Audio Science Review Review

They make an effort to keep things tidy. The vitriol makes the site look bad and unprofessional and their mods know it. We could care less here.

Yup! As human beings, "FOMA immunity" may not always work. The FOMA simply takes on a different form, from Topping D30 for $99 to Topping D70 for $500 to Topping D90 for $800. You don't want to miss out on that last few db of SINAD!

 

Yeah, kinda. And if you come from the DIY PC gaming crowd, you're not only used to benchmark-based reviews but expect benchmark-based reviews. Almost everything else besides benchmarks is superfluous.

It's true for GPUs, CPUs, monitors, mice, keyboards, and so on.

I've repeatedly made a similar comparison argument to the whole GPU frametime ordeal that bloomed in the late 2000s and early 2010s. People that swore they saw micro-stuttering, like myself, got shit on by the "smart", "objective" guys because of "the benchmarks." Now it's fairly common knowledge and regularly included it any GPU benchmarking review suite worth a damn. Not to mention a large part of the industry now to incorporate adaptive sync technologies to further assist...but, I digress.


And that's the thing...The average individual leveraging the internet for product research is probably smart enough to somewhat understand benchmarks but likely isn't particularly invested in a hobby, doesn't want to be particularly invested in a hobby, lacks true expertise and experience, and/or, similarly, isn't looking to devote the time, effort, and experimentation to become an expert. They want to know just enough to feel confident in their own decisions and abilities, a sort of shell of expertise that's hollow inside.

It's why Amazon reviews are a big deal. A lot of folks will just pick an item based on its rating (and assuming a sufficient quantity of reviews). Never mind the fact many of these reviews are of suspect quality and origin, or that companies often provide free goods or discounts on purchased or future goods if one leaves a review. I believe the latter skews reviews more favorably due to human nature.

People like numerical, aggregate, "objective" data formatted in digestible packages to drive their purchasing or life decisions, and they never want to over pay or get too involved in most hobbies. They're just looking for occasional gear to fill a need. Some will feel sufficiently confident in their decisions based on Amazon star ratings alone, and some will want to go further with sites like ASR, rtings, etc.


I'm generalizing, of course, and not suggesting everyone is necessarily a zombie-like consumer. Nor am I speaking at all of content creators that run sites like ASR and rtings.

But, you know, I used to be the same way. I was all aboard the objective, nwavguy train. Got myself an O2 amp back in the day. Was using internal sound cards that had good RMAA measurements prior. More on that later, though.


I, like @purr1n, often leverage objective data and appreciate the data these sites or individuals bring to the table. I'm careful to check their hardware, methodology, and take into account their historical behavior and personality to ascertain if their data and/or commentary has any merit. Not all data is good, whether it be subjective or objective. Gotta know how to filter things out. Yeah, that applies to us here too. You not only have to understand all the technical variables but the human variables as well.

 

Going back to the whole objective, nwavguy thing. Like I said, I was all on board back then! I was pretty proud to jump ship from internal sound cards, which I purchased based on RMAA results (and measured like shit when I did my own tests), to something a little more dedicated to headphone usage and less susceptible to internal PC noise. I was proud to be part of a crusade that was bigger than myself.

Or, well, you know...Really, I just didn't have a ton of money and acted prudently as such. Get the best I can on paper within my budget. I drank the kool-aid. Blame my educational and work background on falling prey to such an approach, leaning too heavily on objectivity.


One of my good friends around then was really into messing around with guitar amp and pedal circuits. He was all about tubes, and I can't recall a week going by without him mentioning his fascination with germanium transistors. He didn't care about numbers. He cared about tone, timbre, musical expression.

I more or less got the, "Hmm, yeah, OK. Sure." response from him when I brought up what I'd read about objectivity, measurements, and audio gear. He suggested he could build me a simple tube amp for my headphones, but I wasn't too interested. Seemed like a crazy waste of time and money, no? I could at least respect wanting to add color to a musical instrument. I mean, as a fan of metal, distortion is literally the goal.


I became involved in Changstar due to the unique take on headphone measurements and, most importantly, CSDs. While I initially assumed it was a pretty hardcore objectivist site, I learned otherwise in short order. That was fine. CSDs helped identify issues I thought I had heard but couldn't find in other measurements, so I was still somewhat open to there being unknown measurements to better fit subjective findings. I just assumed amps/DACs were more of a "case closed" deal. (Why? Dunno. Also, funny, because CSDs I believe were nothing new in the speaker world.)

I don't recall exactly what happened on CS, but something, or someone, there got me thinking about trying the Leckerton...I forget the model. And I don't know if it was me wanting a better DAC, because I can't recall if I had just the O2 amp or the amp + DAC, or curiosity when multiple people claimed it sounded better than O2.

Either way, my impulsive side got the better of me. Guys on CS seemed smart and discerning of gear. They seemed to hear a difference. I was skeptical. Both the Leckerton and O2 had measurements that suggested they should not be audibly different.

Ah, well, you know...until I tested both out and thought I heard a difference. Maybe I was fooling myself. So I had my buddy randomly plug my headphones into one or the other without me looking. It definitely wasn't a textbook perfect blind test by any stretch, nor did I always guess right. But there were moments where the differences seemed apparent. Slight, but enough to get me wondering if maybe I hadn't totally fooled myself into hearing a difference.


