[R Giskard]

  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

 

[gld3gld3]

Thanks for starting this thread. Your thoughts mirrored mine exactly. I had to double check the date to make sure this wasn't April 1. Why would head-fi put a review like this on the front page? Yikes!

 

[SunshineReggae]

 

 
I think your friend would find it a lot easier to compete if he stopped fooling around with tube amps.
 
And no, there isn't more to amps than 'just specs'. That's the problem, that's the falsehood that needs to go.

 

[GearMe]

   
I think your friend would find it a lot easier to compete if he stopped fooling around with tube amps.
 
And no, there isn't more to amps than 'just specs'. That's the problem, that's the falsehood that needs to go.

 
Ummm...some people prefer Tube amps; others Solid State.   Some...own and enjoy both.  
 
On a side note, some recordings sound better, to my ears, with less revealing equipment...others sound better with more revealing equipment.
 
 It's a personal choice.  One is not better than the other -- just a choice to enjoy the music be listened to.

 

[R Giskard]

   
I think your friend would find it a lot easier to compete if he stopped fooling around with tube amps.
 
And no, there isn't more to amps than 'just specs'. That's the problem, that's the falsehood that needs to go.

Why don't you give up your daily job to go grow carrots in Moldova? Why doesn't any of us? This person has his business and you should have more respect for other people and what they do.

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
I think your friend would find it a lot easier to compete if he stopped fooling around with tube amps.
 
And no, there isn't more to amps than 'just specs'. That's the problem, that's the falsehood that needs to go.

Why don't you give up your daily job to go grow carrots in Moldova? Why doesn't any of us? This person has his business and you should have more respect for other people and what they do.

while he's entitled to his first sentence, I do agree in full with the second one. after the specs, there are sometimes more specs, but at some point there is only the imagination of the owner that's really making up differences, and that isn't sold with every amps of the same model. so that shouldn't be promoted obviously, unless we bet on collective hallucinations. and that's a little what some reviews look like, the sharing of dreams. for that I also agree with the general idea of the OP. sharing our thoughts freely can be done in this very forum on the topic of the product, it doesn't call for a review. a review should involve some matter of serious and control over what is said and the way it is said. "I think" being very different from "you will hear the difference". and even more for something ending on the front page. for different reasons, both the author of the review, and the admin putting it on the front page could have done some more control over what was writen.
 
on a side note, I find really sad that someone cannot promote his work with just the quality of his specs. good specs are proof of a work well done. if my camera makes people look like deformed trolls because of how bad the distortions are on the lens, I might find it nice, fun, or even artistic. but I would never find it good.
people should know better than just care for the look and the fame of a product.

 

[ab initio]

Here is an example of a review that is much more deserving of being front-paged on HeadFi, and will ultimately be a much more useful resource for potential buyers of that type of product. 
 

1. clearly qualifies opinions as such
2. gives useful, factual information regarding the product design, packaging, etc...
3. gives technical information regarding the product where appropriate and relates those specs to subjective impressions. 

 
I really don't think that it is too much to want HeadFi's featured articles to have a modicum of quality content.
 
Cheers

 

[bigshot]

  This person has his business and you should have more respect for other people and what they do.

 
Try applying that theory to Yoko Ono!

 

[ab initio]

 

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.

 
I completely disagree with this assertion, nor do I think it is particularly relevant to amplifiers. The live sound of a mandolin has naught to do with how accurately an amplifier reproduces the signal it is given. 
 
Recording a live mandolin and reproducing it has more to do with the room acoustics of the recording studio, the microphone, the processing, the playback speakers, and the playback room's acoustics than it does with the amplifier.
 
An amplifier is an electrical device that takes an input and produces an output. If two amps can take the same input and produce the same output, they sound exactly identical. How precisely they do that can be measured in as much detail as you're willing to take the time to measure. It's not always trivial, because the speaker loads we ask them to drive can vary with the different headphones or speakers we plug in. Nevertheless, if the amps produce the same output across the speaker load, they sound the same. 
 
Cheers

 

[R Giskard]

Right, then enjoy the rest of your evening. I doubt I will enjoy mine considering my Spectral sounds worse tgan your new toy because hey, mine is old and well, it is old!
 
Cheers!
Antun

 

[ferday]

  Here is an example of a review that is much more deserving of being front-paged on HeadFi, and will ultimately be a much more useful resource for potential buyers of that type of product. 
 

1. clearly qualifies opinions as such
2. gives useful, factual information regarding the product design, packaging, etc...
3. gives technical information regarding the product where appropriate and relates those specs to subjective impressions. 

 
I really don't think that it is too much to want HeadFi's featured articles to have a modicum of quality content.
 
Cheers

 
here is your issue ab initio:  you are mistaking being correct for being right.  Head-fi is a consumer forum, therefore you will get consumer reviews.  Just because i happen to agree with you, doesn't mean i would ever reasonably expect head-fi to be any different than it is.  personally...i applaud your efforts to bring objective commentary, and i also fail to see what it has to do with the original review poster, but c'est la vie right

 

[Chris J]

While I agree the point of the HeadFi sound science forum is to discuss the science (or lack thereof) of the hobby, hardware, and related content on HeadFi, I do appreciate ChrisJ's response, even if I don't see eye-to-eye with him on all of his points. While I thought his initial response was a bit inflammatory in nature, it did make me reevaluate the diction of my original post and see how others might be sensitive to my critique. ChrisJ did follow up his original remark with an explanation


I wanted to discuss the faults with this style of review with the head-fi community and bring it to the community's attention because I feel it is an important issue. Head Fi has been an important resource for me for longer than I've been a registered member. Outsiders come to this forum via google or wherever looking for information to help them make informed decisions regarding headphone and headphone related gear purchases. Not everybody who comes here has the same level of education, technical background, etc. There's a diverse range of ages and people who visit here. Not everybody is equipped with the tools or experience to parse out fanboyism, myth, and outrageous claims from actual substance.

