Do Equipment Reviews Help You?

[PeterSt]

(Ashley, I wrote the below not responding to your latest -great- post which I just saw, which obviously won't and shouldn't prevent you from responding to some of my "idiocy" :-)

 

 

No Tim, I can't. You could say that this is because I don't believe in the results presented, just because to many other factors will be in order. For me this is similar to reviews in general, they don't tell me much. They would though, when there is a pattern, but in order to get the pattern, you first must read and read and read, which I don't.

So I am one who trusts his own ears better ? no. And I can honestly tell you, the only occasion I really listened to a TDA1541 implementation was at comparing all the software players with a Philips reference CDPlayer (of which I forgot the type). The 1541 was a clear second best after, well, never mind, where all the software players used my own outboard DAC. So, apples and oranges ? not really, because each of the elements already has an expected character which all can be held against.

Sounds strange ? maybe, but please keep in mind that these kind of comparisons take a week at least, or longer when the result is not sure.

 

Despite the above, for me it is rarely about listening tests in the first place. In the second place, sure, but not the first.

The first come the theories. I think I said it elsewhere, but with loads of experience it is not difficult to hear what can be expected from a theory of operation. Of course, if there's one opportunity for the placebo effect it is this way of working, but a placebo is only a placebo when the differences are small. And they are explicitly not. Never, really never it has been so that me, my wife or my partners in crime here did not hear a difference within seconds or even within the one second. Differences are as clear as the difference between day and night, and it is only your inexperience with this that you can't understand what in the world I'm talking about (ok, that assuming, and which would be the most normal).

 

If you allow me to make a sidestep to the subject of the thread, for me (and partners et al) a review in almost all cases mention the wrong phenomena. Why ? well, because first other - more technical stuff - is in order to discern. Example :

 

The BDA-1 was spot on with Natalie. (in the context of knowing her)

 

This would never be something I would say, because this doesn't help Donna, Sarah, Emma and it sure doesn't help Mark or Raymond.

The first message is : it doesn't take (me) a week for nothing to test and compare, and this is because one may hear a difference in one second, but this most often does not tell whether one or the other is good. You could say that when Emma Shapplin is standable, all will be ok, but this does not say at all whether there's an accurate representation of everything. A nice soprano is nearly the opposite of Mark Knopfler, and when e.g. the timbre of Mark is too much emhpasized you can bet a sax becomes a trumpet and Emma receives sibilance.

 

The whole point is : you can't judge like this (IMO). You must downgrade to the more technical level, and use appropriate material to judge *that*. Judge the elements and know what to expect from them.

 

Ok, before I'm getting longwinded in areas I have been longwinded before, I'll cut it off by simply stating that when a DAC is oversampling, you will loose the square information in the music. Period.

When this results to smoother highs ... fine for you but not for me because I will have lost boatloads of detail. Detail which is allowed to unveil in my high resolution chain, and which for your chain may not matter. However, when one solves the harshness by smoothing out the detail, no matter whether you're fine and satisfied with that, it is wrong. It just *IS* wrong. This is not subjective. This was not derived from listening, and it wasn't even derived from measurement. It is plain simple mathematics and physics. Just learn to listen how a square sounds and learn to recognize the harmonics, and you learn to hear the lacking of it, or the other way around.

 

When a TDA1541 is used without oversampling it is 100% objectively calculated producing better representation of music because transients stay as they are.

That with this comes a load of aliasing and other harmonic distortion is a totally unrelated matter which you may reject for measurement reasons, may not be bothered with because you can't hear it (and I so far did not learn how to hear/perceive it), or may like because you like tube amps too.

When it is rejected for measurement reasons, then this still does not tell the net result with the better music representation on the other side. Along with this, I am looking forward to the first report or AB(X) etc. that can discern *that*.

 

That's why the TDA1541 (and the lookalikes) is such a good DAC. Stupid theories, of which the oversampling opponents prove by easy listening that *their* theories (ehh ... oversampling necessity !) do not work. At all.

Says me.

 

... with which I did not try to prove that the 1541 is Walhalla, because it just is not. At all. Haha.

