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

1) Failure to understand Klippel measurements

Are you referring to Danny Ritchie claiming this? It took 5 minutes to find engineers taking apart Danny for his lack of knowledge of how Klippel works.  If you mean his Magnepan test I cannot comment and neither has Magnepan.

 

2) Poor testing methodology - eg the tests conducted on the Chord M Scaler

Poor how? The unit does not so anything when connected to a half decent DAC. It's output is very jittery.

 

3) Failure to read user manuals about tolerances before engaging in testing

Tolerances of what? You are really reaching here.

 

4) Testing cables for interference when they are not plugged in to anything

 

Took me a bit longer to understand this, but your comment is false. He tested unconnected to examine shielding and then connected it.

 

5) Not checking if the samples sent are "cherry picked"

In this topic Amir stated that most of what he tests comes from listeners.

 

6) A refusal to take responsibility for recommendations when the product quality is not satisfactory eg Topping.

 

You have both made up a failure rate for topping and no review site does. This is a ludicrous attempt to discredit.

 

7) Conducting speaker listening tests based on 1 speaker only ( I do not care what he says about the validity of this, as this is nonsense)

 

It is not that you don't care it is that you are not qualified to make this comment. I read the paper posted. Makes total sense.

 

8) Reliance on Sinad rather than use industry standard "THD" and "S/N ratio when this an old and arguably inefficient method of measurement.

 

Flat out incorrect. Have you even read any review on ASR? There are pages of measurements. IMD, SINAD, THD. Many different test levels and frequencies.

 

9) Listening at ridiculously high volumes eg on the Focal Clear headphones at 115 db. Are you serious??

 

Another flat out misrepresentation. Did you even read the review?

 

10) The farcical review of HiFiMan Ananda headphones where he was simply way off beam.

 

Farcical how? Do you own it and he disagrees?

 

 

@laoman I will give you the benefit of the doubt  that most of this list is not your own.  It was not hard, even at my knowledge level to tear apart your list.

 

1) Failure to understand Klippel measurements

Example would be nice.

2) Poor testing methodology - eg the tests conducted on the Chord M Scaler

How so? I’ve read the test.

4) Testing cables for interference when they are not plugged in to anything

Not sure about this, if you're referring to power cable the cable was plugged into the wall receptacle.

7) Conducting speaker listening tests based on 1 speaker only ( I do not care what he says about the validity of this, as this is nonsense)

This is your opinion, which is fine but there is testing which supports using one speaker.

This whole thread makes me chuckle. Thinly veiled disciples of a cult “subjectively” preaching to a crowd of those who know better…then when the preaching doesn’t work they continue to sermonize with neither an invitation nor a rational purpose for continuing.

 

Amir seems like a sincere guy and his niche is his to do with as he pleases. Good for him and for those who hang on his every word. Why isn’t it a good strategy for those still hinged to just grab a cup of coffee and ignore the unhinged disciples until they hop back into their ‘88 Civics with the grapefruit shooter mufflers and return to Toppingville?

I see you have nothing to add but cheap insults @ghasley?

 

The rejection of science here is akin to fanaticism.