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


"Audiophiles are Snobs"  Youtube features an idiot!  He states, with no equivocation,  that $5,000 and $10,000 speakers sound equally good and a $500 and $5,000 integrated amp sound equally good.  He is either deaf or a liar or both! 

There is a site filled with posters like him called Audio Science Review.  If a reasonable person posts, they immediately tear him down, using selected words and/or sentences from the reasonable poster as100% proof that the audiophile is dumb and stupid with his money. They also occasionally state that the high end audio equipment/cable/tweak sellers are criminals who commit fraud on the public.  They often state that if something scientifically measures better, then it sounds better.   They give no credence to unmeasurable sound factors like PRAT and Ambiance.   Some of the posters music choices range from rap to hip hop and anything pop oriented created in the past from 1995.  

Have any of audiogon (or any other reasonable audio forum site) posters encountered this horrible group of miscreants?  

fleschler

fleschler

If it hasn't been clear: my own approach is mostly like yours.  I always want to hear

gear for myself, rather than rely on measurements.  I think that is for me the most reliable method for getting satisfaction.

But, again for myself, I'd put things like tube amps and speakers in that category.

With so many manufacturers of cables, tweaks etc vying for my time and money, I find the information from places like ASR help inform my choices as to what is most likely worthwhile or not.

 

@prof  Early on, the Audiogon moderator shut down the site and I petitioned him/her to reopen it.  This led to some great posts by members and unfortunately, attacks from ASR members with Amir's I'm always right type comments (and we are wrong/delusional).  

I have all tube systems for over 50 years (which has evolved over time).  I had a tube output CD player for 15 years.  I now have an all solid state digital CD playback system.  I have heard outstanding solid state based systems.  I chose what sounds best and synergistic in my room(s) without breaking the bank.  My listening room   

As to Amir closing down threads unrelated to equipment discussion, he let his opposing forum go for about 291 posts on 15 pages.  Quite a long time in my opinion.   As to some other ASR forums, I noted that some of the few (post introduction/ban) I've read go far astray off topic into hunting, race car driving, drug use (that's where an anti-social comment was made about offing the neighbors), vacations, etc., although usually coming back on topic.  It is just not illuminating for me to read.  ASR apparently would not inform me of equipment choices (including cables and tweaks) that would be consonant with my current listening preferences.

Every week on Saturday, I view Audiogon's latest and most popular posts, occasionally do a post or word search to find an interesting new topic.  

If I had to sum up why websites like ASR are not that interesting to me;

I would say firstly, they have an emphasis on low price gear, a segment I don't often shop in.

They have one mantra: If it's not measured, it's BS. Totally ignoring the scientific area of observation.

I am called an audiofool. 

Distinct bias against people of means.

Almost total lack of statement level equipment testing, unless it's something that measures poorly.

Little time actually spent listening and quantifying what is heard.

No respect for outside opinions. 

Websites like ASR could double their viewership if their approach allowed discussion and opinions outside their own belief system, but they could still present their rebuttal with their own emphasis on measured performance.  But not with the you're a crazy, audiofool, with sight and general biases that make your opinion worthless.  

  

@prof

So what do I do with the fact that I actually did audition a few Revel speakers (which were very competent sounding as predicted) and yet still heavily preferred the Devore? Well, it could be that I happen to be one of the outliers, and even in blind testing I’d select the Devores. Less likely, but possible.

I think that’s one of the interesting things about listening to gear (especially speakers). We have the standard measurements for frequency response (FR) on and off-axis, which are a foundation of Harmon research and a staple of Stereophile Reviews. We have the Kippel robotic measurement systems automating that process and outputting various results, including CEA2034 with its implicit room model, reflection calculations, sound power and directivity indices.

Associated with these we have measurement of linear and non-linear distortions (harmonic, intermodulation and compression, for example).

Also part of Stereophile review and presented (albeit roughly and without as much understanding) by ASR we have time domain measurements, including step response and cumulative spectral decay. Some German magazines (I’ll have to refresh my memory) publish a spectrogram similar to the latter but somewhat different in its parameters and presentation.

Then there are supplementary measurements of attributes that may affect sonic presentation including cabinet vibration. And at the design level we have more sophisticated laser tools to study vibration and movement, along with mathematical models to predict and optimise behaviour of most design characteristics.

All of this stuff provides a wealth of information about speaker behaviour and performance and likely does tells us how they will sound. Except we as humans can’t integrate all of that meaningfully to get all the way there in terms of predictive sonics, so often we have surprises when we listen. We can also hear very subtle things—notably timing and timbre—that don’t stand out in measurements but affect our perception and enjoyment of sound.

Many STEM-educated people relate better to numbers than words, and within that category we have people who relate to numbers in two dimension (like the FR graph) versus three or four (like time domain and spatial behaviour of sound). Personally, I find FR-obsessives a bit dreary and unimaginative. But my personality and value type biases notwithstanding, there is the—entirely valid— argument that the all is captured in the sweep and the Fourier transform gives us both frequency and time domain information complete. Sure, but as a human I can’t read FR and see time. If we want to tease out subtle sonics we have to dive very deep into all the measurements (and a fair bit deeper than an ASR review). Of course many speaker designers do this.

That’s one very good reason why we listen. Our ear-brain integrates and perceives the sonics. And naturally, our musical taste affect our reproduction preferences and vice versa. But there’s no need for the self-flagellating, judgemental argument ad lazarum of our friends at ASR. If we practice, do our best to avoid subjective listening pitfalls and avoid telling ourselves fairy tales, we can hear meaningfully and use both measurements and subjective listening to assemble gear that gives us enjoyable sound.