2. tech-talk
  3. 179565-17492

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
henry53's avatar
henry53
280 posts
 

Measurement out of context is not science it's merely a number.

nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,836 posts
 

Why don’t we call it a draw and go out for ice cream...🍧

  • what flavor?
  • what make?
  • how much?
  • what kind of dish?
  • cold or hot spoon to dish it out?
  • toppings?

Just saying....

All the best,
Nonoise

 

thecarpathian's avatar
thecarpathian
4,359 posts
 

Good one! 😄

axo1989
105 posts
 

@crymeanaudioriver

this is just one of many posts where you are trying to put forth that you have technical chops

"The part I asked you to respond to was your statement that my "takeaway" after amplifier listening was contrary to audio (and psycho-acoustic) research. The points I re-iterated were quite sound, but I was interested in your counterpoint (as opposed to your talking points)."

Bizarre gasllighting again: you interpret a considered opinion to be a claim to a technical qualification?

But by your own admission, you are just legal/regulatory

Reading comprehension: I certainly didn’t say "just" I said "not accounting".

the comment I made w.r.t. to "gift" is tax law

Moving the goalposts: material consideration and any conflict of interest arising isn’t tax law, it’s transparency (which is important to regulatory and trade practice law).

they are already many steps above others from an optics stand point.

Whataboutism—"what about those other reviewers, hey?"—is a logical fallacy, obviously. ASR makes special claims to ethical behaviour, I’m recommending transparency to support those claims. Interpreting this as "an attack" is typical of the defensiveness from ASR that many here experience and commented on. As noted, the moderator who did this in the ASR thread apologised. That’s open to you here also.

the review that Amir provides ... is of far more value, monetarily, to the company that provides the product, so the concept of "gift" is questionable

I give you something, you give me something. Absolutely a material consideration. And as you describe it, now you are supporting the material consideration argument and suggesting a quid pro quo! You have no idea what you are saying, do you? 😂

 

 

axo1989
105 posts
 

@thecarpathian

Why don’t we call it a draw and go out for ice cream...🍧

Great suggestion, and more enjoyable.

@nonoise

  • what flavor?
  • what make?
  • how much?
  • what kind of dish?
  • cold or hot spoon to dish it out?
  • toppings?

Just saying....

Haha, the argument would never end. 😅

More to discover