Darren
So gentle when he tries to understand.
Isnt he semi retired at best? What do you think he's marketing and to what end?
ASR Review of Naim Uniti Atom
- Thread starter joe9407
- Start date
albireo
pfm Member
It seems to me, though I might be wrong, that the point being made by the ASR critics in this thread is that a box of audio electronics can sound excellent even if it doesn't measure well according to the criteria used by the ASR review team.
If this is the case, then I have two (genuine) questions. Disclaimer: I own no Naim or Topping gear.
1. Is the methodological approach used by ASR somehow incapable of measuring everything that could be measured, and therefore missing out on any 'special' features of some of the gear that rates so poorly?
2. if the poor measuring equipment can somehow end up sounding great in Tom's living room, how about the gear that measures great on ASR? Does it have the right of sounding just as good as the poorly measuring stuff, or will it sound worse or better than the perfect specs suggest?
In other words, is the cheaper Chinese preamp with a stellar rating on ASR capable of fantastic aural performance "in spite of" being such a great measured bit of electronics? Or do we need the tiny faults to get a hifi legend? Would people like the Topping amp if it came in a Naim case and costed 3000$?
If this is the case, then I have two (genuine) questions. Disclaimer: I own no Naim or Topping gear.
1. Is the methodological approach used by ASR somehow incapable of measuring everything that could be measured, and therefore missing out on any 'special' features of some of the gear that rates so poorly?
2. if the poor measuring equipment can somehow end up sounding great in Tom's living room, how about the gear that measures great on ASR? Does it have the right of sounding just as good as the poorly measuring stuff, or will it sound worse or better than the perfect specs suggest?
In other words, is the cheaper Chinese preamp with a stellar rating on ASR capable of fantastic aural performance "in spite of" being such a great measured bit of electronics? Or do we need the tiny faults to get a hifi legend? Would people like the Topping amp if it came in a Naim case and costed 3000$?
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
And the music?
Alex S
carbon based lifeform
I’m semi retired. If I could make a lot of ad money on the internet I would.
There is a nice goldensound video that shows ASR's test method not picking up a hoofing great amount of high frequency distortion on IIRC one of the topping DACs as the design pushes the envelope to the point it has no headroom. So playing actual music it is somewhat compromised, yet 1khz tones look lovely for the SINAD test. He even points out how the chosen output level of the DAC just happens to maximise the potential SNR of the test gear ASR uses. It looks horribly close to gaming the system in the video.
SINAD is a horribly lumped together metric, it's like rating a cars performance on acceleration, cornering, brakeing, fuel consumption and payload all as a singular number. IMHO the profile of distortion is more important than the absolute amount. The first watt korg nutube pre amp is a great way to demonstrate this.
Late edit: for the record I'm actually very Pro measurements and science, I work in a research establishment. But I don't really view what Amir does as science, its basic measurements with so little conclusion from the data, that you cannot really draw much from it. It looks more like marketing than science to me!
Last edited:
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
It look like most people here are finding complicated ways to agree (mostly).
1. Lots of measurements can be useful at any stage and no hi-fi would get designed without them.
2. Some measurements have little relevance to what we hear, and no measurements that we currently have explain all that we hear.
3. If someone went to the effort of doing a large blind test on two £10K power amps, and 80% favoured A and no-one favoured B, many would think it probably significant. If B scored better on ASR tests, many would look at why and by how much, but it wouldn't prove that the ears were wrong.
4. Ears are fallible but have to be the final arbiter, given that they are how we hear.
5. Even in the context of the objectivist community, ASR's tests look inadequate.
Does that look about right to most here?
1. Lots of measurements can be useful at any stage and no hi-fi would get designed without them.
2. Some measurements have little relevance to what we hear, and no measurements that we currently have explain all that we hear.
3. If someone went to the effort of doing a large blind test on two £10K power amps, and 80% favoured A and no-one favoured B, many would think it probably significant. If B scored better on ASR tests, many would look at why and by how much, but it wouldn't prove that the ears were wrong.
