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

[adamdea]

I think it an appropriate question.
According to Amir, my gear measures terribly but it sounds wonderful!

all of your gear? Really? TBH I don’t keep up with your gear, but iirc you certainly used to have some sensible stuff like an SBT. Have you ditched it for something esoteric perhaps with an audio note dac, a SET and some horns?

In any event, everyone knows that lots of people like (at least some) distortion. No one says you have to like the most transparent product.

There is a perfectly sensible approach which can be taken to buying transparent electronics and applying flavour only once and deliberately, if at all. But no one has to take it. And really it’s only sensible for people who want to sort out a decent system (or a few systems) and then get on with it.

Ultimately if one’s hobby is listening to boxes or enjoying trying to blend the flavours of different boxes then measurements probably don’t help much.

Equally measurements are no guarantee of how things will “sound” either.

I guess it depends what you want.

 

[Peg legg]

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…

What model are speakers

 

[Del monaco]

all of your gear? Really? TBH I don’t keep up with your gear, but iirc you certainly used to have some sensible stuff like an SBT. Have you ditched it for something esoteric perhaps with an audio note dac, a SET and some horns?

In any event, everyone knows that lots of people like (at least some) distortion. No one says you have to like the most transparent product.

There is a perfectly sensible approach which can be taken to buying transparent electronics and applying flavour only once and deliberately, if at all. But no one has to take it. And really it’s only sensible for people who want to sort out a decent system (or a few systems) and then get on with it.

Ultimately if one’s hobby is listening to boxes or enjoying trying to blend the flavours of different boxes then measurements probably don’t help much.

Equally measurements are no guarantee of how things will “sound” either.

I guess it depends what you want.

LRS speakers and Yamaha 803D. I do have a Wiim Pro Plus!!.

 

[cb01]

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

What product?

Did it meet your expectations (from its review)?

Did it replace and outperform a more expensive item?

I’m interested in some real word experience, from people who put their money down.

.sjb

Topping D90, Topping D90 SE, RME ADI-2 FS, Benchmark LA-4 (HPA-4 without headphone section), Banchmark DAC3B, Benchmark AHB2 pair (used singly and as bridged monoblocks), etc etc.

Topping D90- Flat, dry, lacking anything resembling dynamics. Returned.

Topping D90 SE- went back to Amazon after a week. Less flat, less dry, slightly more dynamic than the D90. Marginally better than my Bluesound Node2i.

RME ADI-2- was solid and I kept that for nearly 2 years. Better than either Topping, by quite a bit, despite slightly inferior measurements.

Benchmark DAC3B- Basically, a slightly drier, slightly more etched version of the RME. Good on its own but not great. For 2x the cost of the RME, it was a no-go.

Benchmark AHB2 amps x2- Singly, I actually thought they sounded a little better than as bridged mono's. Always used them with the Benchmark XLR's and NL4 speaker cables. They were fairly lackluster when used through multiple preamps. Madrigal Proceed AVP-2 (a Mark Levinson, basically), Plinius Kaitaki Phono, RME ADI-2 (as preamp), and a few others. Talked to John Siao at Benchmark (a very nice guy who I still respect and like very much) and he said that though I was getting more than enough gain into the AHB2's at their lowest input gain setting, that he felt I would still be better off with the LA-4. Consulted ASR and the consensus was clear: order one. So, I did.

Benchmark LA-4 preamp- This did have more synergy with the AHB2's. Seemed to help them present as little more full and slightly more dynamic, but I was still not wow'd. Mind you, I'm into ASR-Approved equipment for over $13,000 USD at this point. I added some very expensive Cardas XLR's, tried some Audience Ohno XLR's, tried some AQ mythical creature XLR's, etc. Nothing fixed the flat front sound stage that, when representing depth cues, did it in a manner that (at best) resembled rows of flat pictures. Dynamics were also squashed, especiall;y in the bass and mid-bass. Orchestras sounded not-very-majestic. Over the next year and a half, I listened to less and less music, despite being in the heart of the global pandemic. A bad sign.

All-in the only true "win" was the RME ADI-2 fs. And, ironically, I was told that it would be absolutely smothered by either Topping because of a 1khz SINAD figure being slightly worse. lol.

I couldn't take that crowd less seriously if I needed to.

I sold the Proceed at a loss (big regret), and did not quite break-even on the Plinius Kaitaki (also regret that a lot). Not a single ASR thing replaced a more expensive, or even equal-priced, piece of equipment. My best buy was the item that I was most vehemently steered away from; the RME ADI-2.

 

[colasblue]

Interesting. I had the opposite experience replacing a BM DAC3 HGC with a Topping D90SE. The difference was pretty minimal but I could resolve slightly more with the D90SE. The presentation didn't differ much between the two on speakers but on headphones the D90SE was a lot more immersive.

