration of interesting devices to see what is right or wrong.

Instead, if a product is not meeting decent guidelines (point to the lenient targets here, perhaps)

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

Introduction A recurring theme on ASR is whether or not the various measured qualities of the devices are audible. In this post, I'll present some clear and visual thresholds for when those imperfections can be considered a potentially audible concern. I will not explain the basics of amp/DAC...

audiosciencereview.com

then also give the option for the manufacturer to respond, stating why they hold a different target or give them space to challenge the review. This gives everyone a chance to learn more.

 

[IAtaman]

I think that's somewhat limiting, don't you? In a site called Audio Science Review, there should be space for discussion of the science around soundbars. Come to that, audio science applies equally to why a typical 1940s tube radio sounds the way it does. It shouldn't all be about dedicated room treatments and IEM targets at the end of the day.

If Sonos have 7% of the audio market, then applying audio science to their products, and explaining how and why they do or don't work is important to at least 7% of the target market. That's actually more important in the real world we should want to address, than fighting battles against whatever YouTuber has said something dumb about measurements this week, or the performance of whatever is calling itself an LS3/5A but isn't (despite my own posting history, of course).

The success of the mission that ASR seems to set itself should be measured by whether people who have never heard of any of the measurements, let alone ASR, get better audio products in the home.

Apart from that, despite Amir's emphasis on transparent performance, we don't all have to hold that as the key thing here. In fact, the value of the forum is that it can present other viewpoints and other angles on science. So if some people want SET amps for a different sound, it is not beyond the purview of ASR to ask why, how they work, what the measurement parameters are for people who buy them, what SET amps are good and bad for that market.

And from that viewpoint, I'm not sure about guidelines for reviewing manufacturer sent products. All it will do is:

• invite criticism and scorn from subjective minded audiophiles, as ever:
• set a target that manufacturers can investigate before presenting products, weeding out some useful borderline cases, perhaps:
• cause issues for manufacturers of expensive products that pass the guidelines but don't meet "excellent". Remember the SA-10 and TuneTot reviews?
• force a set format on the reviews. This may be a good thing in some ways, but prevents further exploration of interesting devices to see what is right or wrong.

Instead, if a product is not meeting decent guidelines (point to the lenient targets here, perhaps)

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

Introduction A recurring theme on ASR is whether or not the various measured qualities of the devices are audible. In this post, I'll present some clear and visual thresholds for when those imperfections can be considered a potentially audible concern. I will not explain the basics of amp/DAC...

audiosciencereview.com

then also give the option for the manufacturer to respond, stating why they hold a different target or give them space to challenge the review. This gives everyone a chance to learn more.

In an ideal world, I'd agree with you. If what people are buying the most are soundbars and TWS earphones, a consumer audio review site should review those as well. But that requires a team, well defined protocols some of which needs to be invented on the go and would probably be not very "data" backed, and most importantly, it probably requires a business model different than voluntary donations and members sending in products for reviews. Applying science to audio reviews is not in the monopoly of ASR. There are quite a few other review sites that do that as well. I think trying to expand ASR to cover more of the market than it currently does will not work in the way which ASR is structured today.

On the guidelines, I do agree. I understand what Amir wants to do is to provide manufactureres with some basic guidelines so that they don't end up sending ****** products to him, wasting his time reviewing products that he can not publish because of bad performance. But, the consequence of that would be creating a new set of standards. I shared my view on this earlier on the thread, I think guidelines would improve his time efficiency, however they should be limited to basics feautres and functionalities, among other things, to allow futher exploration of interesting devices or engineering excellence.

Or maybe manufacturers should be clear whether they are sending in the product for measurement or for review, and be prepared to hear what Amir has to say if it is a review.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

This is the problem I am trying to solve. I spend considerable amount of time testing products that just don't perform. Even major suppliers of equipment to ASR are missing the mark causing me to abandon the review. If you see days go by without a review, this is probably the reason.

Huh? I don't know how others review products but am I understanding this correctly; that the reviews that we see are only "the best ones" ?

What are the reasonings for abandoning reviews? -To not upset the manufacturer that sent you the equipment?

I mean, if a product is beneath the threshold of some parameter, is that not also informative enough to publish?

P.S. I have not read the whole thread. You may have already been answering this.

 

[Triliza]

Huh? I don't know how others review products but am I understanding this correctly; that the reviews that we see are only "the best ones" ?

What are the reasonings for abandoning reviews? -To not upset the manufacturer that sent you the equipment?

I mean, if a product is beneath the threshold of some parameter, is that not also informative enough to publish?

P.S. I have not read the whole thread. You may have already been answering this.

This is nothing new, Amir has stated for quite some time now that when a company send him a product, he does them the courtesy of giving them the choice to not publish the review if it's not what they expected. Personally I agree, and hopefully the company will take some steps to remedy the situation.

Regarding the impact of ASR to the mass consumer audio goods, there is no doubt that they already have and will continue to benefit. Take for example the AVR's case. We have seen some interaction there, that will benefit a lot of people that may otherwise not care about specs. And not to forget that audio enthusiasts tend to spread the word and lend their "wisdom" to those around them, this is free advertisement to the companies that put some effort to make product that measure well.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

This is nothing new, Amir has stated for quite some time now that when a company send him a product, he does them the courtesy of giving them the choice to not publish the review if it's not what they expected. Personally I agree, and hopefully the company will take some steps to remedy the situation.

Okay. I have not been aware of that stance. I'm not sure I fully agree but can see why it may be a necessity even if it skews general review results somewhat.

 

[BDWoody]

I’ll only respond again when someone intelligent enough responds is and is also worthy of response.

Not in this thread.