Author Topic: Audio Science Review  (Read 3131 times)

Offline gLer

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2018, 02:01:49 PM »
I completely agree there’s a place for measurements. If something can be measured accurately and relatively, it should be. I’m just saying measurements play a much smaller part in my purchase decisions compared to, say, reliable feedback from experienced users and, if at all possible (which it hardly ever is in South Africa), personal experience. In fact I can honestly say I’ve never perused audiosciencereview for anything other than casual reading, certainly never as a precursor for buying anything.
Desktop: Mac mini >> Audirvana >> Audio-gd R-28 >> Auteur/HD800 + Mobile: FiiO 7-Eleven

Online kamikazi

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2018, 03:05:40 PM »
It really depends on what you test. Normal test wave forms are usually quite simple, there is not too much you can read into them, but if it struggles to output simple wave forms you can bet it will struggle with more complex ones. Then there are trickier measurements that can trip up gear from time to time and they are often worst cases which could have little relation to actual music playback. So it can be difficult to relate to how measurements plays out in real listening tests. Then there are many types or signal errors, distortions and aberrations that can come out of measurements. Some are worse than others and more audible. Some would be inaudible unless you really know what you are looking/listening for. If you don't know what your doing with measuring gear, some of those can even be artifacts created by the measurement device itself.

Offline shadow.clone

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2018, 11:22:17 PM »
As usual it depends, which I do accept.

It's just odd that (bad) measurements sometimes don't matter because the differences are below the threshold of audibility, but in the same breath "audiophiles" can detect the differences between fuses and so on, which also can't be measured. Cuts both ways.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2018, 11:35:13 PM by shadow.clone »

Offline gLer

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2018, 07:12:32 AM »
Don’t underestimate the power of placebo and expectation bias... There are other things as well that affect the way we perceive our gear, like visual impact. I’m much more likely to overlook minor flaws in sound if the gear is well designed, well made, and visually appealing, for example.
Desktop: Mac mini >> Audirvana >> Audio-gd R-28 >> Auteur/HD800 + Mobile: FiiO 7-Eleven

Offline shadow.clone

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2018, 08:02:04 AM »
Yup, covered by the ear/brain/perception compensation that I spoke about in post #8.

A more interesting bias is confirmation bias, i.e. ignoring Amir's reviews rather than considering its potential merits, just because the results don't match preexisting perceptions. Case in point: Modi 2 and NFB28.28 reviews.

Offline gLer

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2018, 07:01:31 PM »
I found this quote from him in one of his review discussion threads quite enlightening:

He used the ISORegen (a USB ‘cleaner’ which he panned by the way) to test noise reduction on a Schiit Modi, concluding it does indeed clean up the noise of that dac almost completely because the Schiit is so poorly isolated from PC noise. However, further in the thread he says this, in reply to a question from a user of all this ‘noise’ that he’s measuring is actually audible:

“Good question. Did a quick test with and without and I can't tell the difference. I also played with the front switch on ISO regen and again could not detect much.

That jives with psychoacoustics that says that wide skirt is masked by our main tone. And at any rate, nearly 0 db 12 Khz tone is not something that exists in music.

The other distortion products are too low level to be audible.

So yes, you have a good point that the audible improvements may not be there with ISO Regen. Indeed this may be the reason many have bought the Schiit Modi 2 and not complaining about any obvious fidelity problems.”

So...he slams products he reviews for having excessive noise that no-one can actually hear!?

That makes perfect sense 🤔
Desktop: Mac mini >> Audirvana >> Audio-gd R-28 >> Auteur/HD800 + Mobile: FiiO 7-Eleven

Offline legro

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2018, 09:36:24 PM »
The old subjective vs objective debate.

You listen to music and it sounds great - crap.

You phone friends, do measurements/ check others' measurements, read mags, consult experts and they tell you that you're wrong and it actually sounds crap - great.

Who do you believe, but really, who do you believe......???
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 09:50:57 PM by legro »

Offline shadow.clone

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2018, 08:16:59 PM »
I found this quote from him in one of his review discussion threads quite enlightening:

He used the ISORegen (a USB ‘cleaner’ which he panned by the way) to test noise reduction on a Schiit Modi, concluding it does indeed clean up the noise of that dac almost completely because the Schiit is so poorly isolated from PC noise. However, further in the thread he says this, in reply to a question from a user of all this ‘noise’ that he’s measuring is actually audible:

“Good question. Did a quick test with and without and I can't tell the difference. I also played with the front switch on ISO regen and again could not detect much.

That jives with psychoacoustics that says that wide skirt is masked by our main tone. And at any rate, nearly 0 db 12 Khz tone is not something that exists in music.

