ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[plissken]

10 minutes ago, acg said:

 

Certainly...

 

Ok what is it then? Have you heard this specific server?

[acg]

9 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Ok what is it then? Have you heard this specific server?

 

I apologise but I do not have time to engage in a battle of verbal diarrhea.  You seem to have nothing else to do so I suggest you read back to figure out your tangent or perhaps even resolve only to talk about things of which you have some experience...seems you do a lot of talking about stuff of which you know little...

 

[plissken]

1 minute ago, acg said:

 

I apologise but I do not have time to engage in a battle of verbal diarrhea.  You seem to have nothing else to do so I suggest you read back to figure out your tangent or perhaps even resolve only to talk about things of which you have some experience...seems you do a lot of talking about stuff of which you know little...

 

 

If there was a substantive rebuttal coming it would have come by now. So far my point is the last one standing and it's been crickets otherwise. 

[fas42]

There are two worlds here - first is ensuring that computing operations have good integrity; and the other is doing what it takes to optimise SQ - very different foci. It starts getting messy when people confuse the needs, and have them overlap in convoluted ways.

 

To me the best method is to completely separate these intents: have the processing of the audio data done in an efficient, cost effective way; then, completely isolate that, as far as any interference paths are concerned,  from the mechanisms that aim to get best sound reproduction. Meaning, I would never buy a Taiko type solution; or fiddle around to the n'th degree to get a Windows PC to be as benign as possible  - that means I have long term solutions; anything else is very fragile, it could all fall apart when the next version or evolution of software occurs.

[semente]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

I'm operating from the POV that servers are servers and not end point's with direct connection to a DAC.

 

What about a server which serves a processing computer that DSPs into a buffering endpoint?

 

@PeterSt defends that his method of having the DSP-processing computer directly feeding the DAC is the best approach.

He seems to be doing with his DSP-processing computer what Miska does with the endpoint which is to avoid generating noise which can affect the D/A conversion.

Different ways to skin an apple?

[asdf1000]

31 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What about a server which serves a processing computer that DSPs into a buffering endpoint?

 

@PeterSt defends that his method of having the DSP-processing computer directly feeding the DAC is the best approach.

He seems to be doing with his DSP-processing computer what Miska does with the endpoint which is to avoid generating noise which can affect the D/A conversion.

Different ways to skin an apple?

 

Ultimately it's how the DAC deals with the "issues".

 

PeterSt  sells a DAC and expensive USB cable solution that he thinks best solves the issues. 
 

Jussi gives the best recommended approach for a wide variety of systems and environments, for the products he sells (he doesn't sell a machine or DAC or USB cable).

 

Comparing their two approaches is apples and oranges.

 

But if comparing apples and oranges anyway: with Jussi's HQPlayer I can incorporate very advanced digital room EQ (together with DSP crossover)... and advanced headphones EQ....

 

One approach is way more flexible than the other.

[acg]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

If there was a substantive rebuttal coming it would have come by now. So far my point is the last one standing and it's been crickets otherwise. 

 

There is a pill for that...

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What about a server which serves a processing computer that DSPs into a buffering endpoint?

 

@PeterSt defends that his method of having the DSP-processing computer directly feeding the DAC is the best approach.

 

PeterSt does not have a DSP processing computer, does not use computer based DSP software nor espouse its use.  This whole conversation is a tangent of magnificent proportions willingly caused by a malignant poster revelling in the echo of their own voice, who neither understands the concepts involved, has any experience in the area nor is seeking anything but disruption. 

[asdf1000]

On a related point.

 

People need to recognise that some opinions here in this thread will naturally have bias.

 

@The Computer Audiophile runs a forum and reviews website just like Amir, except here this forum has paid sponsors who happen to have products scrutinised by Amir over the years. Some I use everyday like microRendu (it's so fantastically small and light, easy to hide, and reliable OS).

 

@JoshMwrites (paid?) product reviews and does some measurements now. Maybe a future review he does will turn up later on ASR that gives a different viewpoint? Maybe a loyal Schiit fan that had his feelings hurt in the past and when Schiit crossed over to the dark side and started measuring well and sending products to Amir now? I don't know.

 

@PeterStsells server, DAC and expensive USB cable.

 

We have customers of Peter chiming in recently. Soon the 'a novel way to massively improve' crowd will be here, if they're not already here.

 

It's possible Amir does have an agenda that's not come to light just yet but I try to filter that out and just look at the measurements, not his writings. Same way I used Stereophile stuff before Amir (JA's measurements, ignoring the sometimes dodgy subjective review).

