2. tech-talk
  3. 180326-17492

Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts

@crymeanaudioriver @amir_asr You are sitting there worrying if this or that other useless tweak like a cable makes a sonic difference.

I don’t worry about my equipment unless it fails. I never worry about tweaks or cables. The last time I had to choose a cable was after I purchased my first DAC and transport in 2019.  I auditioned six and chose one, the Synergistic Research Atmosphere X Euphoria. Why would someone with as fulfilling a life as me worry about cables or tweaks and it is in YOUR mind that they are USELESS.

@prof "would it be safe to say you are not an electrical designer or electrical engineer? If so, under what authority do you make the following comment" - concerning creating a high end DAC out of a mediocre DAC.

Well, I have such a DAC, built by a manufacturer of equipment and cables for his and my use. It beat out a $9,000 COS Engineering D1v and $5,000 D2v by a longshot. It is comparable to an $23,000 Meridian Ultradac. Because I tried all the latter three in comparison I say this with some authority, the authority of a recording engineer (me), a manufacturer (friend) and many audiophiles who have heard the same and came to the same conclusion.

Another DAC with excellent design engineer and inferior execution is the Emotiva XDA-2. No new audio board but 7! audiophile quality regulators instead of the computer grade junk inside, similar high end power and filter caps, resistors, etc. to make this into a high end DAC on the very cheap ($400 new plus about the same in added parts).

@russ69 We must be neighbors. I frequented Woodland Hills Audio Center back in the 70s and 80s. I heard several of Arnie’s speakers including a the large Infinity speakers in a home.

fleschler
prof
3,439 posts
 

 

@thyname

Dude. It’s not a claim. It’s sharing own experiences. What part of “sharing experience “ don’t you understand. Claim? You guys crack me up. And “counter claim”? 😂🤦‍♂️🙄

 

I understand how human language and the implication of what we say and write and human psychology actually works.

Almost all the things audiophiles report, which you couch as "sharing experience," constitute truth claims. That very fact explains the acrimony in these threads!

So if an audiophile here says "I swapped out my stock power cable for a Shunyatta cable and it TOTALLY upgraded the sound of my system, it made the bass tighter, the sound cleaner etc"...that is something they believe to be true and thus are stating as true. It is a truth claim in that respect. Right?

That’s why, if some objectivist suggests "might you have IMAGINED it changed the sound?" the response tends to be an insulted "No! It’s not my imagination. It really works! It really DID upgrade the sound!"  They think it's true and defending their claim as true!  These threads have been strewn with just these type of claims!

So, as I said, you may say your personal motivation is "not to make any claim" but in fact, even you are likely doing so in what you write, and it is certainly the case most others are doing so.

It DOES NOT mean every audiophile’s report on their experience needs to be or ought to be challenged. Not at all. That would get utterly tedious if it were for every statement we ever make. By all means, share experiences.

But is it fair to debate certain controversial subjects now and again?

Of course. Especially because SOME threads openly invite these type of discussions, such as the previous ASR thread and this one.

 

And why do you try to mask where you stand on the Great Debate. Can’t you just be honest? Why the fuss. There is nothing wrong with you being a measurementalist

^^^ This is you showing that you don’t really care about understanding my position. Far from "masking’ I was explaining my position as clearly as possible, so you could see why I’ve been a long time member here as well as at ASR. How many references do you see to measurements in, for instance, my long "Contemplating Devores" thread where I discuss tons of speakers?

You are still dogmatically trying to fit a nuanced position in to a box of your choosing. I get that from certain inflexible thinkers at ASR as well. It’s tedious, so I bid you adieu.

fleschler OP
1,912 posts
 

@prof Again, if you read my original comment in the other forum, I was QUOTING from an ASR forum which is printed in italics As to the Benchmark L4 versus the CJ pre-amp, one of the comments was The LA4 certainly isn’t "lacking" anything. It’s just transparent. But I could say it does ’lack’ certain things in the sense of comparison to the CJ tube preamp. My following comments refer to my friends and my experience with Benchmark gear and Conrad Johnson gear in general, with my friends having experience with both companies amps and pre-amps and me with Benchmark DACs and many CJ amps and a few pre-amps. It is our experience that Benchmark products lack somewhat in body and warmth but CJ is dark and covered sounding. We were not specifying that we knew anything about the L4 other than what I read and extracted from an ASR forum. My audio equipment manufacturing friend has seen the insides of several Benchmark products and concurs that they use less than optimal audio quality parts which result in less satisfying audio results.  I was shown the different parts taken out and replaced in both DACs that were modified.  

