When is a broken panther justified?

[Helicopter]

ok, post example of decent sounding and useful product that got a broken panther

I would but the Focal Clear has a letter carrier panther.

 

[posvibes]

I'd like four panthers sitting in a circle around a green baize table, each has a shot glass in front of them filled to the brim with vodka. The panthers look jaded but contemplative. Under a overhead light in the middle of the table is a revolver with empty chambers and single solitary bullet is standing upright next to a pair of dice.

Just for those occasions when Amir cannot give a full throated recommendation.

Too much?

 

[Long Audio Beard]

great post,

non-audible results, and de minimus audible irrelevancy are absolutely an issue to be mindful of and to not be blinded by measurements

another issue is pride of ownership that some people have for using gear that they feel measures incredibly well on standard measurements, that can be a type of subjective bias, and also pride of engineering and design that can achieve high measurements

another issue is that standard measurements can not always guarantee that one component is better than another one for a given user's subjective determination of sound quality, and there is room for other types of measurements to be developed in the future that may be more helpful in that regard

there are other issues, it is possible to replay recorded audio with extreme fidelity to the recording while a component measuring potentially lesser fidelity to the recording may very well exhibit playback that may be closer to the actual performance itself that was recorded (and not the recording of the performance)

the idea that we are getting "what the artist intended" for example is a very complex idea and not a truth IMO, we may be getting more than what they heard on playback in the studio or may be hearing a more accurate representation of their performance than they imagined would be possible from their recording, there can also be an element of "reality" that is lost through the recording process but that some gear may be able to recreate even though that recreation may be less accurate to the actual recording itself

another issue is tone and distortion, a recording mixed and mastered with certain equipment (complete signal chain from preamp to speakers/headphones) played back on current very high spec gear could sound very different than the artist and recording pros imagined because they were targeting a product using certain gear involving certain frequency response and certain distortion profiles that may differ from an end user's playback system

we call this a hobby for a reason!

 

[mhardy6647]

The headless and piggy-bank panthers both suggest there might be fun reading ahead.

That's my takeaway vis-a-vis this particular metric (FWIW).

 

[posvibes]

the idea that we are getting "what the artist intended" for example is a very complex idea and not a truth IMO, we may be getting more than what they heard on playback in the studio or may be hearing a more accurate representation of their performance than they imagined would be possible from their recording, there can also be an element of "reality" that is lost through the recording process but that some gear may be able to recreate even though that recreation may be less accurate to the actual recording itself

When audio has become estimating the number of angels dancing on heads of a pin, it is refreshing if not vital that measurements as complex as they are as well as in the most incomprehensible to me, they are something graspable as opposed to second guessing the intent of artist, engineer, producer, recording company, marketeers, critics and reviewers.

That said if we could develop hone and command our psychoacoutsic faculties through mind control we could master the art of high fidelity with minimal standard kit. The answer may lie in the 90% of our brain that we don't use.

 

[Wes]

When audio has become estimating the number of angels dancing on heads of a pin, it is refreshing if not vital that measurements as complex as they are as well as in the most incomprehensible to me, they are something graspable as opposed to second guessing the intent of artist, engineer, producer, recording company, marketeers, critics and reviewers.

That said if we could develop hone and command our psychoacoutsic faculties through mind control we could master the art of high fidelity with minimal standard kit. The answer may lie in the 90% of our brain that we don't use.

Audiophilia has become more like how many pinheads are dancing from the angel dust of slithering subjectivism

 

[Vasr]

ok, post examples of decent sounding and useful product that got a broken panther

Monolith HTP-1 is a good example. I don't know of anybody who says this is not a useful product or that it doesn't sound decent. One can get into a pedantic discussion of why that deserved a decapitated panther because one can make up any rule to justify and point out to some reason why it might have a problem. So, I don't want to go into that type of discussion..

A problem really is that the decapitated panther is too imprecise to distinguish between say whatever "deficiencies" HTP-1 was discovered to have vs something like the Anthem AVM-60 and its measurements. But if one was looking for a pre/pro in the sub $5k range, which one would one buy? Is there even a comparison between those two as measured? Yes, I know someone can look at the actual measurements but we are talking about what the impact of having a prominent headline which influences everything as much as one might deny this happens.

The Magnepan LRS is a more controversial one. It is bass-shy and for people who want to listen to it without subwoofers, it isn't a good solution. But yet, more people with no dog in the fight seem to like how it sounds and for that price it is a useful and decent sounding product in the context of which type of music they listen to. The problem is all these devices (beyond simple DACs) are compromises in various dimensions and so a single rating is not going to satisfy everybody. So, as a spectator sport event, it just does fine. Increases traffic to the site with opposing views and amount of discussion. But the panther does very little to serve as a buying guide for specific needs unless you totally discount the panther. But the latter is not what happens in reality nor is it discouraged when people routinely express using it as such in the forums.

 

[Vasr]

To directly answer the question of the topic header, I do think the decapitated panther should be reserved for devices that nobody should buy either because it is broken to the extent that most people would encounter it or it seriously/significantly misrepresents its published specs to the point one would consider it as fraud. It is still a judgement call but a far more stringent bar to cross.