 

This is why I said a few times I pay no attention to his rankings... I only want to know if a product does what the manufacturer says it does. If that means a SINAD of "only" 90dB (as claimed by manufacturer) then that's cool with me, regardless of how many other products "rank higher". 

 

I know everyone will say their opinions don't come from any place of bias but anyone with a bit of life experience (outside of the audio hobby) will know to always take this with a grain of salt.

 

 

[jventer]

The term "Fake News" comes to mind, or shall I say "misinformation".

 

I attended a speech by a budding young science student in which she commented about the problem encountered by students at the moment. According to her students have been warned about this and have been referred to certain sites where reputable, properly substantiated and verified information is available.

 

Unfortunately in our industry we have everything, as in research papers, opinions etc etc., but unfortunately a lot of unsubstantiated opinions as well AS WELL AS rapid progression re technology and computer based audio.

 

I do not have the technical knowledge to confirm/dispute Amir's findings etc. I note that AFAIU his techniques and opinions are debated in forums and he has his followers and opponents.   For me it comes down to 3 groups of people:

• those that only believes in measurement
• those that only believe their ears
• and those that believe in both

 

I believe I have heard @acg 's dac/server/computer/naa a few years ago at a get together. IMO it is excellent. So I would say that @PeterSt 's product is very good.

 

Whilst I understand the one PC/server/computer approach I am hesitant to follow it. Technology moves at a really fast pace and to put all your eggs in one basket, to me is too an expensive option. 

 

I personally like the approach proposed by @plissken and HQPlayer where the server and NAA are separate. 

[Josh Mound]

57 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

On a related point.

 

People need to recognise that some opinions here in this thread will naturally have bias.

 

@The Computer Audiophile runs a forum and reviews website just like Amir, except here this forum has paid sponsors who happen to have products scrutinised by Amir over the years. Some I use everyday like microRendu (it's so fantastically small and light, easy to hide, and reliable OS).

 

@JoshMwrites (paid?) product reviews and does some measurements now. Maybe a future review he does will turn up later on ASR that gives a different viewpoint? Maybe a loyal Schiit fan that had his feelings hurt in the past and when Schiit crossed over to the dark side and started measuring well and sending products to Amir now? I don't know.

 

@PeterStsells server, DAC and expensive USB cable.

 

We have customers of Peter chiming in recently. Soon the 'a novel way to massively improve' crowd will be here, if they're not already here.

 

It's possible Amir does have an agenda that's not come to light just yet but I try to filter that out and just look at the measurements, not his writings. Same way I used Stereophile stuff before Amir (JA's measurements, ignoring the sometimes dodgy subjective review).

 

This is why I said a few times I pay no attention to his rankings... I only want to know if a product does what the manufacturer says it does. If that means a SINAD of "only" 90dB (as claimed by manufacturer) then that's cool with me, regardless of how many other products "rank higher". 

 

I know everyone will say their opinions don't come from any place of bias but anyone with a bit of life experience (outside of the audio hobby) will know to always take this with a grain of salt.

 

Of course everyone naturally has bias, in that there's no such thing as an emotion-free person. However, the problem becomes when someone like Amir claims that he's the only honest reviewer. He's doing "science," after all. If one reads ASR, it quickly becomes clear that the site's point of view is not only that subjective reviews worthless, but also other people doing measurements, from JA to AtomicBob are not to be trusted. They supposedly have an agenda, while Amir doesn't.

 

My criticism is not just that he offers selectively critical opinions as part of his reviews, it's that 1) measurements are not a passive act (they will vary from person to person and day to day and mistakes can be made), and 2) properly contextualizing those measurements is important (anything more than 80 dB down is probably inaudible).

 

Beyond those general points, the problem with ASR is not inevitable human bias. Hi-Fi audio is a pretty small world, and reviewers need to take seriously the possibility that what they say will hurt a company's business. That doesn't mean never writing a critical review, but it does mean treating all companies fairly. Amir doesn't do that. He goes on the attack. If you take a look at the posts I linked above, it's very clear the absurd lengths he goes to slam Schiit's build quality, while staying quiet about sloppy (even dangerous) work from Topping. I have no idea why Amir has such strong views about certain manufacturers, but it's not even-handed, that's for sure.

