[Currawong]

I have some go-to test songs for sound stage. I'd be weary making judgements based on other people's listening experiences, especially if they are not level matched blind listening tests since that introduces so much bias. Also, calling products scams based on speculation doesn't seem right; there don't appear to be any lies in the THX-AAA amplifier marketing unless I missed some sound stage claims (which are always unsubstantiated BS when it comes to these electronics and cables and such).

If these issues you mention exist in phase distortion measurements, those are easy obtain for those with an audio analyzer and headphone measuring rig. I'll see if I can work with any owners of such devices, namely showing the phase shifting for such NFB amps vs "pure" Class A amps like my GS-X Mini, and how they affect the group delay response of headphones.

I didn't say any products were scams. If you're going to talk science, at least get your facts right. This is what I said:

The manufacturers are basically using a limited amount of data to trick people.

And I gave an example, of how SINAD is measured at 1 khz, where cheap amps often measurably distort a low frequencies under load. Heck, look at all the manufacturers quoting their 3-4 zeros-after-the-decimal-point numbers using an A-rated 1kHz measurement (which reduces the effects of distortion at other frequencies). It's designed to deceive people into thinking that they are "better" -- which itself is a subjective interpretation.

Every day I talk to people who bought a Topping, SMSL or whatever amp or DAC and hates it. If your bias is towards high-SINAD gear, and that makes you feel happy, fine! But please quit with the preaching, you're not the first to try this line of yours by a long shot. Science is about investing why things happen, not telling people what they should believe. This is why DBT discussion is banned outside of the Sound Science forum. We're here to enjoy listening with what makes us happy and talk about that.

 

[chesebert]

To be fair, I think "hate" is a strong word. I have tested a few ASR-approved electronics and thought they sounded okay for the price. Generally speaking, those entry level gear provide a good listening experience if you are not too picky and your cans are not picky. Do they provide the same level of enjoyment as what I typically use - god no. Listening to my own gear is a completely different experience - it would be akin to the difference between listening on AIO soundbar vs a proper stereo setup - I do have the Naim Muso2 soundbar so I know For the same amount of money as chi-fi, would I pick those products, probably not given there are far more old used gear around that price that sound better (not bench better just to be clear).

My problem is with people using entry level/mid-fi gear to review $1k+ cans. Sure you can make them sound loud and you may like the way they sound, but do you "really" know what they sound like? I don't think so based on my experience. Now there are cans that are $1k+ but shouldn't cost that much based on their technical performance, and those generally don't scale with better electronics - there are always exceptions.

 

[Rhamnetin]

I didn't say any products were scams. If you're going to talk science, at least get your facts right. This is what I said:

And I gave an example, of how SINAD is measured at 1 khz, where cheap amps often measurably distort a low frequencies under load. Heck, look at all the manufacturers quoting their 3-4 zeros-after-the-decimal-point numbers using an A-rated 1kHz measurement (which reduces the effects of distortion at other frequencies). It's designed to deceive people into thinking that they are "better" -- which itself is a subjective interpretation.

Every day I talk to people who bought a Topping, SMSL or whatever amp or DAC and hates it. If your bias is towards high-SINAD gear, and that makes you feel happy, fine! But please quit with the preaching, you're not the first to try this line of yours by a long shot. Science is about investing why things happen, not telling people what they should believe. This is why DBT discussion is banned outside of the Sound Science forum. We're here to enjoy listening with what makes us happy and talk about that.

Scams, trickery, yes I associated the two subconsciously. My mistake if that's wrong. Note that A-weighted 1 KHz measurements are the norm for the product spec pages of all brands, including the popular audiophile brands, not just the likes of SMSL, Topping, Drop, Schiit, JDS Labs. So if these brands are tricking people for this reason, so is everyone else? I agree with this actually. The spec sheets of all these products are designed to look as good as possible.

Thankfully, some of these brands like Schiit, SMSL, Topping, go far beyond providing such incomplete specs. These brands provide THD+N vs frequency response graphs (addressing the specific concerns you called out), IMD plots, and more. Along with both A-weighted and non A-weighted SINAD measurements. Not just A-weighted 1 KHz measurements like you claim. Schiit even provides AP analyzer reports (these are always A-weighted though). The industry needs more of this (and to go even further), not the opposite. So I'm curious where the trickery is here? Certainly less trickery than all the brands not providing this data, at least. Mind you, I always recommend seeking out third party data.

You also keep insinuating that all I care about is SINAD for some reason, when I've called it out as being an overrated metric (our ears can't hear the improvements brought upon crazy high SINAD figures compared to say 96 dB or even less).

I'm no preacher, but a gear-fi discussion was ongoing here, and those are my thoughts. Some strong claims were made based just on speculation and other people's non-blind listening experiences, and also it's not wise to blindly correlate price with quality. Good note about the sound science forum; if I obtain that aforementioned phase shifting and affected group delay data, I'll make a thread about it there. I am in complete agreement with the idea of uncovering any missing data.

