ab initio
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Posts
- 854
- Likes
- 157
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
EDIT: spelling and clarification
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