 

As for me, yes Chris does pay for writing on this site (which is pretty rare these days and should be applauded). But I get to review what I want, how I want. Chris has never asked me to pull a review, or even change a word in a review. My attempt in writing reviews is to be fair to both the manufacturer and the reader. The only requirement I have for writing review is that it has to be a product I have at least some interest in hearing, since I put a lot of time and effort into listening. I don't know if I believe in "golden ears," but I have above-average hearing and have put work in with Harman's training software, SoundGym, and a few other critical listening apps. Nonetheless my subjective reviews are going to be just that. However, even when I don't like I product, I try to keep a measured, fair tone. When I do like a product, I try to note potential flaws and put it up against other good options for consumers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, asdf1000 said:

On a related point.

 

People need to recognise that some opinions here in this thread will naturally have bias.

 

@The Computer Audiophile runs a forum and reviews website just like Amir, except here this forum has paid sponsors who happen to have products scrutinised by Amir over the years. Some I use everyday like microRendu (it's so fantastically small and light, easy to hide, and reliable OS).

 

@JoshMwrites (paid?) product reviews and does some measurements now. Maybe a future review he does will turn up later on ASR that gives a different viewpoint? Maybe a loyal Schiit fan that had his feelings hurt in the past and when Schiit crossed over to the dark side and started measuring well and sending products to Amir now? I don't know.

 

@PeterStsells server, DAC and expensive USB cable.

 

We have customers of Peter chiming in recently. Soon the 'a novel way to massively improve' crowd will be here, if they're not already here.

 

It's possible Amir does have an agenda that's not come to light just yet but I try to filter that out and just look at the measurements, not his writings. Same way I used Stereophile stuff before Amir (JA's measurements, ignoring the sometimes dodgy subjective review).

 

This is why I said a few times I pay no attention to his rankings... I only want to know if a product does what the manufacturer says it does. If that means a SINAD of "only" 90dB (as claimed by manufacturer) then that's cool with me, regardless of how many other products "rank higher". 

 

I know everyone will say their opinions don't come from any place of bias but anyone with a bit of life experience (outside of the audio hobby) will know to always take this with a grain of salt.

 

 

You forgot to mention the bias at ASR of someone who actually sells equipment. 
 

Also think about how someone can sleep at night selling higher priced gear to customers, than espousing the superiority of super cheap gear on his website.
 

Personally, I couldn’t do that to people. 

[asdf1000]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You forgot to mention the bias at ASR of someone who actually sells equipment. 

I didn't forget because he is open about that, so there's nothing hidden there... 

 

The potential hidden agendas are the ones that can be missed.

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Also think about how someone can sleep at night selling higher priced gear to customers, than espousing the superiority of super cheap gear on his website.
 

Personally, I couldn’t do that to people. 

 

We seem to be going in circles, having to repeat past posts. For those that are obsessed with SINAD ranking (not me personally):

 

US$3500 Universal Audio Apollo X16 

 

US$1900 Chord Qutest 

 

US$1200 RME ADI-2 FS Version 2 

 

These all got high recommendations (for their state of the art measurements).

 

These are high up in the infamous SINAD chart that so many people seem to care about.

 

These aren't cheap ?

 

Is it really difficult for people to accept that very good measurements can come at lower price and non-western and non-traditional names?

 

The 3rd party measurements verify what Topping and SMSL claim?

 

If one really does not believe it, instead of spending so much time writing about it, one can measure oneself?

 

The circular nature of this thread is why I asked you twice to lock it but that's ok.

[Superdad]

57 minutes ago, JoshM said:

The only requirement I have for writing review is that it has to be a product I have at least some interest in hearing, since I put a lot of time and effort into listening.

I am not sure that I have ever read any of your equipment reviews Josh. But I have read every one of your "The Best Version Of..." articles on classic albums. Those are truly a treasure!! 

[The Computer Audiophile]

27 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

didn't forget because he is open about that, so there's nothing hidden there... 

 

But you felt the need to list the bias at AS because we accept advertising that by its nature is in front of your eyes? We hide nothing. In fact we want to show it all to you. 
 

I’ll just say that you have no clue about his business. Yet, the fact that you know his business exists seems to be good enough. To each their own I guess. 
 

29 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

The circular nature of this thread is why I asked you twice to lock it but that's ok.

Do you ask that all threads with circular nature be locked, or just this one?

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

But you felt the need to list the bias at AS because we accept advertising that by its nature is in front of your eyes? We hide nothing. In fact we want to show it all to you. 

 

Yeh didn't I write there may be a hidden agenda at AS ?

 

I don't see why repeating out what I myself already acknowledged adds anything?

 

As I wrote, same thing with Stereophile. Way before ASR, I had no problem ignoring Stereophile's subjective reviews (paid?) and looking only at JA's measurements.