The other distortion products are too low level to be audible.

So yes, you have a good point that the audible improvements may not be there with ISO Regen. Indeed this may be the reason many have bought the Schiit Modi 2 and not complaining about any obvious fidelity problems.”

So...he slams products he reviews for having excessive noise that no-one can actually hear!?

That makes perfect sense 🤔

You must remember that he caters for "audiophiles" too, i.e. those individuals capable of amazing feats of hearing and auditory memory. Although, rather curiously, many such individuals seem to draw the line at shakti stones :thinking:

Offline shadow.clone

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2018, 08:25:56 PM »
The old subjective vs objective debate.

You listen to music and it sounds great - crap.

You phone friends, do measurements/ check others' measurements, read mags, consult experts and they tell you that you're wrong and it actually sounds crap - great.

Who do you believe, but really, who do you believe......???

A bit of both is needed really. "Measurements don't matter" gives the manufacturers too much bargaining power in my opinion. Perhaps this is changing with the proliferation of consumer reviews, but it can go the other way with group think on forums. As an example, B&W was once the darling child on this forum. Not to say they produce bad products or have dropped off lately, but it seems that forum (to my perception) has shifted towards exploring other brands.

Offline gLer

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2018, 04:23:09 PM »
Read an interesting response we from Zach Merbach (Mr ZMF himself) in response to someone asking him what he thinks the correlation is between those who subjectively love tube amps (like he does) and those who objectively argue they measure terribly:

“Well there's a lot of ways to look at measuremenst, if you look at subjectively what you like and the types of distortion in amps that make a certain kind of euphony and holography, then you can look at those "bad" measurements and realize they are the very thing that make you appreciate X amp and vice versa. It's just about understanding how measurements affect your subjective preference.”

I like the idea of knowing what type of noise or distortion floats your boat and then knowing how to find those ‘flawed’ amps through their ‘flawed’ measurements. Indirectly he’s suggesting that just because something measures well doesn’t mean it’s going to sound good to everyone (and vice versa).
Desktop: Mac mini >> Audirvana >> Audio-gd R-28 >> Auteur/HD800 + Mobile: FiiO 7-Eleven

Online Katji

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2018, 05:24:57 PM »
The old subjective vs objective debate.

You listen to music and it sounds great - crap.

You phone friends, do measurements/ check others' measurements, read mags, consult experts and they tell you that you're wrong and it actually sounds crap - great.

Who do you believe, but really, who do you believe......???
You "believe" your sense perceptions, but your perceptions are continually being influenced.  ...Finished and klaar. Unless you try to be selective/discriminating about the inputs you get.

Offline legro

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2018, 08:00:05 AM »
I guess what it boils down to is that I'm just too damn lazy to trust anything but my own ears.

From the endless discussions on this forum I gather it saves me a heap of non-musical-enjoyment-related trouble.

Offline xenithon

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2018, 10:29:06 AM »
The problem is that there is no reliable, defined definition of the term "something measures well" when in comes to audio. That is, the link between a measurement and the sound it produces.

Thus, they resort to testing audio equipment like they were medical kit or extremely sensitive electrical components, where you are aiming for flat everything - because that is the requirement. Those types of requirements have, for the most part, not been defined in the world of audiophilia.

I say "for the most part" as there are some interesting attempts - take for example the Harman target response curve. It is not ruler flat, at all. Yet it is often strived for in terms of creating the most natural sound, even for use in studios.

The types of measurements used these days and on that site? It's like using the Scoville scale to measure chocolate mousse.





Offline capetownwatches

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2018, 06:22:11 AM »
Here's an informed opinion on ASR and the veracity of the measurements to be found there.

Take a moment and watch this Currawong (Amos Barnett) video from 34:55 to around 36:00

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjF9HnCNJKU


 :popcorn:
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 06:28:15 AM by capetownwatches »


Solo Ultra Linear=NFB11.32=Little Dot Mkll=SRM252S=BM DAC1 USB=RL Concero
LCD2F=HD600=SR207=DT990 600=K612Pro=K240S=K171Mkll=M4U2=Y50=Ayra 5=Cables Various

Offline Rotten Johnny

Re: Audio Science Review
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2018, 07:51:41 AM »
Here's an informed opinion on ASR and the veracity of the measurements to be found there.

Take a moment and watch this Currawong (Amos Barnett) video from 34:55 to around 36:00

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjF9HnCNJKU


 :popcorn:

 :clap:
I like beautiful melodies telling me terrible things -- Tom Waits

Free your mind...and your ass will follow.