gustav_errata
pfm Member
I thought that's what the measurements are for.
ASR Review of Naim Uniti Atom
- Thread starter joe9407
- Start date
I thought that's what the measurements are for.
ToTo Man
the band not the dog
The portable Hugo 2. According to Chord the Hugo 2 can accept M Scaler's 768Hz output over dual-BNC, presumably with an adaptor cable?
https://chordelectronics.co.uk/product/hugo-mscaler
Amber Audio
This is the Day
Below TT2 the only current/legacy Chord DAC with proper 2 x BNC is the Qutest afaik. The newest Hugo only has a Mini Coax. You can get a cable from the likes of Vertere for a couple £hunded. 3.5mm specially configured at the tip end to Y shaped Phono with a couple of BNC adapters, gives 2x384, ‘tis a bit convoluted and not a setup I tried out, pretty much a unicorn cable, I preferred going with Mojo for ‘phones and Qutest in the rack.
Amir defo says he used dual BNC but maybe he was given a bespoke Nordost adapter cable, dunno why he doesn’t post pics of what he was testing all cabled up in the test lab/listening rooms.
Anyway it took a Bartok to beat the TT2/Scaler for me, regardless of the Maths it was a very engaging duo and I almost kept it for the office system but wanted an AV upgrade so sold it on.
notevenclose
pfm Member
I'd probably pay good money to be a fly on the wall during the listening session though.
John Phillips
pfm Member
It depends what you want to achieve and what ASR wants to achieve. These are not necessarily the same.
Floyd Toole's research at the National Research Council of Canada found that stereo listening by a listening panel improves the panel's opinion scores of all loudspeakers over mono listening. It improves the worst ones more than the best. Mono or stereo, 'speakers were ranked by listening panels in the same order, but the range of opinion scores was wider from mono listening. He concluded that mono is better for the purpose of perceiving and reporting differences while stereo is better for the purpose of recreational listening.
Maybe some people want ASR to have a different purpose - as though ASR were yet another identical online reviewer - but that's not what ASR is set up as AFAICS. The complaints seem to arise from wanting ASR to do something different to what it does. To me it's a perfectly legitimate way of better perceiving and reporting differences through listening in mono (assuming the NRCC research is good). The key is to understand the ASR methods for what they are are (and are not); and take from the results what they mean (and what they don't mean). Quite a few ASR members, even, seem to not clearly distinguish the two purposes that I see.
I have my disagreements over a number of things ASR does but I don't expect (or want) the site to be just another online review site like any number of others already out there.
cruster
pfm Member
Sure. I've spent a little time there. My perception is that a large portion of the loudest users (obviously not all members) listen to their gear, rather than music, and treat measurements as the end-all, be-all representation of a component's performance. It's not an approach I understand. I listen to music; in my opinion, the equipment should be in the service of the music, and while I think that measurements can be one indicator of a component's performance, by no means should they be assumed to wholly represent what something sounds like.
Also, to be clear, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with measuring a component's performance - it does have its place.
Agree to disagree.
Not sure how that has any bearing at all on the topic at hand, but 1-3 on average.
A consumer product like the Uniti Atom, and most other hifi and consumer products generally, are defined by how much their owners enjoy using them, which is as much to do with design, software, reliability, resale value, brand value, etc.
I suppose measurements may be useful on a dating website, personally I just went on instinct, had an extended demo, she measures up well and has been pretty fault-free for the last few decades. The only thing she has in common with online Chi-fi is lack of a warranty. She's put on a few pounds (not as many as me), but she hasn't blown up.
ASR is the marketing arm of Schenzen Audio, makers of Topping and other brands from the same warehouse. They send ASR stuff and on or around launch date he publishes a rave review. He did this the other day, even though a load of people pointed out that the amplifier completely failed to meet its specification and the marketing was completely dishonest. He was challenged on this, I think by a member who is a UK manufacturer, and amir/ASR struck his head in the sand and has not responded.
That said, it's the canine's testicles for amusement value.
Somafunk
pfm Member
Not it is not, however if you have any evidence for this I suggest you post it
narabdela
who?
You must be one of the ASR types because they always ask for evidence. I've looked at a couple of items, one was a Topping amplifier that they were making crazy claims about reinventing amplifiers, ASR was sent a pre-release version and the review came out on the same day as a coordinated launch with Topping and some other sites that do the same thing. Surprise-surprise, the review featured on Topping's website.