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ll just say that you have no clue about his business. Yet, the fact that you know his business exists seems to be good enough. To each their own I guess. 

 

Business is good enough? I don't follow.

 

All my posts up to today have been about objective measurements at ASR.

 

If you are questioning whether Topping and SMSL DACs don't really measure as well they claim, then show the measurements... No measurements? Then the convo goes in a direction I have no interest in personally.

 

I just want to know that a product doeswhat the manufacturer claims it does.

 

If that is a THD+N aligns with manufacturer specs (even if that spec is SINAD "only" 95 dB) I am fine with that.

 

If the amp power outputs align with manufacturer specs, that's good.

 

If the speaker FR and distortion plots align with manufacture claims - that's brilliant.

 

We have numerous examples of manufacturers under-delivering what they claim. Not what somebody else claims. What they claim.

 

This can only be found out by someone checking.

 

And the sound quality of these components? This can only be decided bylistening with ownears

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Do you ask that all threads with circular nature be locked, or just this one?

 

You saw I only asked in this thread. Why are you being silly now. I started this thread.

 

But if you want to go down the rabbit hole of potential reasons certain people will be on the defensive about things that come up at ASR, then no worries.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Yeh didn't I write there may be a hidden agenda at AS ?

 

I don't see why repeating out what I myself already acknowledged adds anything?

 

As I wrote, same thing with Stereophile. Way before ASR, I had no problem ignoring Stereophile's subjective reviews (paid?) and looking only at JA's measurements.

 

 

Business is good enough? I don't follow.

 

All my posts up to today have been about objective measurements at ASR.

 

If you are questioning whether Topping and SMSL DACs don't really measure as well they claim, then show the measurements... No measurements? Then the convo goes in a direction I have no interest in personally.

 

 

I just want to know that a product doeswhat the manufacturer claims it does.

 

If that is a THD+N aligns with manufacturer specs (even if that spec is SINAD "only" 95 dB) I am fine with that.

 

If the amp power outputs align with manufacturer specs, that's good.

 

If the speaker FR and distortion plots align with manufacture claims - that's brilliant.

 

We have numerous examples of manufacturers under-delivering what they claim. Not what somebody else claims. What they claim.

 

This can only be found out by someone checking.

 

And the sound quality of these components? This can only be decided bylistening with ownears

 

 

You saw I only asked in this thread. Why are you being silly now. I started this thread.

 

But if you want to go down the rabbit hole of potential reasons certain people will be on the defensive about things that come up at ASR, then no worries.

 

Not sure who is on the defensive. Care to help?

[asdf1000]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not sure who is on the defensive. Care to help?

 

I already wrote about that earlier just a few hours ago. 

 

People can think about the points and decide for themselves.

 

Btw I asked for the thread to be locked well before things went down path.

 

The only thing I want to repeat about the value I see in ASR (and John Atkinson's Stereophile way before ASR forum existed) measurements:

 

I just want to know that a product doeswhat the manufacturer claims it does.

 

If that is a THD+N aligns with manufacturer specs (even if that spec is SINAD "only" 95 dB) I am fine with that.

 

If the amp power outputs align with manufacturer specs, that's good.

 

If the speaker FR and distortion plots align with manufacture claims - that's brilliant.

 

We have numerous examples of manufacturers under-delivering what they claim. Not what somebody else claims. What they claim.

 

This can only be found out by someone checking.

 

And the sound quality of these components? This can only be decided bylistening with ownears

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

We have numerous examples of manufacturers under-delivering what they claim. Not what somebody else claims. What they claim.

This is a big thing for you. I get it. In fact we all get it. How could we not. You’ve said it a trillion times. 
 

How many products that you are interested in purchasing have actually not delivered on the manufacturer’s claims? It seems like you’ve been burned countless times by this issue, due to your constant mentioning it. 
 

I’ve rarely seen it happen. If I had to be objective, I’d say less than 1% of the time. 

 

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, plissken said:

When PeterSt says: "You appear to have no clue. The DSP stuff doesn't happen there."

 

And we know this is 100% in error on his part.

 

Indeed. You have Noooooooooooooo clue whatsoever. There's so few logic in you that you couldn't read - nor research that we have two elements at play here: The PC playing audio (the XX core machine) and the PC doing the heavy lifting (put in there what you like, could be a lousiest laptop - could be a super server). So, the DSP stuff indeed doesn't happen in the audio playing PC (the one with the XX cores).