The fact is you know nothing concerning the interior parts used in either CJ or Benchmark equipment and cannot comment on them until you do. Do you even know the difference between Ultralinear, Triode, Voltage Regulated (some Audio Research gear), Unity Coupled (early McIntosh), etc? I may not be an electrical engineer capable of building equipment but I understand basic circuitry. If you have a Benchmark product, open it up and look up the cost of the capacitors and regulators, then get back to me.

fleschler OP
1,912 posts
 

@prof Your Contemplating Devores forum is 100% subjective, wholly lacking in measurements in your opinions and choices.   What about all the ancillary equipment used to listen to each speaker in order to evaluate them in your room?  (Rhetorical).  

Despite having heard only the Audio Physic, Focal, Revel, Raidho, Paradigm, Monitor Audio and Harbeth speakers you surveyed, I agree with your opinions which I heard under show and/or showroom conditions with varying equipment. Your opinions and mine are wholly subjective.  

You then proceed in the ASR forum knocking the use of listening for differences and preferences as "imaginary" and unreal, listeners self-fulfilling prophesy.  Most of the Audiogon posters here are delineating the problems have had with the ASR site and their owner/many members.  Apparently, you cannot stop yourself from blanket criticizing everyone who posts an opinion on what they hear, even if they have possibly superior listening/hearing abilities than you do.  As to equipment, I suspect you neither construct nor comprehend electronic circuitry/parts use, based on your responses.   

sngreen
36 posts
 

Did the original thread max out or was it locked? I kind of missed it.

 

fleschler OP
1,912 posts
 

I read five reviews of the Benchmark L4.  Uniformly, the reviewers found the pre amp extraordinary in revealing musical and acoustic detail, without any affectation or distortion, in a finely constructed piece of equipment.  Clean and clear was the universal opinion.

It is on ASR, Matt Hooper's review of it and the Conrad Johnson pre-amp Blind Test Results: Benchmark LA4 vs Conrad Johnson Tube Preamp | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum that I find myself very interested in his keen observations (I used his quote in italics).  The four pages of mostly his observations indicate that despite the super detail, dynamic range and open bandwidth without any negative as to its operation, it is not his favorite to listen to most music and he prefers his Conrad Johnson, with all it's distortion and alterations of the sound.  He prefers a sound with more body and warmth.  Well I prefer my subminiature tube/voltage regulated design pre-amp and I don't prefer the CJ pre-amps or amps I've heard (plenty).  My pre-amp sounds more like an Audio Research SP28 WITH different tubes (6N6 or 6N6).  The stock tubes/unit as is just thin sounding and lacking in the body and warmth department.  I bet it measures better than the CJ and certainly is a more open sound.  With the change in tubes, wow, a totally different pre-amp.

I don't know what is inside of the Benchmark but is reportedly of professional audio quality parts per reviewers.  It may be possible to elevate this to a status which incorporates more body and warmth without losing any of its' measured superior qualities, openness, details and extension.  Changing some caps, regulators and/or resistors.  Or possibly it can't be done and it remains as a finished product with a particular clean, clear sound that is less attractive than other high end pre-amps that may not measure as perfectly.  

So, score 1 for Mr. Hooper whereby he prefers a lesser measuring pre-amp buts enjoys both.   

On the last page, he mentions his love of vinyl.  Score 2 for Mr. Hopper. Immediately, he is warned by a donor member that ASR frowns upon discussion of vinyl records.   Mr. Hooper understands and obliges without pressing the issue.  That's probably why he is still an active member.   Can you imagine if Audiogon members said don't discuss vinyl as a warning, such as that could get one banned from the site?   That's why ASR is so narrow minded.   Don't mention an inferior music delivery format and be careful in your preference for an inferior measuring piece of equipment.   Like there is something amiss not preferring the perfect measuring equipment.   That's where most of the posters here at Audiogon recognize that maybe there are other elements of sound reproduction that are preferred to measured perfection, that are imperfect in some ways.    

More to discover