- Joined
- Jul 14, 2019
- Messages
- 71
- Likes
- 198
Yep still listed Here
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Review and Measurements of Purifi 1ET400A Amplifier
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
What is the price? Can't see on the website...
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
- Messages
- 937
- Likes
- 1,445
The FA122 seems to be a major improvement over other, similarly feature-packed products like the PS Audio Sprout 100 -- but as pure amplification, it's probably indistinguishable from any number of Chinese-built "chip amps" built around one of the more recent TI Class D ICs, at least when used with typical "entry-level" bookshelf speakers, e.g. Elac, Klipsch, Polk, etc. IMO, at such relatively modest power levels, those dirt-cheap monolithic Class D chips deliver much more bang for the buck than OEM modules from Hypex, IcePower, et al. The FA122 would probably cost half of its current price if its output stages were built around a few TAS5630s instead of Hypex modules -- and deliver roughly equivalent performance through the aforementioned modest speakers.
HiFiSoundFarts
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
- Messages
- 66
- Likes
- 15
Yes but as long as they like could still not be long enough as most people would give up fairly quickly.
Also, there is still no way to know what is being measured as these test could just be showing how adept the brain is at filtering out extraneous sensory input so as not to overwhelm our conscious ability to focus.
The human brain is limited in processing ability which also limits our conscious awareness of sensory input which then put limits on what these test can effectively determine with such relatively short exposure.
The other side if the coin is that there is no possible way for humans to remember an exact copy of what they heard with limited exposure to the level of minute detail that would be required to differentiate between the two audio samples.
Then you must consider the impossibility of being able to remember exactly what the first audio sample sounded like while you are listening to the second audio sample with such limited exposure.
A lot of people on this forum discredit subjective listening by audio equipment owners for the same reasons that can and should be even more discrediting to double blind listening test.
At least with subjective test owners are able to be intimately familiar with an audio system for years in the same room. Then when they change one aspect, like an amplifier, and hear a difference, either negative or positive they will either keep the amplifier or return the amplifier.
If there are enough owners that keep the same piece of equipment it is because they believe the amplifier is worth the money based on their subjective opinion.
The product then becomes commercially successful and the free market has effectively determined whether there is a real value to percieved audio merits of said amplifier.
This free market determination has to be far more believable than any double blind test given the inherent limitations to such test.
How else would the quality of audio equipment have improved over the last 40 years without the money generated by audio products that are successful in the free market? No money equals no incentive to improve products just like in any other industry.
Maybe people here react with disbelief because they accept what they are told based on the logic and theory of electronics while completely ignoring the science and theory of how the brain perceives and interpretes audio sensory information, while also ignoring the economic theory of free market enterprise?
Last edited:
"The wisdom of the mob" May or may not be correct. Mobs are notoriously suggestible as are most individuals.
Test equipment is not.
Test equipment is not.
No, ASR and its ilk take psychoacoustic s very seriously, and that’s why we are skeptical...nay pedantic..about Separating what is audible sound and the horribly muddled world of subjective listener perception.
The market measures preference, not *strictly audible qualities”. People don’t like expensive wristwatches because they tell time better, and people don’t like high end audio strictly because it *sounds better*. There are lots of markets where successful products aren’t best suited to task. And that is what is important to us, and what we expect when people say “it sounds better, and I can hear it”.
It’s interesting that most of your preceding remarks underscore how important rapid, unsighted, level-matched comparisons are. While reading your description, I couldn’t stop thinking about the actual evidence regarding audio memory. Pay close attention to the part about taking the black box home and inserting it in their own system, and whether that worked better than immediate comparison:
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/
Furthermore, consider that all of a 0.2db volume change can make a component sound better (Not to mention the Fletcher-Munson loudness changes). Do you think these swapped-in components level-matched?
When people compare without scientific control, over long periods of time, they open themselves up to these biases of bling, expectation, as well as the issues of variable gain, mood, situation, and positioning.
When I read your words with these facts in mind, it almost sounds like you are talking yourself into the ASR point of view.
We should not dress up subjective preference as if it were automatically an audible improvement in accuracy of the equipment. More often than not, it isn’t. We want to know what is *strictly audible*. And once we do, we are, indeed, amused by the ways we humans fool ourselves. Although people are more than welcome to their preferences. After all, most people look at their equipment, right between the speakers (agains advice) while they listen. that must be meaningful.
But we certainly shouldn’t give credence or status to unscientific nonsense claims by high end manufacturers. That is a bridge too far.
Last edited:
HiFiSoundFarts
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
- Messages
- 66
- Likes
- 15
If a product is commercially successful because enough people find value in said product then there is no stronger evidence as to the value of said product.
If people do not like a product they return the product or do not buy the product.