And that was that, the seed planted that eventually worked its way through imperfections in the objectivist shell. Subjective and experimental integration with objectivity, not the replacement of objectivity.

I have to imagine there are technically ways in which we could measure gear that would convey all possible audible attributes. The equipment, methodology, or core knowledge might not be there yet. I just see the current suite of static measurements as a small part of the puzzle. Worthwhile data points in some regards, yes, but not the whole story.

Were amps and DACs GPUs instead, we'd still be in the early 2000s where average frames per second was considered "good enough." Headphones would be a different story...A very messy, different story.


I'd also liken this to car talk. I have a few friends that love to talk about 1/4 times. 0-60mph doesn't matter, unless it does. Peak WHP numbers are treated like gold, unless the car defies performance expectations. And, even after having their expectations turned upside down in such cases, they often fall back to peak WHP out of what I'd guess is habit. The goalposts are frequently moved based on convenience and what you currently own.

One of these guys has had perhaps a trillion Corvettes. Seems to get a different one every 8-12 months. Had a 700whp+ C6 Z06, knew a rough estimate of what it would trap and all that. Picked up a C7 Z06 on a whim, which made less WHP, right? Even though the data was there showing its stellar straight-line performance, he was skeptical.

Guy could not believe how the car felt when he got it. "How is this so fast? It's making considerably less power than my C6!"

Well, yeah, because when you rest on simple metrics, like peak WHP, you lose sight of the larger picture. He hadn't considered the power curve on the C7, especially the crazy up-front torque that held through the power band. Or the fancy, modern, computery electronics that go a long way towards letting you safely drive like an idiot.

Well, now he's on a C5 making 1000whp+. Recently had a P85D. P85D made way more up-front torque and never had traction issues even on shitty tires. C5 spins like crazy with drag radials. AWD helps on the Tesla, sure, but a lot of it is the computer wizardry holding your hand along the way. Still, right driver and right conditions, the C5 will still do incredibly well on the strip, even if it slips at the start (or down the whole track). So, the numbers are good, but the feeling is off.

Point being, when you try to boil things down to basic measurements, you're missing the bigger picture. This guy knows cars quite well. He knows when his tires are slipping. You couldn't tell him his tires aren't slipping because his drag times are excellent and meet expectations. (You also couldn't tell him this because his tires look like a dog tried to eat them in only a few hundred miles.)

Or, maybe it's like saying the Miata is a shitty car because it can't trap 120mph+ or something, when all you really need to do is stop being an ass and drive a f'ing Miata to understand why it's an amazing car. Doesn't mean it has to be your thing, because there's still a time and place for personal tastes and needs.


Things aren't as simple as 1/4 times or peak WHP. Things aren't as simple as average FPS. Things aren't as simple as churning out a basic suite of AP measurements. Not only does this do a disservice to the wealth of additional measurements we do know how to use these days, and not only does it do a disservice to considering a holistic approach to all these things (i.e. nothing is in a vacuum, and we have to consider how things play together), but it also does a disservice to human experience.

It's also boring and suggests a lack of creativity to find ways to bridge possible gaps between objectivity and subjectivity.

You know, because if I had a penny for anytime I was told X was made-up bullshit based on something Y said or study Z, only for new evidence to show up suggesting there might be some amount of truth to it worth exploring, I'd have more than one penny. I generally lose track of counting beyond the number 1, so I don't have an accurate total.

 

You know, this is actually an interesting topic.

A lot of hobbyists and gamers were set on, and ended up getting, Ryzen. When gaming benchmarks didn't look so hot, they used the argument, "But I swear my games run smoother than Intel!"

How this turned out was pleasantly surprising. Yeah, some people immediately poo-pooed the idea. But even as of fairly recently, I've seen articles and videos where people actively and thoroughly try to explore if A) it's a feasible claim (measurable), and if so, B) what could cause that?

I think there has been at best poor quality, inconclusive results backing up these claims, but I nonetheless agree that it's worth finding new stones to turn over. I think it will inevitably be wishful thinking for those that bought 1st and 2nd gen Ryzens, but the inquisitive exploration I think is conducive to discovering new insights. Bridging the gaps of objectivity and subjectivity.

Either way, I was happy that the community as a whole wasn't poo-pooing this right away, but rather took a mostly collaborative approach. Nice change of pace compared to the frame times bullshit from years back.

Then again, maybe with the slow cycle of PC hardware releases, content creates are forced into exploratory territory to keep up views and revenue...Hmm...

Similarly, a full on audio subjectivist is akin to the guy that always thinks any missed kill, or their own death, in a competitive game is always due to poor net code, hackers, etc. Hardcore objectivists being the guys that can only say "get gud 5head" and either remain silent on patch notes for issues they claimed non-existent or try to claim they always said it was a problem.

Always thinking there's nothing there is no fun. Always thinking there must be something there is no fun. Life is best lived as you scream silently inside, knowing the universe is full of nothing other than a bunch of shrugs and maybes.