My problem is with people using entry level/mid-fi gear to review $1k+ cans. Sure you can make them sound loud and you may like the way they sound, but do you "really" know what they sound like? I don't think so based on my experience. Now there are cans that are $1k+ but shouldn't cost that much based on their technical performance, and those generally don't scale with better electronics - there are always exceptions.

If just the DAC/amp third party data isn't enough for you, there are some reviews that show how a headphone measures on different amplifiers at least. I'll try to work with people to get more data like this using very high end headphones just for kicks. This sort of data isn't that common since it's not really necessary; as I said, with enough data you can calculate the amplifier power needed to achieve a certain SPL from a headphone, which tells you if the amp is powerful enough. Besides that, if the amp measures perfectly in every metric, then you know it's not imparting anything on the headphone's performance - e.g., most of the aforementioned THX amps have flat and wideband frequency responses so they're not affecting the headphone's, nor should they affect the phase response, and they'll affect the distortion characteristics the least.

Or you can just try stuff and listen, if you have that luxury. Level matched blind listening is a must for such evaluations - this is something else not practiced enough by reviewers in general.

 

[chesebert]

Scams, trickery, yes I associated the two subconsciously. My mistake if that's wrong. Note that A-weighted 1 KHz measurements are the norm for the product spec pages of all brands, including the popular audiophile brands, not just the likes of SMSL, Topping, Drop, Schiit, JDS Labs. So if these brands are tricking people for this reason, so is everyone else? I agree with this actually. The spec sheets of all these products are designed to look as good as possible.

Thankfully, some of these brands like Schiit, SMSL, Topping, go far beyond providing such incomplete specs. These brands provide THD+N vs frequency response graphs (addressing the specific concerns you called out), IMD plots, and more. Along with both A-weighted and non A-weighted SINAD measurements. Not just A-weighted 1 KHz measurements like you claim. Schiit even provides AP analyzer reports (these are always A-weighted though). The industry needs more of this (and to go even further), not the opposite. So I'm curious where the trickery is here? Certainly less trickery than all the brands not providing this data, at least. Mind you, I always recommend seeking out third party data.

You also keep insinuating that all I care about is SINAD for some reason, when I've called it out as being an overrated metric (our ears can't hear the improvements brought upon crazy high SINAD figures compared to say 96 dB or even less).

I'm no preacher, but a gear-fi discussion was ongoing here, and those are my thoughts. Some strong claims were made based just on speculation and other people's non-blind listening experiences, and also it's not wise to blindly correlate price with quality. Good note about the sound science forum; if I obtain that aforementioned phase shifting and affected group delay data, I'll make a thread about it there. I am in complete agreement with the idea of uncovering any missing data.



If just the DAC/amp third party data isn't enough for you, there are some reviews that show how a headphone measures on different amplifiers at least. I'll try to work with people to get more data like this using very high end headphones just for kicks. This sort of data isn't that common since it's not really necessary; as I said, with enough data you can calculate the amplifier power needed to achieve a certain SPL from a headphone, which tells you if the amp is powerful enough. Besides that, if the amp measures perfectly in every metric, then you know it's not imparting anything on the headphone's performance - e.g., most of the aforementioned THX amps have flat and wideband frequency responses so they're not affecting the headphone's, nor should they affect the phase response, and they'll affect the distortion characteristics the least.

Or you can just try stuff and listen, if you have that luxury. Level matched blind listening is a must for such evaluations - this is something else not practiced enough by reviewers in general.

Make sure when you measure amplifier output, you use complex signal and measure from 20hz to 20khz (not sweep, but complex signal). It would be better if there are standardized tracks that cover multiple genres to get the widest coverage of complex signal. For RMS measurements, it will be a tricky, you will need to figure out the correct time domain slice to use to calculate Wrms. There are a lot of challenges to get this all worked with calculation of RMS with respect to complex music so hence no one has really done it. Good luck though!

 

[theveterans]

My problem is with people using entry level/mid-fi gear to review $1k+ cans. Sure you can make them sound loud and you may like the way they sound, but do you "really" know what they sound like? I don't think so based on my experience. Now there are cans that are $1k+ but shouldn't cost that much based on their technical performance, and those generally don't scale with better electronics - there are always exceptions.