It is better to have a "YMMV panther" for any one-of issues that doesn't cross the above barrier and is useful in many contexts while not perfect in every dimension.

 

[Taxi]

Anyone who makes a purchasing decision based on which porcelain figure was added to a review filled with exceptional scientific data, frankly, got what they deserved.

 

[JSmith]

Who cares.

Agree... ffs isn't there something more important to worry about in life?

This barely qualifies as a first world problem.



JSmith

 

[Helicopter]

The panther is a mostly undefined expression of Amir's overall opinion. People extrapolate and infer far beyond and then gripe about it. Give me a break!

Amir doesn't need to further justify his overall opinion or further define it. There is some fun in wondering what the panthers mean precisely. Anyone getting butt hurt about a panther is putting way too much stock in Amir's broad categorization of his overall personal impression.

There is no one I trust more on these things, but if you want to go deeper than the panther, read the review, look at the measurements, try to ask good questions that other members will endorse, keep an open mind, learn what you can, and move on to the next review.

Edit: I trust myself more than Amir regarding how I like what I have used.

 

[Wombat]

I hope that Behringer amp is better that the Behringer mixing board I have, which developed a -40dB FS 60-cycle hum after a year. It’s too cheap to repair and just ends up in the landfill.

The problem with stuff that measures much worse than the competition at a given price is that it shows the price-point thinking was the dominant design strategy instead of a constraint. They were thinking “can we make something adequate that’s cheap” instead of “how good can we make this product at this price point”. Where else might that thinking have dominated decisions in the product?

If they are careful about measured performance, then maybe they are careful about other things. (Maybe not.) If they are not careful about measured performance, however, particularly if they don’t even attain their own specs, then hope about other things recedes.

Rick “tired of buying crap” Denney

ASR doesn't test for durability and longevity. A cursory look is not a substitute, unfortunately.

 

[rdenney]

ASR doesn't test for durability and longevity. A cursory look is not a substitute, unfortunately.

True. But stuff engineered to perform well has a greater likelihood of being well-made than stuff that doesn’t. It’s only an indicator, of course.

Rick “who can think of exceptions” Denney

 

[bluefuzz]

ok, post examples of decent sounding and useful product that got a broken panther

NAD C658. Is it fair to give it a headless panther on the basis of an apparently broken example? This is one of the most performant and useful streamers on the market, and apparently rather less buggy that it's nearest rival the MiniDSP SHD that was awarded a golfing panther merely for having slightly better SINAD.

Conversely, the Topping L30 has been one of the most strongly recommended devices on the site, yet has proved to have been a flawed design that could even destroy people's headphones. But since it didn't exhibit that 'feature' during Amir's testing, it retains its golfing panther. Is that fair?

 

[Robin L]

. . .Conversely, the Topping L30 has been one of the most strongly recommended devices on the site, yet has proved to have been a flawed design that could even destroy people's headphones. But since it didn't exhibit that 'feature' during Amir's testing, it retains its golfing panther. Is that fair?

Considering how Topping dealt with the problem, I would say, yes, it is fair.

 

[Wes]

NAD C658. Is it fair to give it a headless panther on the basis of an apparently broken example? This is one of the most performant and useful streamers on the market, and apparently rather less buggy that it's nearest rival the MiniDSP SHD that was awarded a golfing panther merely for having slightly better SINAD.

Conversely, the Topping L30 has been one of the most strongly recommended devices on the site, yet has proved to have been a flawed design that could even destroy people's headphones. But since it didn't exhibit that 'feature' during Amir's testing, it retains its golfing panther. Is that fair?

Yes, it is fair. The symbol should track the performance results, not expectations or wishes. The review text should discuss reasons for the results, including the "apparently broken" state. We also gain a single bit of information regarding quality control by NAD.

This corresponds to the Results section and the Discussion section in a scientific paper.

The L30 example you give relates to fitness for a particular purpose, not performance per se. Again, that should be disclosed in the review text (tho I am not opposed to a 2nd panther wearing a pair of broken headphones).

Any other examples?

Bottom line, people can always disregard the panther (it is unlikely to crouch and attack unlike real ones).

 

[bluefuzz]

Considering how Topping dealt with the problem, I would say, yes, it is fair.

I own both the C658 and L30 and am happy with both of them. I'm not criticising Topping either for the (IMO) forgivable design flaw or how they dealt with it. But the panther in both cases is nevertheless a matter of luck. In the C658's case that it exhibited an apparently uncharacteristic fault and in the L30's case that it didn't exhibit a known flaw.

 

[Wes]

I am not trying to be a tenacious defender of panther semiotics. Just pointing out its utility.

but maybe I should write an essay "On Defense of Panthera pinkus"

 

[Robin L]

I own both the C658 and L30 and am happy with both of them. I'm not criticising Topping either for the (IMO) forgivable design flaw or how they dealt with it. But the panther in both cases is nevertheless a matter of luck. In the C658's case that it exhibited an apparently uncharacteristic fault and in the L30's case that it didn't exhibit a known flaw.

Said flaw was quickly corrected and the L30 is still top of the SINAD heap for headphone amps. It's still a technological miracle.

 

[mansr]

Would people be happy if Amir replaced the headless panther with pantless hamster?