Has anyone bought a product because of a recommendation on ASR?

[CarrotMan]

Peter Walker's design goal for the Quad electrostatic loudspeaker was the lowest distortion possible, that's the D in SINAD.

That was back in the 1950's.

It has always been meaningful.

Fair enough, but firstly there's a difference between electronics and transducers here (IMHO), and secondly I would say a lot has happend since the 1950s/60s/70s when "hifi" really started to take off. With today's technologies I'd approach it as there is a point where the measurements are "good enough" and then the focus can be on other things like subjective SQ, haptics, design (yes, I said it!) etc.

My most recent "big" hifi investements are an Eversolo DMP-A8 streamer and a pair of Sennheiser HD800s headphones. Of course I wanted good sound from both, but I was honestly far more concerned about daily usability (app and touchscreen) for the streamer and fit/comfort for the headphones.

 

[Thetiminator]

I would go a little further in saying that if you’re not making a direct comparison in the same system and room, (and your own ears) all reviews are completely useless.

I have tried 3 of ASR’s favs in my system (Boulder electronics and Living Voice horns) - while my Boulder Dac was back at base for a few weeks.
I bought the Topping D90SE to keep me in music for a few weeks as it had good features and I knew I could sell it in for little loss. Over the couple of months that my Boulder was away I took the opp to try a few dacs, both my dealer friend loans and friends bringing their dacs round. Among them the RME and Benchmark.

According to ASR all 3 dacs should sound identical as they are all competently designed with measurements all above desired levels.

Compared to the Boulder the Topping was awful. It sounded flat, one note and heavy in the bass, and completely sucked the life out of the music.
The RME - sounded quite different from the Topping being more brightly lit. In my system I preferred the dull and less offensive sound of the Topping, the RME was harsh sounding.
I also tried a Benchmark which occupied a middle ground. Quite a balanced sound but not in the same league as the Boulder, just a bit flat
and meh.
I know a few PFM’ers with quite expensive systems that have tried Benchmark dacs and the power amp (in the hope that they would downgrade and release funds with either an improvement or at the least no reduction in SQ) . All of them to a man have sold them again.
Of coarse that’s all in my system, room, music preferences and ears etc…

 

[camverton]

To my mind, measurements are an essential part of product development and QC, but a less essential part of comparative evaluation. The thing is, we don’t really have a firm grip on what factors matter most, in affecting our perception. We don’t have science (as far as I’m aware) that understands how our ear/brain responds to sensory input, at least not down to the sort of levels we measure with the Klippel stuff. So we don’t have correlation between measurements and subjective experience beyond a fairly gross generalisation that ‘X tends to be perceived as’ whatever.

So my take is that ASR is probably fine for discovering the badly designed or poorly executed products, but not reliable for ranking products in terms of how well they convey the musical experience.

Yes, measurements are essential when designing equipment but when it comes to listening we all have ears with very different frequency responses, all but inevitable with aging and that’s before we add in damage due to loud sounds or arthritis affecting the tiny connecting bones in the middle ear etc. Unless we know how particular measurements correlate to our individual hearing then the measurements are a moot point and there is no ideal measurement for all listeners. To laud or dismiss equipment purely on measurements ignore the las, and arguably most important, part of the reproduction chain - the listener.

It’s sad that the reviews and sycophantic adoration of them along with abusive shutting down of anyone who dares to challenge them are such a prominent feature of the site. There are plenty of knowledgeable contributors who make interesting and worthwhile posts on the technical side of audio If one delves below the surface.

 

[Del monaco]

I just imagine all of these ASR loyalists putting together systems based totally on Amir’s measurements. Doesn’t feel right. It lacks some kind of soul or something.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Still, while they are busy on ASR, they won’t be shouting down posters on here, so ASR performs more than one useful service.

 

[Thetiminator]

I just imagine all of these ASR loyalists putting together systems based totally on Amir’s measurements. Doesn’t feel right. It lacks some kind of soul or something.

Absolutely. And I also think psychologically speaking they’re a very interesting (briefly) bunch.
Their belief is that (usually) relatively cheap (and usually Chinese) equipment that measures (with a very specific set of measurements) in a certain way is the pinnacle of design and performance. And that being the case, anyone who spends more are just mugs who have been swayed by fancy marketing etc. furthermore, many of them spend an awful lot of their lives posting the same message over and over again….its a very cult like head space.

