The Audio Science Review (ASR) approach to reviewing wines.

@mdalton I sense a bit of disappointment in you in that I only responded to the dac section. I’ll talk about the power conditioner part here. I’ll do you a good one.

The Puritan 156. A HIGHLY beloved product among audiophiles. How does Amir measure it? Well let’s quote Amir himself.

Conclusions
As you see, I have run a number of tests to give the PSM156 ample opportunity to show it can do something to improve audio but it can’t even move the dial one hair. There is no indication or logic that would tell us that it can make an audible improvement. Yet the company says this in the feature list of this product:

The only thing reliable about ASR is severe inconsistencies, which is exactly what good measurements avoid.

Calling ASR a cult and selling snakeoil is out of good conscience, a very accurate description.

@samureyex 

Think you may have intended your post referencing the Dave for someone else.  I don’t have one.

Regarding your post about the Puritan, you left out what mattered in Amir’s conclusions, which contained no inconsistencies.   Here’s the full conclusion: 

“Conclusions
As you see, I have run a number of tests to give the PSM156 ample opportunity to show it can do something to improve audio but it can't even move the dial one hair. There is no indication or logic that would tell us that it can make an audible improvement. Yet the company says this in the feature list of this product:
 

None of these things is observed in the measurements. 

The device however seems to have real filtering in there as opposed to toy implementation we see in other audio devices. So if you have audible mains related interference that is above a few hundred Hertz, then the PSM156 may have an effect.

As an audio fidelity improvement device, I can't recommend the Puritan Audio PSM156.  As a mains filter in general, it seems to be well built and does a far better job than typical consumer gear sold for this purpose.”

@oberoniaomnia

If you can not hear the difference between the Topping and the Holo May, then I am pleased for you as you do not need to spend more money to get far better sound.
I, on the other hand, think Topping sounds really harsh in the mid level, particularly with female voices. I found it grating after 20 minutes. As I listen to a lot of classical music as opposed to doof doof, there was no way that I would ever buy a Topping.
I am glad yours is still operating. You are aware of the poor quality control that even many ASR members complain about?

@laoman His (oberoniaomnia) post just proves ASR measurements make no sense. 99% of R2R Dacs measure terrible vs the Delta-Sigma Topping dacs.

For him to even say the Topping and Holo May are more or less equal is just wild. Because the measurements wouldn’t support his statement. Keep in mind how good his Topping D50 v.3 measures. It should on paper, poop all over the Holo May.

I’ve previously stated the Topping D90se (previous Topping flagship and a measurement beast) is subjectively bad.

1) Small soundstage

2) Very poor actual dynamic range. Let’s say you have 10 different sound in the Loud range, 1-10. The Topping can only do 5-6-7 for all 10. The same for problem for soft notes.

3) Poor spaciousness. Lack of air and space between instruments. The small soundstage makes it worse.

4) A very homogenized and boring sound. Because of #1 #2 and #3, Most instruments and notes have similar loudness, It just sounds very similar tracks after tracks. At the end of the listening session It would feel like 1 very long track.

5) Flat dimensionality. Clarity is high but transparency is low. Everything is upfront,

Compared it to my old Anedio D2 dac ($1,200) at the time. The Anedio is leaps better in every aspect, except vocal’s warmth. If I didn’t pay for the Topping myself I would’ve thought it was a $300 dac. All of these are subjectively bad traits in audio. Congrats to D90se for being a measurement beast and sounding the way it does.