Why SINAD doesn't matter

I'm wondering if you've ever read carefully about his opinion on US-based SINAD chasers -- such as Benchmark media (which located in NY/USA), THX AAA (located in CA/USA), or even some Schiit Heresy products. Tone might be a little different for each (his China-bias is well described by himself in many posts), but it's quite straightforward to find good consistency.

On the other hand, if something derived from sound approach and credible experts, Marv never disrespect without reasons. No matter if it came from China or not. Holo audio can be one good example even though the dac he reviewed wasn't quite his cup of tea.

 

As I said, I love IR and actually want to pursue a career in it in gov., I get your criticisms and am aware of the logical fallacy of equating chinese calling out with ignorance, but although it leaves room for error it actually can lead, contextually and with more evidence, to a solid prejudice showing. I'm not saying this is the case here and thus I asked you about it, however problematic, upfront and confrontational it can come out as. I ask in genuine curiosity and out of love for discussion, and I know the risks it may impose (more once I was almost ostracized from a academic conference because I confronted the speaker with a question that didn't imply automatic alignment with the whole package of his views).

About China, their rise is really complicated and nuanced (not their political regime or ideology, those are totalitarian no doubt about it; with even more pervasive aspects as the CCP projects itself unto the world the way that it does, making soviet regime and Maos FR strategy seem like child play). It started as economical dumping by mass production and now it is turning as legitimate competition and innovation; it was a similar trend with japan from the post-era till the 70s, the difference being that the japanese case didn't have a behemoth providing subsidies for it. This creates a bad reception and image to chinese products, both from the initial dumping stage, correctly correlating chinese products with low quality reverse engineering, and now later by fearing the uneven and commercially unfair the new competition the new chinese industry poses (this is the central paradigm the WTO has to deal with), and that bad image can easily skew to prejudice (ideological and political context aside), hence my asking.

That notwithstanding, chinese products are often really well built today, and thus pose a real challenge to the stablished industry. In BRICS countries the insertion of their industries in smartphone and communications is almost predatorial. Samsung, LG, Motorola, and Apple have been almost ousted of the market (Samsung fairs better though), and owning their flagships instead of a Huawei, Poco, or Xiaomi is a fashion/ideological statement rather than economical. Same goes for 5G implementation from Huawei vs. the American counterpart.

Finally, I get your point of warning but in the brazilian case it's somewhat of a slippery slope. Chinese insertion is strategic and more impervious than that of the african countries, for example. They buy the structural links of the production chain rather than financially siring the country, and so create a commensalistic economical relation. That, however, isn't necessarily ideological. In fact, a point may be made that ideological influence is an outdated cold-war model played by the Soviet Union and the US down here. And in that matter, the US was much more invasive and determinant than its communists counterparts.


Again, that is not to say that I'm blind to the CCP machinations and reality, I have taiwanese friends here and I can 100% see the context you're talking about by your mom. As with shenzenaudio, I can see the logic but I'm too new to all this to assert anything; I got started in this hobby in 2012 and back then there was nothing remotely akin to the actual scene, then passable quality stuff equated to very expensive NA and EU products that costed us a ton of money. The Shenzen pole was a blessing for us in this sense.

 

There's no point in asking him that because he adheres to his objectivist philosophy like a mantra and thus is easily predictable. Much more fun to endanger myself here asking here for more nuanced and honest opinions than ask there and get brickwalled.

 

I got banned when I asked Amir why he tested out the Focal Clear at 114dB.

 

@purr1n some pro audio guys are looking at topping now due to asr. That’s how bad it is. Most of the best converters can pass the Amir SNR test but he’s done insane damage to the speaker industry. Randos pimping super low headroom Neumann and Genelec speakers and “off” Harman speakers over stuff like Yamahas, ATCs, and Barefoots to pros due to ASR and Amir’s prior shilling is a problem. This has been going on for years. He literally has affected the market and people’s work to further Madrona Digital and his narrative of cheap part dsp progress.

now he’s pimping shitty resonant, etched Focals as super accurate. No. In the two words of my guitar tech friend the focal solos are “Beyond muddy”

 

ASR as more influential in the market than Head-Fi, Stereophile, TAS, and the like? My first reaction (as it has been for the last 2 years or so) has been an incredulous "really?". It makes sense however if you think about it, because spend more than a passing moment in mushy world of vague subjectivism and folks start to yearn for the truth - something solid to stand on to help them make rational judgements and distinctions. In that ASR (or something like it) is an inevitable, even needed, correction. Two sides of the same coin and all that.

Here at SBAF we attempt, and largely accomplish IMO, an experienced objective subjectivism (or something) which gets you to the truth beyond the yin yang of simple subjectivism/objectivism, but it takes effort and time, which is something a fickle consumer market such as audio does not normally do.

I don't see much upsetting the status quo - a false (simplistic) objectivism on the low end and a false (simplistic) subjectivism in the luxury ORFAS "high end". Hope I'm wrong...

