Audio Science review speakers

There's endless topics here about AD/DA converters, speakers, headphones, what is better... As far as I understand he'll test things sent to him with an Audio Precision analyzer. He also has an elaborate system for testing speakers. Could be a good way for the community to get insight into how well some of the gear we talk about here measures.

The forum: //www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php
Example reviews:

Babyface Pro FS: //www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-review.12313/
Apollo X16 [sent to him by UA]: //www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-review.17649/

Before anyone asks why I don't do this, I'm not in the US so it would be a massive hassle for everyone.

They are completely meaningless in practice.

Unless you, for some bizarre reason, pick one compressor/preamp/converter/monitor over another for a given task because of how it measures? Yeah, no thanks.

No, I don't care how my Forssell measures, I care how it SOUNDS. I also don't care how my NS-10m's measure - they're probably terrible and that's the point - because it's the way they SOUND that informs my mixes and therefore aids in translation. Same thing with my ATC SCM45A's, I could've gone a number of directions at that price range and the ATC's FELT right out of all the others I demo'ed. "This sounds great but can you pull up the TND+N Ratio vs Frequency @ 48 kHz [90 kHz BW] chart before we continue?" Never happening. Likewise I don't think anyone is dumping their Apollo X16 because the Lynx HILO's ADC SINAD value is 4 points higher. Give me a break.

And I don't mean to trash your thread, I just think it ain't worth the trouble because what I would guess most of us actually do here is let the music move us.

I wasn't really advocating that anybody replaces the gear they like with something else based on marginal measured improvement. Most of threads here are by people who are looking to buy something new, so it seems that having a baseline set of standardized measurements would be useful. Especially with pro audio technology, you buy things based on what it can do. E.g. people who buy RME and Universal Audio interfaces might have different priorities. What he is doing just tells you that the technical performance is, well technically correct.

I suggest listening to the interview I posted. I don't think he would necessarily disagree that much with you.

Well that's not really the question for the gear manufacturers, is it? It's your responsibility as a consumer to make sure you provide the most optimal settings for the gear that you own if you are trying to min/max. It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to fix your room. And to be fair, room response follows basic laws of physics and is relatively easy to calculate and troubleshoot. As far as inspiration goes, we can all agree that it's highly subjective. Quite often it comes down to look & feel, not so much about the audio output.

It then comes down to simple question: in optimal settings [which you can always improve in your spare time] and in optimal mood, which gear is going to perform better? "Better" should be quantifiable, e.g. broader frequency range, higher signal-to-noise ratio, faster transients etc.

I've read a few of their reviews recently, mainly for monitors, and initially throught they were going to be helpful. I don't understand all the technicalities, so spent a bit of time reading the summaries and some of the comments.

In the end I came to a personal conclusion that the reviews were angled from a different viewpoint from what I needed. This was mainly because at least one of the positive reviews were for monitors which sounded good for general listening, while others which are sometimes used in studios [I think an older ATC and Amphion] were criticised for poorer measurements. I think reviews can be helpful, but it's always best to hear things for oneself.

There was also their review of the Little Labs Monotor, including a response by Jonathon of Little Labs at around page 3 of the thread [basically saying to not always solely look at the specs when buying audio gear]. I have a Monotor, and while it's definitely not the best choice for all headphones, I think it meets its design brief well.

I'm not sure how that is relevant? Forum is run by a knowledgeable guy with an excellent audio analyzer. He tests various audio gear and publishes the data with his interpretation.

My point with this thread is that the things you bring up [Is burl a con-job marketing effort? Is some chifi dac better than the dac in a metric halo interface] could be settled more easily [from a technical point of view] if that gear was tested independently in a standard way.

First, only certain types of gear will be candidates. Someone said "compressor", but of course amirm is not going to be testing non-linear devices. Amps, converters, monitors, headphones. Generally stuff that is more about accuracy than "character"these are things that benefit from measurement.

I have to add that a huge plus over decades ago is spinorama data, such as amirm/ASR can test and provide. It does tell you something about how a speaker will sound in your room. In the old days, a frequency response chart from the manufacturer was not a good indicator of whether the speaker was likely to sound good. Now, you can know beforehand whether a speaker is likely to have serious port resonance issues, whether powered monitors might not play loud enough for your situation, etc.

Measurements are helpful to narrow the fieldyou may have minimum requirements for low frequency response, for instance. This isn't about "sounding good"a speaker can sound good without extended low frequency response, but if you need that response, that speaker is probably not for you.

Measurements can also add to the field you're considering. You may dismiss a product as being too cheap to consider, or feel like overpaying "just to be safe", with the assumption it must be better. But if you see that something that fits your budget might be indistinguishable from the budget-busters, based on measurements, you might take a closer look, check some reviews, try to audition.

A similar thing with upgrades"I love my xxxx and it's served me well, but I need to move up to something with a lower noise floor" [better bass response, better midrange response].