 

[Allan Probin]

The only way to tell if a 'replay' system sounds good is to stand next to a musician playing a piano, cello, double bass, saxophone or other acoustic instrument.

With no 'replay' system.

Because that is what authentic reproduction of sound, should sound like.

That depends on your definition of good. I can get a sense of what you mean by good, but it’s not necessarily the same as what I would consider good based on what I’m looking for when choosing components for listening to music for enjoyment.

Personally, if I had to choose between two components, one which measured better than the other and one that gave me more listening pleasure than the other, I’d chose the latter and not worry too much about the measurements. After all, what is the point of listening to music if not to enjoy it?

 

[Thetiminator]

Still, while they are busy on ASR, they won’t be shouting down posters on here, so ASR performs more than one useful service.

Well they have been here for a while (usually being keyboard warriors re cables, fuses, grounding etc) and have pushed an awful lot of people I know with high end systems away.
Which is a great shame because I’m always interested in hearing experiences of high end/different equipment.
I rarely post here any more as I used to find 2 or 3 threads a day I found interesting. Now it’s more like 2 or 3 a month at best which is sad.
Although this thread has been very interesting and civil until now which I really didn’t expect, but is very welcome

 

[Rana]

I bought a couple of DACs influenced in part by ASR. One was a moderately expensive SMSL pre/DAC which got sold on when I got my Lindemann preamp/DAC. The Lindemann obliterated the SMSL as it should do given the cost difference. I still have a Topping D10S and it's a fabulous little USB DAC for the money - really impressed with it.

 

[Del monaco]

I shudder to think how my equipment would measure at Amir’s bench. His equipment would probably go up in smoke!

 

[Thetiminator]

I shudder to think how my equipment would measure at Amir’s bench. His equipment would probably go up in smoke!

Yes but what would the S(moke)NR be as it went up?

 

[stevec67]

ASR, no. I learned in the 90s to read reviews for entertainment and not a buyer's guide. I believed a couple back then and bought a Pioneer A400 that was OK but nothing special and an Audioquest interconnect that was a waste of £70. The A400 I moved on after a while, the IC is still in use so after 25+ years I have at least had the use from it even if it was overpriced and no better than a generic IC.

 

[Tony L]

Well they have been here for a while (usually being keyboard warriors re cables, fuses, grounding etc) and have pushed an awful lot of people I know with high end systems away.
Which is a great shame because I’m always interested in hearing experiences of high end/different equipment.

My guess is you‘ll find a higher percentage here with high-end systems than over on ASR, or for that matter HydrogenAudio. To my eyes, and I have to admit it hasn’t interested me enough to do much real research, my impression of ASR is folk desperately trying to convince themselves a flavour of the month future-landfill £150 Chinese thing is better than a £1500 or even £15,000 US, UK or Japanese thing, and that anyone who has anything in the latter categories are some kind of sucker who should be sneered at. Again I liken the attitude very much to Flat Response back in the ‘80s, an inverse snobbery in a way. This is one thing that keeps me off there as it has nothing to do with the way I personally shortlist or assess kit, though I accept pfm is a different mindset and similarly a niche (though I would argue a broader one). A quick glance through any of our System Pics thread of whatever year shows some very serious and diverse kit of all approaches. There is some very interesting hi-fi here!

PS FWIW I notice ASR does publish impedance plots for loudspeakers, as a valve amp user that fully justifies its existence for me and now I realise that I’ll certainly go there just to read that one plot for a speaker I was considering! I always liked that with Stereophile too.

 

[misterdog]

Quite what the room does to the measured performance is a moot point but happily the end result is reproduction at home that sounds remarkably like the original music, at least in the case of classical acoustic music.

Peter Walker used to take his electrostatic speakers outside to measure them, thus removing in room reflections.
His articles on the design process are available online from his contributions to Wireless World magazine.

"If people test two different amplifiers and say 'These sound different,' there's no magic in it. Spend two days, maybe a whole week in the lab, and you find out exactly why they're different and you can write the whole thing down in purely practical, physical terms."
"We designed our valve amplifier, put it on the market, and never actually listened to it."

"We never sit down and listen to a music record through an amplifier in the design stage. We listen to funny noises, funny distortions, and see whether these things are going to matter, to get a subjective assessment." On his satisfaction with the ESL: "We think our loudspeaker is very poor, but we think that the others are even poorer!"

"In the early days - most people didn't like it."

"It couldn't shake the windows, which was the criterion in those days."