It is 16 bits and virtually unavailable. I would never want it, and the intrinsic specs probably aren't on par anymore.

For me it is time for the PCM1704, again in nos mode. I'll hopefully have one ready in a week and will report about the differences with os mode (which is what it is made for honestly).

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

 

 

[tfarney]

One correction, Peter: It is not I who is the fan of tubes and vinyl, but the guy I know who believes his 1541 is the destroyer of all modern DACs. And it may be; I haven't heard it. What I have heard, or more accurately, not heard, are a ton of modern digital to analog converters, separate and integrated into source components and amplifiers. Only one has really stood out and demonstrated a night and day difference, for the harshness of its trebles and lack of even mid-bass. I'd love to hear a 1541, or any DAC that boldly differentiates itself, positively, from the world of modern DACs. I'm a computer listener who spends most of his critical listening time with highly competent full-range drivers just an inch of so from my eardrums. There is no escape from detail in that kind of listening. Such a DAC would be a good investment for me. So far, however, the differences I've heard lie in extreme subtleties like "I think I hear a bit more speed," or "the upper mids seem a tad smoother," or "doesn't the sound stage feel a little deeper?"

 

And I'm of the view that if you think you might hear it; if you have to train yourself to listen for it, it's probably not worth much and may even be something you've talked yourself into completely.

 

Tim

 

[Labarum]

I'm a computer listener who spends most of his critical listening time with highly competent full-range drivers just an inch of so from my eardrums.

 

What are they, if not headphones?

 

[Ashley James]

Tim

What you're describing is pretty well as it should be because, as I previously explained, it's practically impossible to tell the manufacturers DAC evaluation boards apart. However in the last year or so, various customers have come here with different hi end CD players and they did all sound different, then a chap turned up with a £700 Cambridge Audio music server that sounded good.

 

I think you're saying that various products that you deal with that come from different manufacturers all sound remarkably similar and what I'm trying to say is that isn't necessarily so with some "hi end" manufacturers.

 

Peter

 

There are two problems with the TDA1541; The first is that it has more distortion than modern DACs and therefore cannot sound as good and the second is that is has far more out of band hash as well, which means it will sound very different depending on the quality of power amp it's connected to.

 

As I've already said, all modern DACs sound and measure virtually identically. They are all excellent and 24 Bit, so much better than 16 Bit. Any differences you hear between them will be as a result of how well they've been implemented.

 

It's a mistake to assume a Burr Brown with sound better than an Analogue Devices, a Wolfson or a Crystal because I don't believe you'd tell them apart in a correctly implemented DAC.

 

I must apologise for not reading your entire post and also for repeating myself, but I believe these to be important points.

 

Ash

 

 

 

 

 

[tfarney]

Brian - they are headphones. Senn HD580s, to be exact.

 

Ashley - You're assumption is right. I have heard differences in DACs (I think...could have been my mood/physical condition that day...), but they are always subtle to the point of insignificant. I'd love to hear something better. What are the high-end DACs you'd recommend? Does Cambridge sell the DAC in their server as a stand-alone? What differentiates these high-end DACs from the properly-implemented Wolfson, Burr-Brown, etc? Do they use different chips?

 

Tim

 

[Ashley James]

Tim

 

My experience is one customer who discovered that a £34 DVD player from a Supermarket was better than and expensive hi end server his dealer had offered him and another who discovered that a Cambridge Audio CD player equals the best.

 

There is nothing more a high end DAC maker can do that can't by done by a volume producer making a £34 DVD that will make an audible difference IMO. That's because the electronic components are inexpensive and so good that there's rarely an audible benefit in using esoteric parts. We've often tried often enough to be pretty sure of that.

 

As you've guessed we believe that a DAC needs to be part of a system and that it's bad value if it's in its own box.

 

I've constantly been depressed by hi end products over the years, IMO most do not perform better than more mundane contenders, some are worse and they are often surrounded by a degree of irritating snobbery. As far as I'm concerned Apple is hi end and does deliver.