Why does it matter otherwise except for esoteric musings as to why a product has value to customers? There are many intangible aspects of all types of products in all industries where the whole product is greater than the sum of it's parts.
Last edited:
Note that you said “value”. Fine. But not, in this case, *strictly audible qualities”. The market says little or maybe nothing about that. Market preference and fit to specific criteria are two very different things. Consider the discoveries of behavioral science, and how humans take a distorted measure of utility.
I love markets; I make a great living in markets. But be very careful what markets do and don’t tell you. At what point was GE correctly valued? Are cigarettes good for you? Is WeWork correctly valued? Is Claritin a better antihistamine than CVS-generic Loratidine? Does a Patek Phillipe tell better time? These are not “esoteric musings”, they are important, potentially life-improving questions.
We care about AUDIBLE. not bling. Not status. Not sunk costs. Not the preservation of our egos after a hasty decision.
I can feel you coming over to the objective side. Don’t resist. It can save you a lot of money. And it makes all of this more fun. Begone pompous salesman with the expensive watch and the “20% better interconnects”. Begone snobby Golden Ears! Begone with your pseudo-quantum theories of fuses and directionality. They are not AUDIBLE, whether reasonable or fanciful. If they were, you would happily demonstrate it-without the volume remote in your pocket.
UPDATE: More and more about this in this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...or-audio-thrive-in-a-competitive-market.9468/
Last edited:
digicidal
Major Contributor
Yep... cigarettes, soda, whole-life insurance, extended warranties, mortgage-backed securities, annuities, exotic power cords... solid values all.
@ahofer beat me to the punch!
I presume those HiFiSoundFarts are being issued from Taylor Swift's ass... because she's the greatest value in music apparently.
You are equating value with sound quality. People at ASR value sound quality very highly. General consumers do not. Commercial success does not equal good sound quality, it does not even mean it's a good product, it might just mean that the advertising and marketing was successful. Popularity has never equaled quality.
One more thing: “value” may include some inaudible characteristics, as we’ve agreed (I think). Features, for instance, or appearance. But the market-clearing price and volume at any given time are certainly not the full measure of value.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,137
- Likes
- 1,504
This suggests a new test. Hook L speaker to amp A & R speaker to amp B. Match levels, of course. Both mono & stereo signals could be useful here.
I suspect that many amp pairings would display differences smaller than the speaker matching.
I think value is different from sound quality. Value is not strictly connected to the product performance: I own a couple of Benchmark pieces and while there is no question about sound quality and top measurements (and I am a very happy owner) I'd probably willing to pay more for the same product in a different case with a design that better suits my aesthetic taste (like if there was an option to remove the gigantic signature or put the actual hardware in one of the cases that Nord use and btw are made in Italy)
The watches example is perfect: a cheap quartz Casio will tell the time like an expensive Patek, actually the Casio will be more accurate.
The watches example is perfect: a cheap quartz Casio will tell the time like an expensive Patek, actually the Casio will be more accurate.
digicidal
Major Contributor
From the research I've done... I think some of those conversations were nearly word-for-word.
Although considering what counts as "sufficient reserve liquidity" these days - we might be looking back on CDO's as a reasonably safe option again some day soon.
“ I think value is different from sound quality.”.
Yes. I have explicitly acknowledged this throughout. But the whole discussion prior, and true entire scope of disagreement, was about sound quality-the possibility of a strictly audible difference in the face of similar measurements.
As for CDOs- a bit O.T., but it ain’t the wrapper, it’s what is inside, and the leverage that counts. I buy lots of structured product. I turn my nose up at lots too, based on the quality of the underlying collateral and sufficiency of the enhancement and terms.
Hmm. That’s less O.T. than I originally thought, isn’t it?
Yes. I have explicitly acknowledged this throughout. But the whole discussion prior, and true entire scope of disagreement, was about sound quality-the possibility of a strictly audible difference in the face of similar measurements.
As for CDOs- a bit O.T., but it ain’t the wrapper, it’s what is inside, and the leverage that counts. I buy lots of structured product. I turn my nose up at lots too, based on the quality of the underlying collateral and sufficiency of the enhancement and terms.
Hmm. That’s less O.T. than I originally thought, isn’t it?
The economic theory here is that of monopolistic competition. Turn a homogeneous good into something unique, and there is profit to be made. This is what small players in the audio market have to try because they do not stand a chance to compete on price. The value of ASR is that it shows these claims for what they are.
...and a rare few actually come up with something innovative that offers better sound quality and/or a lower overall cost. Bruno Putzey’s Class D modules are a case of at least the latter.
I tend to think that if they measure the same probably they sound the same. If they sound different and measure the same the only explaination would be some sort of voodoo unlike we buy the "audiophile" theory that sound quality depends of factors that you can't measure (like voodoo). I'd rather stick with physics.
Similar threads
- Poll