Their argument would be that those so called high end/high $$$ gear are broken by design due to poor multi-tone THD+N 90KHz bandwidth measurements. What you will hear is pleasing distortion created by those DACs and amps and thus biasing the actual performance of the E3. Anything that deviates from the sonic presentation of 0.0000x% is untruthful to the source file and I firmly believe they enjoy pure bliss with that kind of presentation

 

[chesebert]

Their argument would be that those so called high end/high $$$ gear are broken by design due to poor multi-tone THD+N 90KHz bandwidth measurements. What you will hear is pleasing distortion created by those DACs and amps and thus biasing the actual performance of the E3. Anything that deviates from the sonic presentation of 0.0000x% is untruthful to the source file and I firmly believe they enjoy pure bliss with that kind of presentation

Would be great if you could share your specific impression of E3 on entry level gear and compare to your ETA miniC. And then compare again using your main gear.

 

[chesebert]

Heard someone say something rather profound today: “there is no recipe for good sound.“

Recalling my own experience: well measured products that sound amazing, well measured products that sound bad/meh, poorly measured products that sound amazing and poorly measured products that sound awful. The only pattern I can infer from my experience would be that poorly measured products across the bench tests that also sound bad can be a lot worse sounding than well measured products that sound bad or meh.

 

[plakat]

Heard someone say something rather profound today: “there is no recipe for good sound.“

Recalling my own experience: well measured products that sound amazing, well measured products that sound bad/meh, poorly measured products that sound amazing and poorly measured products that sound awful. The only pattern I can infer from my experience would be that poorly measured products across the bench tests that also sound bad can be a lot worse sounding than well measured products that sound bad or meh.

I’d second that. I don’t use much of the available measurements beyond what I need to ensure compatibility (e.g. output impedance or output power at times), but I’m also a bit reserved against products that measure really bad: for me a baseline would be „OK“ measurements, but the rest is trying it out, hearing it with my music. Stellar measurements might be fine, but it might also indicate that the manufacturer/designer optimized for something that’s not my focus, possible ignoring the things that are.

 

[lowlou]

Amps are a related topic ok, but let's not forget it's an E3 thread !

Has anybody been able to compare the Stealth and the E3 ? The demo posted a few pages back hints at huge differences...

 

[plakat]

Amps are a related topic ok, but let's not forget it's an E3 thread !

Has anybody been able to compare the Stealth and the E3 ? The demo posted a few pages back hints at huge differences...

You’re right, we were nearing offtopic territory.

I did compare the E3 and the Stealth 3 or 4 times at my local shop and wrote a bit about that earlier here.

My summary: E3 is a bit more engaging, has livelier upper mids and a bit more upper bass. Also a bit deeper pads.
The Stealth sounds a bit more reserved, has a bit more focus on deeper bass and is overall maybe a bit more distanced. Their overall character does show their common creator though.
I listened to both on my M17 balanced because that’s what I actually use.

 

[lowlou]

Do you find the Stealth to be more linear & neutral in its presentation ? "Distanced" could mean "more revealing of the big picture" ?
In the demo I posted in my previous post, it seems to me that the Stealth is more linear, but I can't really judge from the video. It's driving me nuts.
I wish I could try the E3 and Steath side by side somewhere in Paris, but I haven't find a shop that has both of them.

 

[plakat]

Do you find the Stealth to be more linear & neutral in its presentation ? "Distanced" could mean "more revealing of the big picture" ?
In the demo I posted in my previous post, it seems to me that the Stealth is more linear, but I can't really judge from the video. It's driving me nuts.
I wish I could try the E3 and Steath side by side somewhere in Paris, but I haven't find a shop that has both of them.

Yes, just from listening I'd say the Stealth would be more linear. A bit less engaging. Yes, maybe it gives more of an overview of what's happening while the E3 serves upper mid details more upfront.

Unfortunately nothing can replace you listening for yourself... I decided to go with the E3, but as far as I remember your scenario is a more technical where the Stealth might have a slight advantage. Worth the 1,8K€ premium? Hm...

 

[lowlou]

Yes, just from listening I'd say the Stealth would be more linear. A bit less engaging. Yes, maybe it gives more of an overview of what's happening while the E3 serves upper mid details more upfront.

Unfortunately nothing can replace you listening for yourself... I decided to go with the E3, but as far as I remember your scenario is a more technical where the Stealth might have a slight advantage. Worth the 1,8K€ premium? Hm...

Yes my use case is indeed a specific one. it's for producing and mixing. So in theory, i search for something that does not make things engaging or interesting. If the HP I use for production makes my WIP (work in progress) prettier than it is, I risk ending up with anemic musical materials...
thank you very much for your perspective .

 

[Nomax]

NOMAX

 

[chesebert]

NOMAX

I mostly agree with his impression. There is also a slight thinness in the upper bass, which makes vocal sounding less solid and not quite hearing the body of the person singing. Piano notes have similar issues, not quite the body heard with the lefthand registers (it's not bad but can use some minor tweaking in the next iteration). if he had used a higher powered amp than HFM, he would have heard very delineated front to back imaging with a very very deep soundstage.

Mojo/Mojo2/portable stuff are not a good match as I said pages ago....