HeadFi just
front-page-headlined a review of the Asgard 2, which featured a comparison with the O2, Magni, and Vali. It seems like a prime example of uncontrolled listening tests and the "it's newer/more expensive therefore it must be better" train of thought. Quite frankly, the review is lacking in merit:
Both of these amps are spec'd audibly flat, low output impedance, low distortion, and sufficient power for almost any headphone. What gives here?
I agree that the vali probably audibly differs from the other amplifiers, but certainly cannot be more realistic/natural sounding (owing to higher distortion and noise). How accurately an amplifier reproduces a signal can be quantified, and in this case, the Vali's quantified fidelity is measurably lower than the others.
Let me sum up: "If you don't hear a difference, then your gear sucks, your hearing sucks, and/or your audio isn't 24/192. I have certified perfect hearing." This argument ignores key aspects of psychology, biology, math, and physics, and is supported simply by an unverifiable claim of auditory perfection.
I really like this quote, especially
The Asgard 2 does not appear to add any color to the sound, but I may say on a scale from 1-100% if I had to say how much I think it does add coloration, maybe 10-20% which is not relevant to be considered significant, it's a really tiny amount but pleasant. The Asgard's coloration of the sound has been quantified and published (
From Schiit):
Okay, let's calculate it:
color from frequency response variation: -0.1dB => 1.16%
color from distortion: 0.010% (worst case)
So there you go, frequency imbalance is at most 1.2 % which is more than an order of magnitude claimed in the review. The distortion is more than
three orders of magnitude below the claimed 10-20% range.
Here you go, absolute assertions that audible differences exist between low distortion, frequency neutral amplifiers.
I don't mean to single out and pick on the author because he/she is one of a multitude of gear reviewers on headfi that make wild claims regarding easily verifiable aspects of the gear, yet fail to provide any reliable evidence regarding said wild claim. The reason I am addressing this review is because it was posted as a "Head-Fi featured content" which indicates that Head-Fi endorses this review as an example of an acceptable quality review. This sets a precedent for similar zero-content reviews, which is, in my opinion, embarrassing for the head-fi community. In the past, there have been reviews written with much higher effort and more substantive content. I hope future featured reviews are held to a higher standard.
Does anybody have any combination of Asgard/Mangi/O2 that they could perform some simple tests with? I'm curious how very different some of these amplifiers actually are and whether anyone would hear a difference using a typical pair of HiFi headphones.
Cheers
Hello!
Very few magazines nowadays bother with measurements when the market is not driven with real-life performance but rather symbolics and design. Plethora makes has lead to something of a maze in which it is virtually impossible for an average person to discriminate true value from suggested value. This scenario does not apply to professional market or industrial installations but the world of consumer devices.
My counter-argument to your well-founded arguments is this - how can measurements provided by manufacturers even be relevant and comparable when they lie so often and conduct tests according to their own criteria, not indurstial norms?
A friend, an audio designer of high-quality tube amplifiers, told me there is no way his amplifiers can compete with what others are placing on the market solely due to the fact he tends to do measurements realistically and they tend to "be optimistic". When a renowkned manufacuturer ignores emails containging simple questions on specs, then I know they are dodging a straight answer.
Regardless, there is more to audio than specs. Nothing would be better if a cheap product would sound as good as an (inevitably) expensive one just because the specs are as good or similar. Sadly, that is not the case. You can't measure a natural sounding timbre of a mandolin. If I play a mandolin, I should probably know how it sounds in different rooms or open spaces and while measurements on two similarly specified amps can be similar, manodlin would discriminate the difference. This is but an example.
On a side note, I have absolutely no experience with any of the amps mentioned here so this is not strictly a topic reply as much as my general thought on matters of audio specs vs percieved audio performance.
Best wishes,
Antun
EDIT: spelling and clarification