4. Ears are fallible but have to be the final arbiter, given that they are how we hear.
5. Even in the context of the objectivist community, ASR's tests look inadequate.
Does that look about right to most here?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I've only skimmed this thread so may have missed something important, but it seems to me that there seem to be some products that measure less well, but are popular and well-regarded for SQ; and there are some products which measure well, but are not especially lauded for their SQ. These may represent the ends of a bell curve, but they do suggest that we can't necessarily state with confidence what measurements will correlate to a perceived 'good' sound quality.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Well indeed, but I wasn’t talking about ‘bad’ measurements, but rather ‘less good’ ones. Products with actual bad measurements aren’t all that common, but some get criticised for not being as good as some notional ‘ideal’. But to reiterate my point, which I think we agree on, there’s little actual correlation between measurements and reported subjective sound quality.We can state with confidence that bad measurements will correlate to bad sound.. but not the other way round
cb01
AES Member, Retired A/V Forensic Professional
We can state with confidence that bad measurements will correlate to bad sound.. but not the other way round
I would say that I agree, but with the caveat that not all "bad" measurements are created equal.
My SET 845 monoblocks are middling (at best) in how they measure. But they sound fantastic, likely in spite of their poor bench-testing performance, in modern terms.
Hi all, First posts here (as a 40-year audiophile.) I've been followed the proceedings in 'objectivist' audio for awhile, but as a confirmed listener, builder, and tuner.
In service of resolving the problem, wouldn't the first question be; what is a 'measurement' in this specific context? I ask because there seems to be an assumption that if it measures it's largely or even wholly pertinent to the problems and solutions of genuine musical fidelity. I don't see that being the case and so from a philosophical, epistemological level we ask, define measurement in favor of musical pertinence at the ear.
Unless I have this wrong, this is where the two purported camps diverge even before anything else need be said. There's an inherent linguistic break between cause and effect; between goal and seeking it. I can measure torque; I cannot measure driving...
Thanks, and carry on.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
But this is my point. Many many people get a great deal of pleasure listening to music through such systems. For them, the subjective experience doesn’t correlate to the measurements. It’s like the things they do well make it easy to ignore the things they don’t do well.
If measurements transcend all, how do the measurement bods address that?
I don't think they can address it coherently. SET's are not inherent distortion makers. In fact, triodes have very low inherent distortion and in a crafty amplifier with the right supporting circuitry have vanishingly low distortion. Further what distortion they have is advantageously arranged such that they are superb at what good amplifiers are functionally for: real world use.
This is a reason why I ask if 'measurement' is even a useful term, much less a conclusive one, or if the assumptions we freight with the term - and with 'distortion' - are contextually reliable or are just biases.
cb01
AES Member, Retired A/V Forensic Professional
Well, my SET monoblock system compares favorably with real live music, including live orchestra. I am fortunate enough to be able to experience live music multiple times per month, and a live orchestra about once per month. I hear through the problems, into: sublime soundstaging, superb texture, realistic SS width and depth and height, accurate instrument placement and delineation, true to life tone and body, etc.
Understanding that the success of those metrics cannot be the result of a flaw, but rather in spite of any existing flaws.... the noise floor and occasional lack of dynamics (at full reference level; it's only 24wpc) are forgiveable.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I’m sure I made another post, here, but it’s gone. Did I imagine it. Was it modded away? If so, why?
I too have heard sets that sound dreadfull, usually linked to a poor amplifier used with inappropriate loudspeakers for the volume played.
But to counter that some of the very best, or should I say the most realistic ( in my view), have been single-ended amplifiers,(valve and solid state) paired with appropriate high quality efficient loudspeakers.
Firstly, you have to understand what is responsible for good sound in an amplifier, but for the best outcome you have to correctly partner equipment together to insure the amplifier/speaker used will give optimum results in your listening room at your desired listening levels. The former takes many years of experience and hundreds of hours of evaluation once the measured performance meets expectations.
Example: you would not use a SET amplifier driving an inefficient speaker (<90dB) in a large room at high sound pressure levels...
Example: you would not use a SET amplifier driving an inefficient speaker (<90dB) in a large room at high sound pressure levels...
Also, what are good measurements and what are bad measurements? More importantly what are acceptable measurements "in prospective" for good audio performance. Just because an amplifier measures better by 0.1% doesn't mean in any way it will sound better...