 

Anything else ? djeez

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’d also say that manufacturers tend to not claim very much in objective terms, thus making a relentless war on verifying their claims a bit silly. 

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, semente said:

@PeterSt defends that his method of having the DSP-processing computer directly feeding the DAC is the best approach.

He seems to be doing with his DSP-processing computer what Miska does with the endpoint which is to avoid generating noise which can affect the D/A conversion.

 

Riccardo, I am sure you have it right, but the first sentence is in error. The DSP processing computer would be feeding the Audio playing computer. And the latter does about nothing (virtually no CPU usage visible at 32/768 playback).

[asdf1000]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is a big thing for you. I get it. In fact we all get it. How could we not. You’ve said it a trillion times. 
 

How many products that you are interested in purchasing have actually not delivered on the manufacturer’s claims? It seems like you’ve been burned countless times by this issue, due to your constant mentioning it. 
 

I’ve rarely seen it happen. If I had to be objective, I’d say less than 1% of the time. 

 

 

Thanks to John Atkinson and SoundStage well before ASR I've mostly felt "warm and fuzzy" inside about things I purchased. That's all. I just want to subjectively feel warm and fuzzy inside. I have no problems if just listening without measurements makes is all some people need. I wrote this a zillion times already.

 

I find it important to keep repeating things because someone tried to paint me as an ASR defender earlier in the thread. I am as much an ASR defender as a John Atkinson and Doug Schneider (SoundStage) defender . I like to see more 3rd party verification.

 

I also have to keep repeating this when people keep bringing up the silly SINAD rankings chart to make sure people understand I think it's really silly too.

 

I'm gonna keep copying and pasting to make sure people get it. 

 

From some replies I see , people are quoting posts without actually reading what they are quoting it seems...

 

I just want to know that a product doeswhat the manufacturer claims it does.

 

If that is a THD+N aligns with manufacturer specs (even if that spec is SINAD "only" 95 dB) I am fine with that.

 

If the amp power outputs align with manufacturer specs, that's good.

 

If the speaker FR and distortion plots align with manufacture claims - that's brilliant.

 

We have numerous examples of manufacturers under-delivering what they claim. Not what somebody else claims. What they claim.

 

This can only be found out by someone checking.

 

And the sound quality of these components? This can only be decided bylistening with ownears

 

[PeterSt]

29 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’d also say that manufacturers tend to not claim very much in objective terms, thus making a relentless war on verifying their claims a bit silly.

 

Ha !

But it is more complicated because if I'd objectively claim a SNR of 130dB (along with measurements) then there's this guy who tells that under 115dB we humans have no clue anyway.

So what remains is subjective listening and express about that. But then the objective guys will ...

 

If only people would be seeing manufactures like me buying a nice Gen3 Xeon with 40 cores, that sounding like sh*t because of the type of memory it requires *that* causing the SQ problem, and that because of that I have now laying around countless of memory modules and a 2K costing processor. The fun is, the one customer who this was all bought for is witness in this very thread. But "we" don't shout so much. We listen, we lose money, we listen again, lose more money on it, until it starts to work. Next the price should go up.

 

If I would behave like some suggest, I had dunked in that processor and the memory and I would have been a rich man. Haha.

Without customers. OK, one. My last one.

 

So Yes, some of this can be objectively measured. But the "you can't hear that anyway !" has to go out of our thinking systems because else what to buy the analyzer for (costing a car and hardly shows anything what's really needed).

Analyzer ? wait, price goes up again.

 

There's a lot to read in between the lines ... as usual.

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’d also say that manufacturers tend to not claim very much in objective terms, thus making a relentless war on verifying their claims a bit silly. 

 

This is easy to dismiss, I shared many examples before but you don't read or conveniently ignore.

 

Even the cheap Chinese DAC companies that you dislike share their APx555 measurements.

 

Rob Watts of Chord shares his APx555 measurements. 

 

Genelec share measurements

 

RME share measurements

 

JBL share measurements

 

Neumann share measurements. 

 

Schiit Audio share APx555 measurements.

 

My Sennheiser headphones came with factory measurements.
 

Remember, specifications come from measurements.

 

Many more companies than listed above publish specifications... so a measurement or variety of, can be used to verify....

 

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

My Sennheiser headphones came with factory measurements.

 Really ? With a frequency response plot too, or a general statement of a LF response from xx to a HF response of yy WITHOUT .dB limits specified ? e.g. Statements like :

Quote

... and are tuned to accurately reproduce extreme low and high frequencies (5 to 40,000 Hz) while maintaining perfect balance. - Audio Technica M70x