 

Ash

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

There is nothing more a high end DAC maker can do that can't by done by a volume producer making a £34 DVD that will make an audible difference IMO. That's because the electronic components are inexpensive and so good that there's rarely an audible benefit in using esoteric parts. We've often tried often enough to be pretty sure of that.

 

But Ashley, please, isn't this highly pretentious ?

Might it interest you, I agree. My £100 Momitsu sounds better than my Teac P10 with Audio Note Dac3 Sig blahblahblah, but that's because I (can) operate the Momitsu as a network player (the today's SB). It is exactly this that made me think PC playback just could be better.

 

Now what's happening ? Am I the ignorant one ?

I really wonder who really started to investigate this down to the real merits ... was it me ever trying ? or was it you stating things won't differ anyway ...

Hop over ... You will be appointing me the "no difference", and I will be appointing you the so so clear differences. You can't avoid them, once you know them ...

 

Tim, by no means I was trying to tell you were that vinyl guy. I'm sorry If it came out like that. It was unintentional.

Also, and this is quite another matter, by no means headphones can unveil what normal loudspeakers can : take away "standing waves" by means of a better source or better impedance matching for that matter. The latter is already the obvious since the impedance is different to start with. Besides that, music must be felt by the other organs your ears only can't provide.

I know, this only makes it more difficult, but at audiotioning a live orchestra we just don't do that by means of headphones.

Well, you will agree, including the part that it's more difficult outside of the headphones. The current needed, the pressure in the room, the room ...

 

Peter

 

 

[tfarney]

Peter, you're absolutely right. There are some things that headphones simply cannot do -- correct imaging, feel of bass come to mind. What they do, better than almost anything else, however, is reveal detail. Nothing really comes very close except for near field monitoring in a very well-treated room.

 

Tim

 

[PeterSt]

Your remark about detail is of course correct. But as usual I have a small remark about this :

 

Collisions of the waves in mid air have their influence too. I think you remember, I talked about that elsewhere. In brief, the interaction of the waves have their own sound; they add up and phase out and even create their own frequencies (say, harmonics).

To my own judgement this doesn't workout wrongly or strange, and may even to a high degree contribute to the spreading in space of the sound.

Please note this is nothing you will read anywhere, and again these are my own findings, and I'm ever working on the technical outlay of it.

I think similar may happen in the brain (keep in mind, all is electrical stuff in there just the same, and it may interact similarly as sound waves

[Mr.C]

I like reviews for comparison purposes. It helps to mentally organize the many products out there. For example, while researching the Benchmark Dac1, I came across a new dac, the Lavry da10. By reading multiple reviews on the two products, I could ballpark the differences and then decide from there what to personally audition. This is especially helpful when you don't have access to loaners from stores, and have to buy and return things to audition them.

 

So, while reviews aren't a substitute for auditioning, they help to narrow the field.

 

Cavan

 

[Christopher85]

Hi everyone,

 

been following this site with interest for some while now, so I thought i would join.

For my last two equipment upgrades (amp and DAC) reviews have been of crucial importance. Because it would be quite impossible for me to listen to all the DAC's or Amps within my budget I made a shortlist consisting of the amps that were reviewed best. In a way the reviews I found all over the interned decided for me which pieces of equipment to take a closer look at and which to leave for what they are (not).

In the end everyone has to make a choice for himself and but the internet is flooded with positive reviews of a certain piece of equipment it must be for a reason...

 

[Daphne]

Being a speed reader I have cut through hundreds upon hundreds of audio equipment reviews over the past two decades. The information has been good and bad, confusing and bizarre. I would generally quickly pass over all the nonsense and personal babble many writers like to include, as if they are attempting to write a modern fairy tale, and try to focus on the relevant points.

 

Most of my purchases have been focused on CD players and speakers. I have read about one DAC chip after another, from one chip to the use of two, four, and even eight; from ever increasing up-sampling and over sampling to multiple lasers. More detail upon more detail to the point I doubt anymore detail can be squeezed out of 16/44. Oh, and the ever important, ever growing height, width, and depth of the soundstage. I would always look for a comment on reliability, but during the 1990s, any mention of the drive unit or reliability seemed to be taboo. I lived through a decade of bad luck with CD drives.

