I was not there. @DMS was and apparently in that 1 million dollar room there was a difference in USB cables. So maybe he was drugged but I stand firm. Nobody needs an expensive USB cable. Just not a trash one either.
5 Likes
I mean you could just braid factory cables. 
If the ālookā is what someone wants.
The material might cost like few $ and little heat shrink and BOOOM = 2500$ power cable that actually works like it should with every standard.
I also enjoy The Next Best Thing Studio, but they usually do only really high-end stuff
1 Like
Thank you for clarifying thisā¦ I was wondering about that for a while now.
1 Like
z explicitly says āblur my face pleaseā
maybe paul thought it was a joke lolā¦ idk
zās face is all over the internet anywayā¦ it was just a thought i had and idk, i kinda feel bad
2 Likes
Metal quits- sad to hear it. His q&a live streams been quite funny in the last months and there are a few very good reviews out on his channel. Not that we shared the same taste.
Good for him I suppose
3 Likes
He is not my go-to reviewer, but I like his take on headphones.
Despair not. What he says he is quitting is only the production of formal reviews. What he is doing is:
- not killing the channel
- taking a few-month break from YT content creation
- continuing to post on Twitter
- in future, likely doing informal reviews in a live chat format and resuming his live chat Q&As
5 Likes
So now I know how z looks and it has doomed my mental picture of his face.
This is a really good Audiophiliac video. Not reviewing anything other than ourselves. 
3 Likes
Andrew has a new channel
2 Likes
^^^^^THIS
If I could give you a thousand likes for that I would. You have to get reviews from multiple sources, even those you donāt like/agree with. These reviewers are all giving their honest opinions on the equipment in front of them. I personally donāt like a few of the reviewers that have been mentioned in here (wont say if people thought they were good or bad) but I still see what they have to say about any given product Iām interested in because I want to see what the takeaways are. Not all reviewers are going to cover the same info and some might introduce new information you didnāt know or think about. Itās your responsibility to be an informed buyer. If you decide to listen to only one or two reviewers you may get burnt on an item that they liked but you hate.
6 Likes
Interesting thread, I agree with many about the most popular youtubers.
One I really canāt stand is Oluvās (ex clavinetjunkie), but in a very personal way. I donāt even care if his test are accurate, he is so rude, unpleasant and whiny that all he does is just nullified by being himself.
I remember reading this poor guy asking in the comments if Oluv could test some songs, he replied something like ānobody listen to that crapā. I was like wtf? He basically listen the shittiest muzak on earth, still he has the courage to call crap to others. He is very obnoxious and irritating, I donāt understand why all the positive comment by his courtesans.
On the other side: I didnāt read anything about Crinacle, what do you think? I mostly read on his website and his reddit, since it has only 3 or 4 videos on youtube, but I sorta like him even though is very measurement oriented.
4 Likes
Iām liking Andrew Robinson on YouTube
1 Like
I thought those tests and comments Oluv made where ridiculous. There are some reviewers where i wonder if their just suffering hearing loss. Heās one i think would be good to stay away from
1 Like
I pretty much give anybody a chance, but I think Oluv needs to get his ears checked. I canāt take him serious, I just canāt. He has said so many preposterous things that I really canāt, and I try to give everybody a chance.
2 Likes
Heās a lovely guy, always positive, always enthusiast, itās a pleasure watch his videos really.
Iāll throw out a name I have mixed feelings on: Mark Waldrep. Heās not technically a reviewer, but he does blog a lot about the state of HD or hi-res audio, market influences around those, and his own record label. Today he had a column on audiophilereview.com discussing āThe Truthā about HD audio. This column is not the only column or blog post in which he does so. Heās a bit of an evangelist type on this subject, truth be told. He advocates strongly for HD audio at the recording and production stage, but advocates even more strongly for HD audio NOT being important for the end listener. He also frequently challenges the marketing many audio companies do to promote their products and HD audio. In some of his blog posts, he goes so far as to call companies who promote HD as āscheistersā. My issue here is not so much in shining light on dishonest marketing - that clearly happens and needs to be called out (he is rightly on Amazonās case for marketing redbook CD quality as āHDā, for example). I object to how Waldrep will turn around and play the victim when confronted on the terms he chooses to use to describe audio companies he deems to be doing this inappropriate marketing. There was a blog post in particular where Waldrep took offense to a cable manufacturer calling him ānasty.ā It frustrates me that itās ok for him to publicly refer to several companies and their employees as āscheistersā but then he has to spend an entire blog post lamenting how he was called ānasty.ā
Currently Waldrep is conducting in a study to see if listeners can reliably discern the difference between 24-bit/96KHz and 16-bit/44.1KHz audio. This study is actually the second iteration the same. I participated in what was likely the pilot study. In my participation, there was a readily audibly apparent difference between the two*. Waldrep was then, and is now, very vocal about his hypothesis that listeners will not be able reliably discern between the two formats. Given the consistency and tone that Waldrep takes when stating this hypothesis publicly, I have concern about his objectivity in conducting such a study. He seems very prone to confirmation bias. My own ability to perceive the difference betweent he filetypes consistently, and on very modest equipment*, also makes me very uncomfortable with the ease with which he labels companies selling HD audio products as āscheisters.ā
*The difference I noticed between the redbook and HD tracks was primarily in the spatial presentation. The 24/96 tracks had a wider soundstage and placed instruments and vocals within that soundstage more naturally - not necessarily more accurately - but more naturally. The perceived sonic image positions on the 16/44.1 tracks was more aggressive; they gave an impression of āhere I am! right here!ā The same images on the 24/96 tracks were every bit as accurate in terms of perceived location, but less āhere I am!ā - creating a more seemless and natural soundfield, IMO. There is almost 0 perceptible difference for things like tonality or timbre. For reference, I did this test using M1060 headphones powered by a DAC-X6 and with a Denon AVR-2313CI AVR powering Def Tech SM-55 speakers and a Dayton sub kit in 2.1 mode. I did the headphone and speaker testing 1 week apart.
3 Likes
Totally agree.
Tisk, tisk. Itās funny how you put BGGR on your recommended list as he threatens physical harm on people. And you enjoy Zeosāwho shills products for a living. I recall you commented on my channel before, and couldnāt provide any rationale basis or factual support for your particular beliefs. This is a good list, however, to help understand your very peculiar views. Good on you!