HeadFi is the biggest headphone community in the world, right (at least English speaking)? Furthermore, these discussion threads and reviews are archived indefinitely. When I used to lurk here a few years back, I was getting google hits to 5 year old threads that were discussing the issues I was searching for. When people post something here, it sticks around.

When substance-lacking articles are front-paged, it makes it that much more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you take the time and effort, you can sift through the contents here on head-fi and learn a lot about headphones and hi-fi audio---I certainly have. Wouldn't it be so much better if the facts were easier to get to with less BS in the way? It would make it easier for members and outsiders to find the information they need to make informed decisions regarding our hobby, which makes our hobby that much more enjoyable.

While you are right that HeadFi does not publish peer reviewed scientific literature, it does publish content to its front page, implicitly endorsing the contents of those articles. And because this is an open discussion community, that content is subject to the public review it receives on this discussion boards. TIME is not a peer reviewed publication, but that doesn't excuse it from provided quality, accurate content on its website. HeadFi, as the biggest headphone website, should feel the responsibility to endorse reasonably high quality articles on its front page.

I saw this review because it was front-paged endorsed on HeadFi. I am interested in the Asgard, so I read the review. I was upset because the review appears to have very little substantive content (well, you read what I said) , but it was being Featured by the worlds largest headphone forum!  There were wild claims being made by the reviewer that would make excellent marketing for the amplifier company, except the claims aren't supported by any objective evidence nor are they even supported by the amplifier company!

 

Spoiler: On unsupported claims not even backed by the amplifier manufacturer

 

It says nothing about sounding better, different, or anything. The practical differences are form factor, features, and design topology. If Schiit wants to sell Asgards over Magnis, wouldn't they clearly state that the Asgard has superior sound if they could legitimately back it up?

One set is for Magni, one set is for Asgard 2. The differences between them are orders of magnitude below scientifically accepted levels of human detectability.

Anyone care to guess which set of specs belongs to which amplifier? Which one do you think would be credited as vastly superior sounding?

Head-Fi owes it to the community to endorse content that is higher quality than this.





I agree, this is supposed to be fun. I just don't think it's any fun to be given featured content that is purportedly objective and trustworthy, yet has a dearth of substance. Being given false, faulty, or misleading information regarding audio equipment is an obstruction to configuring a hi-fi system for enjoying music. I want to know if an amplifier I might buy will make my music sound better, if it will provide functionality that i seek, or if it does the exact same thing as my current gear but looks a lot nicer.

The hi-fi hobby is about high fidelity sound reproduction. I want to hear my music as exactly as possible as it is recorded on the CD/file/etc. I want to hear all 12 semitones in the tone row in Mozart's 40th symphony in Gm clearly, undistorted, and evenly balanced. If John Bonham's pedal squeeks and a telephone rings in Zep's "the Ocean," then, gosh darn it, I want to hear it! Fortunately, measurements can help us pick and pair equipment to achieve HiFi sound. That way I can listen to and determine which of my favorite pieces are mastered well and which ones are not. The more accessible quality information is, the faster more people will achieve quality sound systems that let them listen to their favorite songs as clearly as a possible.





Name calling? Ain't nobody got time for that.


Cheers

Just my opinion, but I personally do not hold up Head Fi to the same criteria that I hold Time magazine to.
I mean, I post on Head Fi! LOL!
I would read Time magazine with the expectation that I am reading accurate news and informed opinions.
Head Fi is really just a place where we can all shoot the breeze and throw our subjective opinions around.
Sure, we all get flayed from time to time for saying something stupid, I'll informed and ignorant (I certainly know that I am just as guilty as anyone) but that's what these public websites are all about.
One way to look at the Asgard review is the say that the reviewer is guilty of liking his Asgard. I'm OK with it. He's also guilty of hyperbole. OK with that too.

Personally, I do own some electronic gear that is euphonically coloured, and I listen to that gear when I do feel like hearing to a touch of euphony.

If there is one place in Head Fi that seems to need a major tune up it would be the Wiki section.
Some articles are well written and factual, some are written by folks who don't understand the concepts, and some are just fluff pieces.

AB-initio, obviously you are free to disagree.
It's an open forum.

 

[bigshot]

Just my opinion, but I personally do not hold up Head Fi to the same criteria that I hold Time magazine to.

 
Are you saying that if someone was in the market for headphones, you wouldn't recommend HeadFi as a source for information to make a good buying decision?

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by R Giskard /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
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.

 
Today is your lucky day, because I can think of many examples of that... high end cables vs monoprice, high end DACs and CD players vs a $120 Sony blu-ray player, any high end digital audio player vs an iPod, high end amps vs midrange ones with the same power rating, etc. I hope this info opens your mind up to new possibilities and makes your day a great one!
 
Put that overpriced amp on ebay and get a midrange receiver like the ones by Yamaha or Dennon. You'll get more features for a much lower price!
 
Cheers!

 

[castleofargh]

 

Just my opinion, but I personally do not hold up Head Fi to the same criteria that I hold Time magazine to.

 
Are you saying that if someone was in the market for headphones, you wouldn't recommend HeadFi as a source for information to make a good buying decision?

krkrkrkrkrkrkr <= accurate sound of me laughing
you don't trust us hey!! come on confess and the pain will go away!!!