Darko is very good at what he does. But he has close to no technical knowledge and is heavily into the extreme subjective camp.
As a result he will often promote technical falsehoods to back up his subjectivist claims. (See much of what he says in his video about “digital is analog”, which starts with a partial truth and then distorts it and makes untenable claims based on his lack of understanding).
Let’s face it: in audiophilia, if you are doing sighted listening comparisons, most of the differences you hear are going to be the result of expectation bias. That’s just how humans are wired. Audiophiles lie to themselves about this all the time.
I’ve got no problem with that, as long as they admit it. Admit you bought something expensive for the looks, the form factor, the features, the manufacturer’s reputation, etc. Don’t tell us you heard that big uptick in SQ with your sighted listening.
Can Darko really hear a difference between a RPi streamer and $1500 -$5000 streamers (all with a Pi board inside)? Maybe, maybe not. But we don’t know, b/c he never blind tests himself.
His video referenced by the OP is just his clever way of trying to avoid facing the truth, by saying everything is just personal preference, so none of it matters. It’s important to him, as that’s how he makes his living.
I think he is pretty good on reflection because he does approach it from a journo point of view and you can see he has a lot of his eye on the consumer. Plus he is a very good presenter
I disagree about bias - we are all trying to rate products
But the problem comes when there are two sponsors and two products where one is inferior to a significant degree. What do you do? Say it how it is and risk them pulling out or beat about the bush of - it’s your ears and trust them, so no concept of trust. We can all then see which is the lesser product when we try and the continual means of reviewing every product as great with no caveats is a huge warning sign. That then and should rightly erode consumer trust and confidence.
Personally I think we need some form of code as to how reviewers agree their reviews are undertaken and which the brands , who want to, comitt to. An association of honest hifi reviewers. I do think it’s bad in hifi which you don’t get in other more mass market industries, where you will find good journalistic opinion and get to the bottom of it somewhere. It comes down to trust, if people don’t believe it then the review is actually an anti message. With many reviews never extolling negatives in comparison to other products, and playing devils advocate for consumer interest, even though the product is a good one overall and doing so sells the USP of the product (not every product has a1 sonics in every area), the ability to gain trust is very heavily diminished.
I genuinely think that people don’t really believe hifi reviews. I asked on Facebook’ do you trust hifi reviews’ , and shared it to various positive groups. Around 1000 took part and just under 70% said no. Even the positive people who believe in upgrading etc, doubt the dealer/reviewer under the surface and have a big degree of scepticism. These are intelligent 45-65 year old people like me who are naturally tuned to noticing mistrust by their life experience. It would mean, for example, not saying a roon nucleus is an intel nuc at higher cost (I love roon software btw) will and should deride trust. You can then say it’s up to you if you think it value - all in one box etc, but at least the consumer has the info
Think of what could happen if trust in reviews and the industry was much better. The person buying the nucleus for what it is, is happy. What would that all do to buying power! I think it would be huge and it would also allow an element of true thought about best products leading to a more focused competitive commercial market which drives down price . The firms who have the best products like roon software or Hegel amps etc, will be thinking , yes bring it on. I can and should sell more, my price comes down. It also means brands have more confidence and place real value in journo reviews.
I watch Darko every time, but for the equipment porn, not for his beliefs.
It has alway been my observation that most reviewers have never met a piece of hardware that they didn’t love. It isn’t just about sponsorship. What company is going to give their product to an honest reviewer?
Bummer.
Glad to see you are still participating on this forum. I just watched your latest. Have you decided not to go live anymore?
BTW, Holo Audio May has been on my list for awhile.
He is missing a person like John Atkinson (of Stereophile). Often a reviewer noticed some artifact in the sound. Then John proved that he was listening to a resonance, to a panel that was not accurately damped, or a tweeter that doesn’t have the right dispersion or so. If you have no technical skills, you might doubt too much, thinking some things are deliberately put that way, that it was a designers choice, while it is just a serious flaw in a product.
Nowadays they also put too much emotion into the game. Audio electronics are “cold” products, there is no rocket science.nor voodoo in there, see the Benchmark or Topping amps, they just sound so good because they measure extremely well…one has to stay rational.
If you think your extremely well measuring amp spunds without emotion, just change the frequency response in the Roon dsp.
Carver could make a solid state amp sound like a tube amp on demand with a switch.
So I salute the new brands that do it the technical and not the marketing way: design amps and power supplies to the extreme using all there is nowadays. The proof is in the listening and the measuring (or in the not measuring any noise and distortion).