 

In that I think you're wrong. If you look at the big influencers in the current hobby, YT Reviewers (and I know SABAFs stance on them, but they are the mainstream media nonetheless), they all somewhat quote the measurement game in some sense, although a lot of them don't like Amir personally. ASR has become the authoritative figure in this and it has shifted the headphone source industry somewhat, evidence to that is the ongoing shift in companies like Schiit and Geshelli to engineer their stuff so there can be a talking point of objectivism.

Their influence on headphone tailoring though is far less significant. Not only that the headphone reviews are more recent, the harman curve they aim is what the bulk of industry aim for, if not more V than that. There are some companies like DCA which did skew themselves exactly to ASR target, and nonetheless charged 4 thousand for being "state of the art" harman, in direct contrast to the philosophy of Topping of marketing very cheap stuff as end-game.

It is though a difficult matter of perception, as we tend to amplify the audiophile hobby to more than it is: there is gap between entry and high-end that is blown way out of proportion. Pro-level stuff is expensive and will be expensive, brands like benchmark couldn't care less about ASR IMO; and millionaire-fi will continue being millionaire-fi despite what ASR does, Amir stated that himself and I agree with him on that. Topping themselves state that the best selling lines are the L and E, rather than the A and D, which are what most hype trains talk about online (A90 and D90/SE).

 

Yes I’m serious. He responded sarcastically that he plays at 130 dB, while I got banned for “trolling”

 

Hum, not sure how as most of what you said supports a basic bifurcation of the market - low end trends towards "objectivist" error and high end trends towards "subjectivist" error. A generalization of course, but one that is useful. The Harmon curve is itself an "objective" attempt at FR for transducers. Yes, every manufacture pushes up market as BOM costs are basically linear but MSRP increases 3X, 6X, or more. This does not negate the generalization, its just another aspect of the market, which is complex but again does not invalidate generalization/trends.

 

I mean bifurcation as in industry is starting to release good measuring stuff to appease the new "tastes" because, thanks to ASR, measurements started to become A talking point of reviewers, but I don't mean to imply by this that mass market is a horde of ultraobjectivist zombies though, it's just to argument that ASR does have an impact on the audio going foward. If that will imply the change in the other more expensive line of established products remains to be seen, and is an interesting point indeed.

But yeah if you define the status quo as stereophile influence and the high end market I see your point, ASR will not trample that and I agree. But low-mid gap IMO is seeing that shift thanks to them.

 

You're not wrong, it's an easy simplification of our two "clans". What I feel SBAF brings to the table is the (collective) experience of having died on both of those hills to eventually come to find solace in a logical uncanny valley of "it depends". SBAF is quite the place for those who know what the f**k they want and know what the f**k they're doing. Some folks say "YMMV" to deflect criticism of their opinions. others offer YMMV as a sort of warning to those with the willingness to "do the work" of thoroughly investigating a specific audio reproduction proposition. YMMV can be a deep, deep cave if you're open to carrying multiple interpretations of the same recorded phenomena or experience of an artistic event given certain agreed upon scientific theories of several/many different scientific domains.

 

^ "relies too much on references to primary sources" is Wikipedia's way of saying self-serving.

 

I don't want to post a link because I hate to give ASR more traffic, but their recent review of the Vali 2+ has it all:

1. An objectivist site measuring and reviewing a tube amp deliberately designed to sound like a tube amp and not to measure spectacularly well. To me, this is like a bully beating up on the shortest kid. (Except the short kid turns out to be super tough lol).

2. Glossing over the fact that they got an underperforming stock tube (it can happen), and implying that the design of the amp is responsible for its underwhelming performance. Failing to even try another tube.

3. Criticizing (at length) the sonic performance of the amp, thereby ignoring their own "let's stick to measurements" approach. He is even using words "grungy" and "dirty" to describe the highs.

4. Petty digs about switches being on the back and the front of the product not having the "+" on it.

5. Bad spelling:



6. Directly attacking anyone who has ever reviewed this amp and posted anything positive about it, implying that they need to get trained in hearing distortion.

It is a fairly over-the-top dig at Schiit and their products, and as such, it is going to discredit the credibility of ASR further amongst its moderate members.

 

Just wanted to say thank you guys for fighting the good fight against objectivists in an intensely subjective hobby. Having heard many well measuring devices sound immensely more shitty than "poorer performing" hardware since I don't listen to music in a hermetically sealed acoustic chamber.

 

Apart from the fact that he solely made that thread to shit on Schiit, he and a lot of the members there think all interchangeable tubes sound the same anyway, so he wouldn’t bother changing that.

And that harmonic distortion (which gives the tube sound) is a bad thing, because they don’t listen to a tube amp.

 

There's nothing objectivist or scientific about the 'philosophy'. These are useful words and it's just horrible seeing them co-opted.

ASR is quite the opposite being fundamentalist belief based around misunderstanding - what Feyman called a 'cargo cult'. Waving paddles does not make one an air traffic controller, and publishing graphs does not make one a scientist.