Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

Below is a great review, both objectively (measurements) and subjective (listening). Plus a very detailed description of all the technical aspects. To me, this is how all reviewers should be in the perfect world. A little outdated in terms of current pricing of the speakers.

 

And before you slam me about posting Audioholics stuff, note this NOT a “review “ from that clown Gene 😂

You are correct. Audioholics speaker reviews by Feinstein are excellent and include moderate priced high end products. He ended up with my second system speaker, the newest version of the Legacy Signature SE.

I think it is interesting to see measurements and compare them with subjective impressions, especially my own. If something sounds pleasing to me, or doesn't, I'd like to learn more about why that is whenever possible. What parameters of sound reproduction really matter to me?  If it turns out it is added distortion that I like, that's good to know! What bothers me is when a claim is made that something sounds good because it doesn't have some particular distortion when measurements clearly show that it does. That claim needs to be reconsidered. They should just say it sounds really good for some reason and it's added distortion. I for one think that any added distortion like that should be on the recording itself, or in an effects box that can add it or subtract it to each listener's desire. Ideally dacs, streamers, amps, preamps and the cables connecting them should all sound neutral and the same. That's my ideal. That part should be under control and a known quantity. I think it is not only possible but is actually frequently achieved by moderately priced equipment that is properly engineered. I know some people will swear up and down that they can hear a difference between all these inexpensive devices but I'm convinced it is a lot harder than they think when they don't get to know which device they are listening to. Neutral may not sound the way people want it to and that's fine. From there they can adjust using known parameters which are repeatable using an effects box with adjustments. Mixing and matching using cables, amps, and sources as effects boxes on purpose is a really messy, uncontrolled and expensive way of solving the problem. But if people enjoy that method or feel it's unavoidable because of their hearing abilities I'm not going to tell them to stop. I agree that ASR puts an awful lot of weight on measurements that are way beyond audible. But that fact it is mentioned and acknowledge frequently on the forum, even by Amir himself. Some people want to see where the state of the art is, and it is amazing how quiet and distortion free they can make equipment even at very moderate prices these days. If anyone can show new measurements that reveal how the expensive equipment is really outperforming the moderately priced stuff I'm very open to it. If some amp or streamer or other electronic audio device is readily preferred by a vast majority of listeners under blind testing but there's no measurement known to indicate why, that would be fascinating. Nothing of the sort is going on out there that I know of.

@asctim 

"I agree that ASR puts an awful lot of weight on measurements that are way beyond audible. But that fact it is mentioned and acknowledge frequently on the forum, even by Amir himself."

 

Yes, they do acknowledge this, and it's quite unfair to portray them as unflinchingly rigid in their opinions. Amir himself is not above apologising for mistakes. They do call themselves Audio Science Review.

 

 

"Some people want to see where the state of the art is, and it is amazing how quiet and distortion free they can make equipment even at very moderate prices these days.

If anyone can show new measurements that reveal how the expensive equipment is really outperforming the moderately priced stuff I'm very open to it."

 

Me too.

 

"If some amp or streamer or other electronic audio device is readily preferred by a vast majority of listeners under blind testing but there's no measurement known to indicate why, that would be fascinating.

Nothing of the sort is going on out there that I know of."

 

Me neither.

 

Of course ASR are not the only ones taking the logical scientific approach to assessing playback performance.

Audioholics and Erin's Audio Corner on YouTube are just 2 such examples of this welcome trend to combine data analysis and subjective listening.

 

If you're in the business of selling audio products you really need to accept which way the wind is blowing.

ASR isn't suggesting that folks shouldn't buy more expensive equipment if that's what they want, just as long as they aren't being deceived that they're getting better playback performance.

 

People are free to spend their money as they see fit. If you want a more powerful amp, or more features, better build quality, reliability, customer service etc then these are all valid reasons to spend more.

There should be no need for deception, manipulation, betrayal of trust etc.

 

 

The subjective/listening component of equipment valuation is 100% necessary.  Use of measurements only is limited to what it is that is measured.   Since there are no "scientific" measurements for many sonic/music factors, measurements are only a starting point in evaluation. 

 

To those of us who vehemently believe that cables can determine sound quality of a system as does a speaker, beyond their use as "tone controls," there are no scientific measurements which delineate why they sound a certain way.  They are also system dependent.  Quality of manufacture is perhaps, one of the strongest measurable components of a cable.  I am a believer yet I cannot "prove" why my cabling sounds so good in my system.   I've tried my cables in multiple systems, sometimes they are just as great (especially on more modern and high end systems) and sometimes they don't perform as well as expected (on friends mid-fi but good equipment).  

Speakers are much easier to scientifically measure than cabling at this point.