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

@cd318 What have I repeated infinitum. I at least want manufacturers to post test measurements of their own rather than puffery or minimal specifications. Furthermore, high end cable and nearly all tweak manufacturers have no specs. That’s why I opened another forum.

Another thing, since when is older, used equipment to be dismissed in place of new equipment? For those who want great sound without breaking the bank, I strongly suggest good to high quality used equipment instead. This goes for amps, pre-amps, phono stages, SUTs, speakers and cabling. Why pay top dollar (or even bottom dollar) when there are ample alternatives. I made this point yesterday. No comments about it.

@prof You’re doing it again, twisting my words. Most music listeners (many friends who perform music as well) don’t care about measurements or audiophile equipment. If they like what they hear they will buy it. (Often, if they like what they see, buttons or nice finish, they may prefer that). You can’t change our minds refers to people hearing differences. We are not deluding ourselves although many audiophiles do have problems hearing and/or do not have sufficiently trained to hear or understand what differences there are to be heard. Dramatic differences can be heard by (nearly) everyone. Subtle differences are of course more difficult for most people. My golden ear friends are better than I am in ascertaining subtle differences but after 50+ years of listening to so many systems and making recordings, I am quite good at detecting and comprehending differences.  Dramatic differences are like hearing Disney Hall versus Dorothy Chandler or Wilson versus Magnapan speakers.  How about Bose versus Magicos?   That's how dramatic a digital cable change can be.  Amir hasn't heard it.  Sad!

@kota1 Loved your link. Great quote-Every scientific genius in history was been subjected to viscous derision by the scientific dogmatists of their generation who were often laughably wrong in retrospect. History is filled with examples and this debate of break-in/burn-in is no different.

Great quote-Every scientific genius in history was been subjected to viscous derision by the scientific dogmatists of their generation who were often laughably wrong in retrospect.

That is it though. They were scientific geniuses. You are not. Neither are all the detractors of science writing here on this topic, nor the cable vendors, nor the amp designers, nor designers of probably any of the audio equipment we buy. Those scientific geniuses and certainly all the ones from the last 50 years, all had one thing in common. Before they had their defining moment of genius, they already had a very strong theoretical background in their field of study/work. My plumber is not going to get lucky and perfect cold fusion, and my dentist is not going to cure cancer. Those advances do not happen in isolation, they happen because those geniuses studied the work of those who came before them, and to study that requires the knowledge and language to understand that prior effort. Ergo, it will be the user base of ASR who makes advances in audio, not the ones here.

@crymeanaudioriver Well that was stupid! How many actors have great inventions? Paul WInchell, Hedy Lamarr come to mind? No. Winchell became the first person to build and patent a mechanical artificial heart, implantable in the chest .Hedy Lamarr was an Austrian-American actress and inventor who pioneered the technology that would one day form the basis for today’s WiFi, GPS, and Bluetooth communication systems.

I am not a genius, but I am very smart from book learning and experience. Touche your greatness!

@fleschler

 

You can’t change our minds refers to people hearing differences.

Yes, that’s precisely what I thought you meant, and that is my point.

This is the dogmatism buried in to the pure subjective mode of vetting audio gear.

If you are of the "ASR" state of mind, you start of by immediately acknowledging our fallibility. You may perceive that the music signal is audibly changing between, say, two different USB cables.

But you will understand "I could be wrong. I’m fallible." So it STARTS with acknowledging I Could Be Wrong, and then appeals to ways in which you can find out you are wrong: For example if someone measures the signals from both USB cables and they are precisely the same. This is some evidence the signal was likely not changing at all. But if you want even further confirmation that the measurements aren’t missing something, you can do a blind test where you are truly relying on what you can hear (and not + what you can see). If you can’t detect any sonic difference, then you have a good basis for learning "Hey, looks like I was wrong in thinking one USB was altering the signal vs the other."

Similarly, if you are SKEPTICAL that, say, Amplifier A will sound audibly different from amplifier B, then you have ways of changing your mind there too. If someone presents measurable evidence that Amplifier A has distortion levels in the audible range and B doesn’t, then you have some evidence for changing your mind. And, again, blind tests in which the difference is reliably identified adds more evidence.

So from the ASR point of view, one always starts with some humility WITH REGARD to the confidence we have in our own judgements of perception, acknowledging from the outset we could be in error. AND it provides ways of "Learning I was wrong, through evidence."

Anyone taking the ASR approach is in principle open to being wrong; they just ask for good evidence. In other words "Here is what I believe, but I could be wrong, and HERE is how you can show that I’m wrong."

But what you have just re-iterated states the problem with pure subjectivity perfectly. Your stance seems to be ’If I hear it, I am not wrong. No way! And you can’t bring ANY of your arguments or evidence that will change my mind!"

Can you see now where the actual close-mindedness resides?

That approach is unfalsifiable. If "My Own Perception Is Reliable" is the ultimate litmus test, then even when someone else uses precisely the same method to "disprove" your belief - he listens to the same set up and declares ’There is no sonic difference," you can always say ’Well, the only shows your hearing is not as perceptive as mine, because I Know What I Hear And You Can’t Show I’m Wrong!"

Can you tell me in a case where you are "sure" you are hearing sonic differences, how...using your method of relying on sighted perception!... someone could show that you’re in error, so you’d change your mind?

Complete rubbish from an arrogant condescending troll. 

Those scientific geniuses and certainly all the ones from the last 50 years, all had one thing in common. Before they had their defining moment of genius, they already had a very strong theoretical background in their field of study/work. My plumber is not going to get lucky and perfect cold fusion, and my dentist is not going to cure cancer