[ab initio]

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:
 

 Started with O2, then went to Magni. Yes the Magni and O2 sound very close. The Magni does sound a tad processed and thin compared to O2 but the Magni does have more authority as it is more powerful in comparison even though they all seem to struggle reproducing the source.

Both of these amps are spec'd audibly flat, low output impedance, low distortion, and sufficient power for almost any headphone. What gives here?
 

 Then I went to the Vali. The Vali sounds nothing like the others. It's slightly more smoother and warmer, more of a natural sound but ever so slightly, and more realistic sounding.

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.
 

 I have to say the Asgard 2 is is not like any of the others. Why have some said there is no difference? I'm suspecting what is happening is that people are not using high resolution (or not high enough resolution) tracks or headphones to distinguish the difference OR they just don't hear the difference due to their hearing biology. As a side note: I also did an electronic spectrum hearing test to verify my hearing at different frequencies to eliminate that factor, and I passed 100%. 

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.
 

 The Asgard 2; is in a whole other class. The Asgard 2 with the same headphones (HE-400) sound way more detailed, realistic, bassier, deeper, smoother and wider is the best way to explain it with all else in the system being the same. The Mids seem more forward and lush. 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 gain is also contributing to the level of authority also as it does have more gain than all the others even though it's also rated at 32 ohms at 1.0W RMS.

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):

Frequency Response: 20Hz-20Khz, -0.1db, 2Hz-400KHz, -3dB
THD: Less than 0.008%, 20Hz-20KHz, at 1V RMS, high gain mode (worst case)
IMD: Less than 0.010%, CCIR at 1V RMS, high gain mode (worst case)

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.
 

 You WILL hear a difference with respect to what was mentioned above about headphones, music quality rate and biology. This amp just sound like an actual amp, it sounds "real" while the others mentioned sound like they're struggling to making an effort to process the sound, but the Asgard 2 seems to do it effortlessly with authority is another nice way to describe it. 

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
 
EDIT: spelling and clarification

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

I hate when people talk about audible biology differences. There might be a couple troughs or hills of 1-3 dB but not that much of a difference, unless your hearing is majorly damaged... I only have two and my hearing only goes up to 14 kHz with mild tinnitus.

Biological differences are mostly just slight sensitivity or desensitivity to certain frequency ranges, it's why some people sense sibilance when others don't, among other small differences in perception. Outside of that things are just preference. People don't like to admit they aren't perfect audiophiles and blame their hearing for not liking flat response... LOL.

 

[headdict]

Totally agree, but you have to read the 2014 Summer Buying Guide (also very prominent on front page) for a REAL treat!

 

[ab initio]

  Totally agree, but you have to read the 2014 Summer Buying Guide (also very prominent on front page) for a REAL treat!

It reads exactly like head-fi lobbying on behalf of sponsors/potential sponsors. I didn't expect an honest evaluation of the gear because it's a buying guide telling me to buy the things inside. It was through together by the forum mods using only biased sighted listening impressions and zero technical fact checking. I think Tyll's Wall of Fame is a much better honest "buying guide" because there is a whole database of comparative data available to explore and fact-check against the written prose.
 
Cheers

 

[Chris J]

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 90% horseschiit:

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.

As far as I'm concerned, you ARE singling out and picking on the author!
Grow up!

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

As far as I'm concerned, you ARE singling out and picking on the author!
Grow up!

This too though, you could have made a thread about this topic... but you didn't need to specifically mention the author. It was kind of mean.

 

[headdict]

 
It reads exactly like head-fi lobbying on behalf of sponsors/potential sponsors. I didn't expect an honest evaluation of the gear because it's a buying guide telling me to buy the things inside. It was through together by the forum mods using only biased sighted listening impressions and zero technical fact checking. I think Tyll's Wall of Fame is a much better honest "buying guide" because there is a whole database of comparative data available to explore and fact-check against the written prose.
 
Cheers

This site is missing a Sound Science Buying Guide put together by the members of this forum. I wonder what it would look like. Any chances of it being tolerated?

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

I don't even understand why people into audio are so against audio science. It's likely they believe in alchemy and witches, and we try to explain why that isn't possible so they get mad at us. It's similar to how people tried to stifle scientific advancement in the past, or saying things are a sin so other people don't do it. It's strange and irrational. They could upon being given proof accept the science and realize that not every piece of audio equipment needs to be perfect, but instead they stubbornly come up with hollow arguments.