Peter Walker The Audio Amateur, March1978

 

[camverton]

Absolutely. And I also think psychologically speaking they’re a very interesting (briefly) bunch.
Their belief is that (usually) relatively cheap (and usually Chinese) equipment that measures (with a very specific set of measurements) in a certain way is the pinnacle of design and performance. And that being the case, anyone who spends more are just mugs who have been swayed by fancy marketing etc. furthermore, many of them spend an awful lot of their lives posting the same message over and over again….its a very cult like head space.

This.

The irony is that the mindset of many of those who post in the reviews threads is one of belief, something they accuse others off. Fair enough if it makes them happy but unless an objective approach, highly biased towards measurements, is correlated with listening then those measurements are of limited use in the real world, where the aim is to use hifi to enjoy listening to music (and speech for R4 fans).

 

[Thetiminator]

Like those over at ASR I am no scientist but I’m guessing that:

An iPhone bluetooth’ing to a Topping D90 connected to a pair of Genelecs

The above would all measure significantly better than the following:

A top class reel to reel playing through an Ongaku connected to Living Voice Olympians?

 

[Tony L]

The irony is that the mindset of many of those who post in the reviews threads is one of belief, something they accuse others off. Fair enough if it makes them happy but unless an objective approach, highly biased towards measurements, is correlated with listening then those measurements are of limited use in the real world, where the aim is to use hifi to enjoy listening to music (and speech for R4 fans).

As is so often the case in all magazines, dealer communities, forums etc there is a degree of purchase reinforcement.

Like those over at ASR I am no scientist but I’m guessing that:

An iPhone bluetooth’ing to a Topping D90 connected to a pair of Genelecs

would measure significantly better than:

A top class reel to reel playing through an Ongaku connected to Living Voice Olympians?

Imagine the face-palm when the Ongaku/Olympian owner realises he’s been suckered…

 

[camverton]

Peter Walker used to take his electrostatic speakers outside to measure them, thus removing in room reflections.
His articles on the design process are available online from his contributions to Wireless World magazine.

"If people test two different amplifiers and say 'These sound different,' there's no magic in it. Spend two days, maybe a whole week in the lab, and you find out exactly why they're different and you can write the whole thing down in purely practical, physical terms."
"We designed our valve amplifier, put it on the market, and never actually listened to it."

"We never sit down and listen to a music record through an amplifier in the design stage. We listen to funny noises, funny distortions, and see whether these things are going to matter, to get a subjective assessment." On his satisfaction with the ESL: "We think our loudspeaker is very poor, but we think that the others are even poorer!"

"In the early days - most people didn't like it."

"It couldn't shake the windows, which was the criterion in those days."

Peter Walker The Audio Amateur, March1978

Indeed, he was an engineer with an engineers interests. It is a happy fluke that those speakers that he measured outside work so well indoors when it is the very room reflections he sought to eliminate when measuring that make for such realistic reproduction. Dipoles and omnis are a good example that however they measure in an anechoic chamber, it is when they are used in a real room, with delayed rear reflections etc that they become so good at making music appear real as opposed to a technically “correct” but unconvincing facsimile.

 

[camverton]

As is so often the case in all magazines, dealer communities, forums etc there is a degree of purchase reinforcement.



Imagine the face-palm when the Ongaku/Olympian owner realises he’s been suckered…

Indeed, and it‘s why a forum like PFM is important in that it allows a wide range of views. It is good to have one’s views challenged and that doesn’t happen on forums where dissent is outlawed or banned and a backslapping “we are right culture” ends up dominating.

It’s a bit like newspapers; so many people choose the comfort of a paper that reinforces their views. I think it is important to look at a range of papers, uncomfortable as that may be. My Mail and Telegraph reading neighbour finds it a bit odd that I swap between the Times and Guardian on the occasions when I pick up a paper. Mind you, I do draw the line at the Express but then, looking at its front pages, it can hardly qualify as a “news”paper!

 

[Thetiminator]

As is so often the case in all magazines, dealer communities, forums etc there is a degree of purchase reinforcement.



Imagine the face-palm when the Ongaku/Olympian owner realises he’s been suckered…

Lol very true. Mugged right off.

That question is probably worth joining ASR for….copy and paste on every thread repeatedly.

In fact we could run a book on how many times I got it in before getting banned….if you wanna set it up for a quid a guess Tony I’ll go 50/50 with you. I bet you we’d make enough to buy a Topping each

Ah,if only I could be bothered…