 

I never obtained a grasp on the subject of active and passive crossovers until I started to read The Audio Critic. I find reading most reviews about speakers to be 80% subjective babble; words to fill space on the page. However, I have used basic information found in some reviews to develop a short list of what I'm seeking. After that point it is all a matter of hunting down the retailer who has them to demo. I should say that I have found smaller, or bookshelf, speaker reviews to be the most disappointing. It just seems the quality of construction and sound was so different than described, as if the manufacturer sent the reviewer a totally different pair than what the retailers received.

 

For a luxury item which one can invest thousands of dollars, you would think, at least, on occasion, some writer would mention reliability and/or longevity. Especially on a component that has been on the market for a year or two prior to the review. With all the audio forums on the internet today, how difficult would it be to just ask, "anyone out there with the new X2150 Preamp, and how well has it performed?" Actually, I find many forums packed with a ton of useful information, and the real bonus is one can ask questions and generally get some good answers (I say generally, because some forums can be a nightmare).

 

I lived in Providence, Rhode Island for eight years while attending college. There was a small high end audio retailer outside the city. For about three years, every Sunday, they would have presentations about the audio equipment they sold. Mostly a tech rep from a manufacturer would be there to explain about their products and answer questions. Many times there would be a slide show and components opened up for all to see. (From what I recall, mostly from McIntosh, great little Japanese gentlemen from Accuphase, Klipsch, Marantz, I even met Dave Wilson.) I do remember bringing my roommate Natalie with me so I would not be the only female. The shop would always have an 8 to 10 page newsletter run off on a copy machine, stapled in the corner, just packed with an amazing amount of useful information beyond anything one could find in a magazine. I have always wondered how this small retailer could supply information that audiophiles want to know and why the magazines will not. Sometimes I found the magazines would come close, but would omit all the relevant details.

 

I would like to read reviews, in objective detail, that explains why one component can cost three to four times the amount than the model below it. What sets the new or improved model apart from the rest and from the competition. Are the features offered something innovative out of the blue, or items included from results of a customer survey. Perhaps a comment from, or short interview with the designer outlining the details. Rarely do we read such information in a review. Mostly its something the author reinterpreted from the manufacturer's product brochure. Then again, what could I be thinking? I mean people in hell want ice water.

 

In my opinion, with all the information available on the internet today, together with thousands of user comments, the audio magazines will need to make some radical changes to retain their reader base.

 

Daphne

 

 

 

[shenzi]

Excellent post.

 

It reminded me of a minor (which should have been major) scandal back in the 1990s. There was an amplifier from a British manufacturer which was getting terrific reviews in the audio press. Then someone let slip, almost in passing, that it was generally known in the reviewing fraternity that the manufacturer had provided a unit somewhat different from that available in the shops. The implication was that the magazines all knew it but no one was saying it. So much for investigative journalism.

 

[machinehead]

Measurements, at least the current ones, do not account for all that we hear.

Here is a quote from a well respected audio guru, Richard Schram from Parasound, when interviewed by Stereophile regarding the John Curl designed JC2 preamp. The circuit topography based on one the best ever designed preamps, the Blowtorch.

 

"I can show you six areas in the JC 2 where I can change parts that will change the sound but not change the measurements," Richard told me. Sound, rather than measurements, was thus considered as the ultimate test of the design’s success.

 

http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2007/011307parasound/

 

Jeff

 

[shenzi]

On the other hand there have been at least three blind tests where wildly different amps (tube, solid state and mid-range receivers) have been tested. In one, the listeners all heard differences when they could see the amp being used. They were subsequently retested blind and couldn't pull out the differences. (This was a Stereo Review article.) So I'd be careful of believing the journalist concerned unless he/she had tried it blind. Expensive components always sound better when you know how much they cost ...

 

[machinehead]

The quote was strictly about components sounding different and measuring the same.

The quote was not from a reviewer, but a manufacturer.

I agree we all like pretty and expensive things, thats human nature.

 

My point is the measurements are not all knowing, at least not yet.