The one the other day, when I was reading about the Uniti Atom, a product I really like, there was another Chi-fi product from the same stable marketed as a 70w amp. It turns out it measures at 13w, but ASR still recommended it. Some bight spark tried to excuse ASR by redefining clipping as 10% THD+N. I don't know if that got it closer to the claimed spec., my thought was that any decent amplifier would cut out before it got to 10% THD.
So there seems to be coordinated promotion without much care for objective performance going on.
My interest was sparked because I've enjoyed PS Audio units in the past and recently ASR has really had it in the neck for PS Audio. I don't know why. Anyway, ASR got caught out because they got their impedance measurements completely wrong on a regenerator, rather importantly as its main job is to reduce impedance. Rather than apologising, ASR just doubled down Trump-like.
It's all pretty irrelevant because I would never buy a power product of any sort shipped direct from China without BS certification in case it set my house on fire.
I was trying to make a polite reference to "the dog's bollocks". I assumed this forum has an uncouth language filter. Obviously not, plus I just mentioned Trump and that got through as well.Well, the word "Bollocks" does spring to mind.
Somafunk
pfm Member
I ask for evidence as I trust in measurements that are independently verifiable rather than foo, and you seem to have a misunderstanding as to what it means when new products are under a publication embargo before official release.
Sonci
pfm Member
I also think there is a lot of bias in those reviews. If there is a non chinese product, you'll know it will be bad from the start, any Linn, Naim or Rega will be bad.
But the Chord dacs have measured prefectly fine for non chip dacs, even though I remember he measured Qutest with a lower output voltage, while most chinese have balanced output with 4v or more.
Not liking Chord dacs design its ok, but I think it's the most original out there.
One thing I like about ASR is cable measurements, and in that regard I think they are helping the audiophole community..
But the Chord dacs have measured prefectly fine for non chip dacs, even though I remember he measured Qutest with a lower output voltage, while most chinese have balanced output with 4v or more.
Not liking Chord dacs design its ok, but I think it's the most original out there.
One thing I like about ASR is cable measurements, and in that regard I think they are helping the audiophole community..
Last edited:
nostromo
pfm Member
One may not like the presentational style of ASR, but the basic rigour and scientific numbers are presented openly and methods clearly defined.
I don't see why ASR can't criticise poor noise, channel imbalance, distortion or weird frequency responses. It's a discussion of the data from the output.
I don't see why ASR can't criticise poor noise, channel imbalance, distortion or weird frequency responses. It's a discussion of the data from the output.
It’s really simple. He criticised the Naim Uniti Atom because he thought it could measure better from the price and so recommended against it. Better measurements would not have made it sound better. The reason why it is more expensive than the Chinese junk he loves, let’s not ask why, is because about half of the money goes into brilliant design and software, which is hugely popular with customers, which he either ignores or criticises with no justification. He complained about sharp edges, which is untrue and would run into problems with Trading Standards and lawyers. It’s just his bias because the edges are not sharp.
He never spends a moment even considering why, for example, Naim made this product, what people want from it, and whether it meets those objectives. I don’t if it’s lazy, stupid, but it’s certainly pointless.
The only measurement that I care about is amplifier power output, and the irony is that he recommends his pet brands even if they fail on this key metric.
Werner
pfm Member
I find it sad that ASR uses the best possible equipment just for running standard tests on equipment that may or (often) may not be interesting, instead of using it more investigatively, furthering the state of the art.
On top of which, when something goes wrong, as in the case of the M-Scaler, he does not ask why and just continues measuring and condemning. That Chord-Topping combination clearly was malfunctioning. And no, I am not a Chord fan. Rather the contrary.
On top of which, when something goes wrong, as in the case of the M-Scaler, he does not ask why and just continues measuring and condemning. That Chord-Topping combination clearly was malfunctioning. And no, I am not a Chord fan. Rather the contrary.
gustav_errata
pfm Member
Is it safe to assume then that you are not a regular reader of actual scientific literature? Because two of the major reasons that I disregard ASR are the lack of rigor and clear description of methods that might support reproducibility.
Fretbuzz
pfm Member
I've mentioned it before but the phrase 'If you can't measure what's important, make important what you can measure' chimes whenever I see ASR-type stances and debates.
It all fundamentally falls down because there's zero interest in, let alone recognition of, the other factors, measurable or otherwise, that influence the end result - the sound... At least to anyone with a set of ears and a soul
It all fundamentally falls down because there's zero interest in, let alone recognition of, the other factors, measurable or otherwise, that influence the end result - the sound... At least to anyone with a set of ears and a soul