I suspect my 6 pack might be a little more "critical" than your SN3 and my expectations will clearly be different. I doubt I could live with a valve based system for any length of time without developing a yearning for the actual sound recorded as opposed to an embellished version of it.

I don't say I'm entirely measurement orientated but I'm much more in that camp than others seem to be and I connect with ASR well, particularly when they measure what I consider to be mostly foo products such as mains purifiers.

If something makes an audible difference then it is certainly measurable. Whether the correct things are being measured is always open to question, but for DACS SINAD is a really good indicator since there is a max output so a lot of the audophool crap about needing transient response beyond 0dB is redundant and any shortcomings in slew rate or THD will come through.

I'm pretty sure my next system will be total departure from the world of "HiFi" into the world of pro audio but until I find a bit more to be dissatisfied with in my current system its a move on hold.

 

[cb01]

Interesting. I had the opposite experience replacing a BM DAC3 HGC with a Topping D90SE. The difference was pretty minimal but I could resolve slightly more with the D90SE. The presentation didn't differ much between the two on speakers but on headphones the D90SE was a lot more immersive.

I suspect my 6 pack might be a little more "critical" than your SN3 and my expectations will clearly be different. I doubt I could live with a valve based system for any length of time without developing a yearning for the actual sound recorded as opposed to an embellished version of it.

All my above impressions were created prior to upgrading to Naim. All with Benchmark amps (and mostly with the LA-4).

Also note that my D90 and D90 SE were the first generation of each...with (IIRC) AKM DAC chipsets in them.

 

[colasblue]

"upgraded" to Naim?

Have you ever listened to a 500 series system? That's possibly not an actual (technical) upgrade from what you had but it sounds a hell of a lot different to an SN3. I personally dislike the 500 system sound with a passion so do totally get why people sometimes prefer a less revealing presentation. Being a bit too accurate can have a tendency to somehow destroy the music. I'm sure ASR wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in that aspect.

For me a better system has to reveal more and not actually destroy the music in the process and it's a difficult balancing act to get right.

 

[sq225917]

With so many people looking for different things from their hifi there will never be any one size fits all bit of kit, nor measurement to back it up. The correlation between hifidelity gear and what people ate looking for is vague at best.

 

[cb01]

"upgraded" to Naim?

Have you ever listened to a 500 series system? That's possibly not an actual (technical) upgrade from what you had but it sounds a hell of a lot different to an SN3. I personally dislike the 500 system sound with a passion so do totally get why people sometimes prefer a less revealing presentation. Being a bit too accurate can have a tendency to somehow destroy the music. I'm sure ASR wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in that aspect.

For me a better system has to reveal more and not actually destroy the music in the process and it's a difficult balancing act to get right.

I've heard a full 500-series system several times; more than 5 times in longer listening sessions.

If my current Naim system reveals: physically larger SS&I (height, width, and depth), better and more consistent image placement within that larger soundstage, longer and more descriptive reverb tails, significantly more inner detail in acoustic instruments (drums, brass, acoustic guitars, harps, woodwinds, etc), and the Naim stuff lacks the subtle 'homogenizing effect' that the AHB2's had....I would like to please be pointed-toward the 'distortion' that is causally linked to these effects. My request is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it gets the message across.

So, yes, upgraded to Naim. It's less of a statement of high praise for the lowly SN3 than it is a functional indictment of the Benchmark gear, if one subscribes to the dogmatic, numbers-are-everything belief system. If one acknowledges that there are myriad linear and complex behaviors at play for such devices (as do I), then it becomes a much more nuanced discussion that could easily encompass variables such as: personal preference, system/component matching, etc.

 

[Alex S]

My best buy was the item that I was most vehemently steered away from; the RME ADI-2.

You must have unearthed an outlier circle of the sect, the majority fawn over the RME.

 

[adamdea]

You must have unearthed an outlier circle of the sect, the majority fawn over the RME.

And if anyone said that a device with an extra couple of dB of SINAD would radically improve (“absolutely smother”) its sound they would be laughed at by the majority.

 

[adamdea]

LRS speakers and Yamaha 803D. I do have a Wiim Pro Plus!!.

Yes he didn’t much like the LRS, but if you do then no need to let it bother you.

 

[Del monaco]

That’s the thing. It doesn’t.

 

[gustav_errata]

I think that the most you can hope for in a forum is that it contains some information that is useful. On that basis ASR rates fairly highly. Merely having some nonsense, or even a preponderance of nonsense, hardly counts as a disqualification. There are many criticisms that can properly be levelled at ASR, the chief of which is having a proprietor who is an arse, but that is no excuse for most of the half-arsed misrepresentations made about the site.