Also, there is no expectation that measurements will be the sole criterion for picking a productno one here is going to do thatjust more info. I might be in the market for a new interfaceI'm not going to pick it based on numbers, but if I'm considering RME/Antelope/UA/others, I'd like to see how they all test just to make sure I don't have to eliminate one due to poor design/performance. I'm not going to be able to audition any of these in a reasonable manner, and the ADC and DAC aspects are importantI want to know that they were diligent in design.

My Studio

100%

I'm glad ASR exists and there's plenty of useful info and perspective to be found there. I put together a very cheap, very good sounding stereo system informed in part by some threads over there. And I ended up replacing the amp I was using for my NS-10's with a very cheap chinese class D amp as a byproduct of putting that together.

But for most of the gear being talked about here, the kinds of measurements being looked at over there are almost completely irrelevant to how useful stuff is as music making tools.

I enjoy it for what it is. ASR provides me insight to how things measure, and this is useful information because it helps me make a more informed decision when purchasing gear based on how well it performs. If "It doesnt matter how it measures, it matters how it sounds" then i'd just get a pair of expensive speakers with tons of bass and crystal clear treble that hypes things. But that isn't what im looking for. Im looking for accuracy, and thats what the measurements provide. How accurate these DAC designs perform. How it measures, dictates how it sounds...so saying "I dont care how my Forsell or NS10m measures" is kind of short sighted. There is a reason NS10m monitors are good, it's the sealed cabinet and glued paper woofers dictate how the speaker resonates. The design is part of the sound. The measurement tests the design. If you're not into it, thats fine...but to say measurements are useless...that's wrong. It's like saying science is useless.

For instance, is it useless to know the ingredients of your favorite dish? What makes it taste good? Is it the seasoning? The type of charcoal or wood? The age of the meat? The region where those vegetables were grown? The province that Parm is from? There are reasons why things are, and to say these reasons are useless...that's just......kinda dumb.

My Studio

[quoted from a test to which the op linked]

...which makes these 'tests' about as useless as unboxing videos: i find reporting of some relatively easy-to-measure specs useless other than to scare away stupid marketing-speech.

My Studio

Is this not an overly-utilitarian view, though? If it doesn't apply to functionality [at least in the mean time], then it's 'useless'?

There are countless examples across numerous disciplines where information that was once considered superfluous to functionality/applicability then becomes the driving force for a new discipline/application. Even where the interest grows wildly parochial, its influence is still felt... somewhere.

For example, the interest this video has engendered in me has just encouraged me to sign up for a free foundational course in electronics. Though it might not in the immediate future practically find application in my songwriting and/or production work, it still has some value. At least to me.

The problem is not the measurements, is understanding them in the context of the design.

Some can see a problem if the frequency response cuts down at, let's say 24 KHz instead of 60Khz, others could see the advantage this provides preventing IMD distortion in the audible band down the road.

They tend to assume that, the more, the better, while sometimes is the other way around, in the end, it depends on the design.

Last edited by DanArt; 20th April 2021 at 02:42 PM.. Reason: clarifying

My Studio

imo there's only very limited value to what basic measurements can show you as any data needs to get judged, compared and interpreted, something which inexperienced folks cannot do and which these kinda tests for the most part cannot achieve either...

...so what i'd consider to be way more valuable would be to use the gear under real-world conditions, to compare it to contenders with roughly the same set of features and within the same price class and then relate to some cheapo and über-gear, to illustrate what's possible for less money and what makes the difference to more expensive gear.

[i admit that's me - glad the tests got you interested in electronics though]

My Studio

These are all fair points, and I totally understand.

Which other speaker , for example measurements would you like to see Amir make?
Keith

My Studio

NONE!

[besides microphones] speakers are amongst the most difficult gear to measure in the sense that their performance to a very large degree depends on the room they are into [and their position within that room]; worth noting that the data from measurements in anechoic chambers are already available from manufacturers...

...so i'm wondering what you would expect from yet another 'test'?

___


i find comparative listening tests, properly designed and conducted, to be WAY more informative - and be it just to confirm one's own prejudices :-] however, this is a completely different class of challenge...

To those whining and trolling about the idea of measurements - ignorance is bliss.

You can like gear without shouting down the concept of measurements. How do you think the gear you used got developed? Yeeeessh.

And it isnt a mutually exclusive thing. If you are assessing a piece of gear, measurements can help point your attention to things you DO hear, possibly bringing various aspects to attention faster.

My Studio

wait a minute: i did not say measurements per se are useless, on the contrary!

but the fact is that measurement data alone do not speak a language that is even approximately understood by laypersons or that there would be an agreement among experts regarding the evaluation and weighting, especially if the measurements and/or even the descriptions of the functions are relatively incomplete: every device is more than the sum of its measurements!

when i get to read these kinda 'tests', i don't even wanna imagine how results would look like in case somewhat more complex gear would get sent in for review...