I personally like coloured headphones sometimes. Other times I listen to my speakers which are balanced and mostly neutral (as neutral as possible for the price). I don't claim that flat response isn't natural, I know it is... but I like a bit of bass emphasis sometimes and am not ashamed.

 

[ab initio]

As far as I'm concerned, you ARE singling out and picking on the author!
Grow up!

 
I know. That's why I said "I don't mean to single out the author..." because I'm fully aware that this critique of the review singles out the author. I've invited the author to elaborate on the comparisons and defend the claims in the review because it would greatly strengthen the review and make it more generally useful to folks interested in the Asgard 2. Don't confuse criticism with attack.
 
Head-Fi put the review on the front page as "featured content". I'm concerned about the precedent this sets for substance-lacking reviews of products. I've itemized my concerns where claims are made with a disturbing lack of factual evidence (or contradict published data). I hope in the future that head-fi will front page reviews with more content and fewer unsupported claims.
 
If I'm going to call out head-fi for front-paging fanboy praise as an objective review, then I need to establish why the article is lacking in quality.
 
I've amended the initial post to remove the puns and fix the language to ensure the statements are non-confrontational.
 
Cheers

 

[FeadHi]

...Both of these amps are spec'd audibly flat, low output impedance, low distortion, and sufficient power for almost any headphone. What gives here?...

 
Well, the answer is rather obvious.  The reviewer forgot to provide us with his cable configurations.  
 
 

As far as I'm concerned, you ARE singling out and picking on the author!
Grow up!

 
Seriously, though --
 

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

  This site is missing a Sound Science Buying Guide put together by the members of this forum. I wonder what it would look like. Any chances of it being tolerated?

Wouldn't mind seeing one or taking part in it. But I am not sure if the majority of sound science regulars have much experience with a variety of headphones and other equipment relevant to this site.
 

   
I know. That's why I said "I don't mean to single out the author..." because I'm fully aware that this critique of the review singles out the author. I've invited the author to elaborate on the comparisons and defend the claims in the review because it would greatly strengthen the review and make it more generally useful to folks interested in the Asgard 2. Don't confuse criticism with attack.
 
Head-Fi put the review on the front page as "featured content". I'm concerned about the precedent this sets for substance-lacking reviews of products. I've itemized my concerns where claims are made with a disturbing lack of factual evidence (or contradict published data). I hope in the future that head-fi will front page reviews with more content and fewer unsupported claims.
 
If I'm going to call out head-fi for front-paging fanboy praise as an objective review, then I need to establish why the article is lacking in quality.
 
I've amended the initial post to remove the puns and fix the language to ensure the statements are non-confrontational.
 
Cheers

 
As if the mods will care, you can have the most thought out and fair arguments but that still wouldn't matter to them. 

 

[RazorJack]

 
Quote:

  <snip>
 
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. 
 
<snip>

 
Nice that you point this out. On a related note, I once got into an argument in the cable forums (what was I thinking?!) with a cable manufacturer who happened to be a sponsor, about his claimed improvements that his cables supposedly make. In one of his replies he actually said that he wished he was so good at marketing to make people believe they hear something they don't. I called him out on this, and the next thing I know the posts are deleted and I get a warning from a moderator for being rude, abusive and taking things out of context!
 
I understand that Head-Fi wants to keep the false beliefs in cables alive, (perhaps even more so if they're made by sponsors?), but approving bullschiit reviews like this one as front page "featured content" is on a whole new level of embarrassment.

 

[headdict]

  Wouldn't mind seeing one or taking part in it. But I am not sure if the majority of sound science regulars have much experience with a variety of headphones and other equipment relevant to this site.

It could present general science-based buying guidelines without reference to any existing equipment, maybe just a compilation of already existing posts.

 

[headdict]

...but approving bullschiit reviews like this one as front page "featured content" is on a whole new level of embarrassment.

Aren't all hifi magazines full of reviews like this? Maybe it's inappropriate to assume head-fi is any better...

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

Aren't all hifi magazines full of reviews like this? Maybe it's inappropriate to assume head-fi is any better...

Yes, but the audio magazines are being paid to advertise a sponsor's products... then again I'm pretty sure Head-Fi sponsors pay to get their sponsorship status here.

*Looks into the sky contemplating the corruption in the audio industry*