ASR does not pretend that SINAID uniquely determines the performance of electronics; it does not suggest that a device with SINAID of 121 sounds better than a device with SINAID of 120; it does use measurements with a bandwidth above 20-20kHz.

A lot of the tripe posted about ASR clearly comes from people who are entirely opposed to any measurement-based assessment and/or entirely unable to interpret the measurements for what they are. Every half point about testing methodology gets a round of applause from people who don’t want tests at all.

Yes the proprietor is an arse, people are banned just for disagreeing with him, and a lot of the forum posts are idiotic. But it has contributed some real information. And that is not true of most forums or magazines.

In the science world there is practically an epidemic of low-quality journals that publish anything and everything. It's a lucrative business. Indexing services are awash in articles that look, for all intents and purposes, "science-y", with graphs, measurements, descriptions of technical methods, etc. However, given that the purpose of the journals is to pump out articles for money, they are typically subjected to minimal peer review and editorial judgement at best. The methods are dubious or insufficient, the results aren't reproducible, and the conclusions carry no weight. For someone who is actually interested in science, they are a nuisance, a source of noise to be filtered out as worthless.

 

[Del monaco]

My issue really is whether these ‘heightened’ measurements are significant enough to alter or make the sound unlistenable. I suggest in many cases they aren’t. I remember jitter being a big thing during the digital boom and measurements being printed across adverts etc. I think MF were particularly prone to this. But in many cases they were well below threshold. So my issue is with potential exaggeration and shock horror reporting. Look at all the vintage gear that is still lauded and cherished where measurements will likely be all over the place.

 

[adamdea]

My issue really is whether these ‘heightened’ measurements are significant enough to alter or make the sound unlistenable. I suggest in many cases they aren’t. I remember jitter being a big thing during the digital boom and measurements being printed across adverts etc. I think MF were particularly prone to this. But in many cases they were well below threshold. So my issue is with potential exaggeration and shock horror reporting. Look at all the vintage gear that is still lauded and cherished where measurements will likely be all over the place.

Let us just imagine for a moment that in fact dacs, pre amps and (maybe and with more qualifications and conditions) power amps are capable of producing an output which is perfectly "good enough". In that case the function of measurements is really
a) just to confirm that there is nothing wrong with a product;
b) arguably to test whether products are well engineered on an assumption that this matters either "just because" or because it inclines one to suspect that if well engineered in this respect it is, all-else being equal, more likely to be well engineered in other respects.*
c) given the claims which are often made about products being more accurate, better engineered, "purer" etc etc, so see whether they are;
d) to get some sort of fix on what exactly it is that you are getting for your money;
e) in the case of products which do not clearly do anything useful, to test whether they do indeed do anything useful.

Well there you have it.

None of this should be confused with the use of measurements as a form of numerical based OCD, purchase-justification tool. Yes "jitter" as used to explain subjective preference is about 99% bollocks. The 1% truth is largely a sop for people to justify why they think one product sounds better than another and support the need to purchase something new. Feeling the need to buy a new chinese dac every time one comes out with 0.1% higher SINAD is just as bizarre as buying new cables in the hope they will sound a bit different.

The main reason why measurements don't explain what things "sound like" is not because they are inaccurate or fail to characterise the output of the product. So you are not going to get a set of measurements which explain why they "sound" like they do.

If anyone was looking for a new religion then I am not surprised they were disappointed.



*this is on the assumption that you can;t get better measurements by accident so a well measuring product is going to be meeting its design brief.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The main reason why measurements don't explain what things "sound like" is not because they are inaccurate or fail to characterise the output of the product. So you are not going to get a set of measurements which explain why they "sound" like they do.

If anyone was looking for a new religion then I am not surprised they were disappointed.

Indeed. The purpose of measurements is not to describe what things sound like, it is to assess the proper functioning of the device. Yet so many people subvert measurements into a value judgement about audibility, sound quality and all the other things. It comes from both sides of the argument, IME.

 

[adamdea]

Indeed. The purpose of measurements is not to describe what things sound like, it is to assess the proper functioning of the device. Yet so many people subvert measurements into a value judgement about audibility, sound quality and all the other things. It comes from both sides of the argument, IME.

Audibility and sound quality are two completely different things.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Well yes quite. It was a list.

 

[adamdea]

Well yes quite. It was a list.

One which joined items in a way which suggested that the compiler was simply muddled. There is no reason why (given empirically established models) a measurement cannot in some cases predict (actual) audibility. Mind you a "value judgment" about audibility seems a bit confusing too. Of course if your point is that the measurement cannot predict whether someone will think that two audibly indistinguishable things "sound different", then fine.