[scottiebabie]

Quote:

Rarely on this forum have I experienced "audiophile snobbery" but I would imagine that is near as close as it comes.  It depends on the DAC. a $400 DAC could sound better than my $1500 DAC I just made out of some string, a USB cable and an empty bag of Doritos. Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.

 

 

[bcg27]

Quote:

Rarely on this forum have I experienced "audiophile snobbery" but I would imagine that is near as close as it comes.  It depends on the DAC. a $400 DAC could sound better than my $1500 DAC I just made out of some string, a USB cable and an empty bag of Doritos. Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.

QFT
 

 

[Zida]

I think rather than walking in and announcing that this thread, inluding all the time and effort milosz put into his near-blind testing, is meaningless, it would have been nicer and would have contributed more to the discussion had he rather said something more along the lines of

"good tests you're running... not surprising that you're hearing the same differences most audiophiles describe when they upgrade their amps. Improved bass/treble clarity and extension (and sometimes impact, too!). Your rankings of the amps are what most would have expected, but it's good to see them confirmed in an in depth A/B comparison. I can't wait until you can hear how much MORE of a difference those amps will make once you get yourself a really state of the art DAC."

for emphasis, lets compare that to 

"OP, I am being brutally honest here, your comparisons are worthless..."


I'm A/B comparing those two comments and one of them definitely sounds a bit harsher

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

yup there can be no argument that better tires = better traction & better traction is everything for an automobile (idiots & dancing monkeys posing as drivers discounted). however let me present the argument that since both vehicles have the same tires, the better vehicle will still be shown to be better vehicle, again all things being equal ofcos. the smoother engine with the more linear power delivery will have better traction (however slight). the vehicle with the more optimum weight distribution ie.balanced, will again have better traction. the vehicle with the better engine management electronics will have better traction. & so on & so on.
 
i beg to argue that since both vehicles have the same tires, the critical bottleneck will not be the tires but other factors in determining differences or even superiority. in the CPU vs GPU analogy, similar logical arguments can be made that if both rigs have the same graphics GPU, then the rig with the superior CPU will make the difference. & so on & so on.
 
in absolute terms, its correct to assume that the weakest link will be the largest limiting factor for performance. however for comparison purposes, with both items having the exact weakest link, other factors will be the determinant.
 
perhaps similar logical arguments can be applied to this thread for purposes of amp comparisons. just sayin

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that the bottlenecks obfuscate differences.  Bottlenecks are not neutral, innocent bystanders as the cars were not designed by their engineers to be driven on cheesebag tires.  Tests must be conducted in such a way as to not compromise the original designer's intent.
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Probably because the difference in sound from amp to amp is a lot more subtle than the performance from tire to tire?

Very bad comparison.

I have to agree with you here!
 
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

I think rather than walking in and announcing that this thread, inluding all the time and effort milosz put into his near-blind testing, is meaningless, it would have been nicer and would have contributed more to the discussion had he rather said something more along the lines of

"good tests you're running... not surprising that you're hearing the same differences most audiophiles describe when they upgrade their amps. Improved bass/treble clarity and extension (and sometimes impact, too!). Your rankings of the amps are what most would have expected, but it's good to see them confirmed in an in depth A/B comparison. I can't wait until you can hear how much MORE of a difference those amps will make once you get yourself a really state of the art DAC."

for emphasis, lets compare that to 

"OP, I am being brutally honest here, your comparisons are worthless..."


I'm A/B comparing those two comments and one of them definitely sounds a bit harsher

True, but even though they say one should never awaken a sleep walker, I think it's a greater show of charity to awaken such a one before they walk out into the traffic.  Sometimes it taks a bit of a shock to awaken a slumbering friend.
 
 

 

[Currawong]

I don't think any of this requires analogies. If the level of distortion and stereo crosstalk, possibly as well as other factors, is higher in the source than in the best amp being tested, then the test isn't that great IMO.  I haven't looked at the (manufacturer stated) measurements for any of the gear he is testing with, but regardless I look forward to his comparisons with the upgraded source.

 

[milosz]

Quote:

Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to test for any performance differences between a 911Turbo and 911GT on a track when you are using some $50 tires you got from Bell Tire?   Can you think of atleat 1 reason why this is stupid?

Quote:

 

That is not a useful example.  You would certainly see and feel performance differences between the two versions of the 911 regardless of which cheap tires you used, provided the SAME cheap tires were used for each car.  Certainly, the cars wouldn't reach their full top speed with those tires but here's the key point:  it's not the top speed or ultimate slalom speed of the cars you are testing:  it is the DIFFERENCE between the two cars given a similar set up that you are seeking.  
 

 

[Ducker]

This is a fantastic thread.

 

[kite7]

Quote:

Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.

Well said, far from worthless. That's why I never understood why some people say one must match the value of their equipment in the same class as their headphone; that greatly assumes that all manufacturers are pricing their products relative to the performance of another DAC but like mdrakluck23 said, anyone can price it at whatever they feel it is worth in their mind. Some hate to admit it but the differences between a good and a great SS amp is a lot smaller than one may think but hey this hobby and many others is all about purchase justification; at the same time I'm not say there is absolutely no differences at all.
 
How many people would stop going forward never looking back for a second and stop to do a reality check to hear how big of a difference there is between a dozen SS amps? No day and night exaggerations so often heard among these forums from milosz's impressions. It's not like milosz is looking for some justification to sell his Beta22 to get some good enough cheaper amp either. There's a lot of temperance being applied here, because it's so easy to say that a more expensive amp is way better and on the other hand, some like to avoid saying something that is not generally others may dislike. People don't like it when they feel others are downplaying a specific piece of gear they know or read is good but I feel that milosz here is trying to be as fair and honest as possible. I personally was expecting that the Beta22 is noticeably improved over the elpac M^3 so I'm quite surprised myself;. I'm not saying to myself , "there must be something wrong with the setup because there's no way they could possibility sound the same right??" I guess I'll personally never know unless I hear the beta22 vs m^3 for myself but like all things I read here, I take with a grain (or a mountain for that matter) of salt due to the high subjectivity of this hobby.
 
milosz, I'm just wondering how you were listening. Were you listening very critically with a lot of focus or just sitting back with a relaxed state of mind? I'm assuming the former. Sometimes I find if I try very hard to hear a difference, I get fatigued and end up hearing no difference.
 
I think at this point some of us are anxiously expecting your DAC comparisons milosz

 

[Prog Rock Man]

If this thread has shown one thing, it is that one reviewer's subtle difference is another reviewer's night and day.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Wow. A LOT of butthurt happening on this thread.

WAAAAAH, I wanna justify why spending 3x the money makes my equipment superior to yours, WAAAAAAAAH.

milosz has done a lot here for the benefit of those of us who were pretty much already skeptical on how much of a difference a good amp is compared to a GREAT one. Whether paying considerably more for an incremental upgrade is worth it...well, that's up to us to decide. But to try and put down his tests just because he doesn't have the 'BEST SOURCE EVARZ', how much more ridiculous can people get?

If you spent $5000 on your setup, congratulations. You can rest easy knowing that you probably have a really great setup.

However, in REAL WORLD situations, people aren't gonna have the best of EVERYTHING, and tests like this are a great indicator as to what to expect from equipment that most of us would look into getting, and how subtle differences are between the amps themselves. A good source is still a good source. A better is not gonna all the sudden going to transform the amp attached to it. It's not like he's running these tests with a stock soundcard. Christ, relax.

This thread isn't the end to all A/B comparisons, and milosz himself said this wasn't meant to be taken as such.

I for one am glad someone who owns a slamming amp like the Beta22 can be as unbiased as can be when comparing such an amp to something like the E9 and still give the E9 some good marks. He's not like others that go from one amp, buy a more expensive one, and say the more expensive one BLOWS the previous amp out of the water. People here are prone to exaggerate EVERYTHING, especially when it comes to upgrading their equipment.

 

[atothex]

Chesebert is annoying, but there's a reason the word "reference" exists. True reference equipment will always be superior in real life listening tests. This has nothing to do with price. Inexperienced kids can't seem to stop talking about prices, usually to complain about how certain things cost too much, but they don't seem to realize that not all great reference equipment needs to come in huge shiny cases.
 
That said, the OP's comparison is just fine. Just don't make the mistake of taking his words as gospel.

 

[scottiebabie]

correct me if im wrong but reference equipment doesnt have to be expensive or even 'high'end. it just need to be...well a reference point from which to differenciate and/or to judge differences provided one is very familiar with the 'reference' equipment ofcos. sure i can understand that having great equipment is better but is there really a rule or even a need as long as one can appropriate differences from ones not-quite-so-highend equipment? just asking ya
 
infact isnt it even better to use more "common" equipment so then the general reader can identify with the reviewed equipments differences. eg if i hadnt ever listened to a esoteric DAC before, saying that DAC B is as good or even slightly worse in soundstage or detail or whatever would have absolutely zero meaning to me. however if the reviewer compares it a more common DAC that i or a majority of readers are familiar with, then any differences would have more meaning. wouldnt u say so?

 

[atothex]

Yes to the possibility of inexpensive stuff being great references. No to "common" stuff being better references when used as the constants in a comparison. Reference stuff really ideally should be high end. Taken to the logical extreme, an iPhone would be a very common and familiar source, but I'm not putting too much stock on an M3 vs B22 shootout using iPod as source.
 
A Dacmagic is probably fine in this application, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're actually hearing really good stuff like M3/B22 or LCD2/HD800 at their best. I actually think a general lack of source quality on HF is why so many people complain about "bassless" K701s or HD800s or AD2000s, but that's kinda irrelevant/tangential.