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

where i disagree is when people insist that i shouldn't trust my senses when i am determining whether a piece of equipment is good for my system. 

I don't think anyone insists you shouldn't trust your senses. I certainly don't.

@djones51 i appreciate that. 

i became interested in this general topic due to ASR guys on reddit telling me that i had no idea what i was talking about when all i said was that i generally prefer vinyl to digital and that it sounds better to me. "you are an idiot, digital is objectively better" etc. like, ok buddy. that's your opinion. have had many other similar exchanges over the past couple years in various forums. i simply don't agree that better spec (however defined) = better sound in all cases, and i think that there are limits to what testing and measurements can actually tell us, for the reasons i offer in my previous post. 

I enjoy WBF because they do have industry experts posting there. 

the assumption that there is a fundamentally rational, measurable basis for emotional responses to an experience (like listening to music) is flawed.

 

Scientists study human preferences all the time. Social and cognitive sciences for instance.  General trends in preferences really can be quantified.

That doesn't mean anyone has to personally care, of course.

 

the act of measuring gear is not a threat or a problem for anybody.

It shouldn't be.  But in a certain audiophile paradigm - My Ears Do Not Lie! - people do feel threatened and triggered if someone else appeals to measurements to adjudicate their claims.   The irony is that it is so often claimed it's the "objectivists" who are the dogmatists, when it's often the Golden Ears who are most unmoving and vitriolic in their beliefs.  As quite a few posts in this thread attest.

 

where i disagree is when people insist that i shouldn't trust my senses when i am determining whether a piece of equipment is good for my system.  reviewers with a subjective bent don't bother me at all, for the same reason - seems blandly obvious that what sounds good in john darko's room might sound like junk in mine. how do i figure it out? i buy the thing and return (or sell it) if it sucks!

I think we always need to keep in mind specific claims about gear.  Speakers, for instance, I think Amir would see "good measurements" - as determined by all sorts of research about what tends to sound good to a majority of people - is just good knowledge to have, and a good starting point.  It doesn't say a speaker will absolutely work for you in your room, but if you have the measurements and you know the character/size of your room and where you'll be placing the speakers, the measurements can indicate what type of problems you might encounter...or not.

A "well designed" speaker will tend to be easier to sit in more rooms than one that is less "well designed" and could be more finicky.  It's not Absolute Knowledge of course, but it's up to any individual what to do with it.  Some ASR members have a good enough grasp of the measurements and their room to be confident in buying based on measurements...and they have successfully done so.  Other audiophiles may be less knowledgeable or experienced understanding the technical stuff, or even if they do understand it, may still feel they always want to audition a speaker first.  (I'm in that camp).  So there is no "dogma" being enforced about this.  It's just offering knowledge for those who can or want to use it.

Then there are all the dubious claims in the audiophile world - e.g. expensive USB cables, switchers and on and on.  In this case the debate isn't so much about "choice" as to "whether the device actually does what it's claimed to do." 

Of course the Golden Ear approach is to just listen and decide for yourself.  Nobody is putting a stop to that.  But for those who want more reliable information - the type of tests and measurements Amir provides is often very enlightening, and helps many people make advised decisions as to where to spend their money.

So a Golden Ear may say "I'm happy I spent $2,000 on my new USB cable, because I think it made a difference" whereas I and many others will look to the plausibility of such claims, as explained by experts.  I find the evidence Amir provides in many of his reviews - the combination of technical theory with the tests in support of the conclusions - to be much more cogent than audiophile anecdotes, especially when it comes to the tweakier side of the hobby.

YMMV...

 

 

 

@laoman I listened to the entire Darko audio. Wow, a balanced and intelligent conversation. Thank you so much for shedding light on the topic of equipment testing.

@russ69 I really doubt that my listening room, as high quality as it is, has much in common to an anechoic chamber and probably it is good that it isn’t. The former is good for testing, the latter for listening. Thanks.

@tonywinga Yes, trying to prove a negative. Amir is a classless act which he has proven on this site. Schooling, not educating.

@crymeanaudioriver You can’t stop yourself as the arbiter of all audio knowledge. My reference to my wife was clearly that she has become accustomed to listening to the sound of my system over the decades and now enjoys it immensely. She is brilliant and has memorized the lyrics to at least 1000 pop/rock songs. I do not comprehend the analogy of listening loud and shouting at low volume levels. I am certainly not a genius but have 2 BAs, JD, MPA etc and took physics courses at UCLA. My wife was a bio-chem major at Stoneybrook and has very deep comprehension of mathematics. We are not uneducated "noobs." It took a long road to obtain high end sound as I had mid-fi sound for most of my life.

I am constantly learning, it is my nature and in my religion. You are a fool with your analysis/accusation.

Yes, I noticed Amir has shut down his opposition site and apparently has vanished from this board. That is his nature. (Although I must admit I have spent more time than I had anticipated on this topic, due to a great part for Amir and his minions coming to this site to basically attack us and Audiogon).

 

I want to thank the Audiogon moderator for permitting this forum to continue and expose the narrowmindedness of the "objectivist" measurement is the gold standard for determining audio equipment quality.  The ASR site/Amir has not extended a mutual openness to permitting our members from participating on their rebuttal forum or their site. 

@prof appreciate the thoughtful reply. to your point about studies re: general preferences, there is a massive, ongoing replication crisis in the soft sciences to contend with. this doesn’t mean that all studies are bad - far from it - only that "there is research which shows that..." is not a silver bullet. i hasten to add that (much of) physics does not appear to have this problem. but there are a great many studies which have been proven impossible to reproduce, so i approach this sort of "studies show that more people prefer strawberries to peaches" reasoning with caution. human motivation is enormously complex and the factors which lead person x to prefer A over B can (and very often does) vary at the individual level.

I do not comprehend the analogy of listening loud and shouting at low volume levels. I am certainly not a genius but have 2 BAs, JD, MPA etc and took physics courses at UCLA. My wife was a bio-chem major at Stoneybrook and has very deep comprehension of mathematics. We are not uneducated "noobs."

 

I have not claimed to be an arbiter of all things audio, or for almost anything audio. You have assigned that job to yourself.  That you don't understand the analogy of listening to loud music and not being able to hear regular conversation, in the context of your post, is not surprising. Being educated does not mean that you are applying your intelligence all the time. You made two comments about the dynamic range of hearing. One from my knowledge is accurate, maybe even a low estimate. The other was ludicrous. That you do not understand my comment means you do not know how to temper the information you believe you know about hearing with the act of listening to music.

 

I previously commented there are two paths to take with information. I said when that information conflicts with what we believe, but it also applies when that information supports what we believe. We can reject that information without consideration, even becoming angry, we can accept that information, even without knowing if accurate or valid, or we can research and learn further and try to understand the nature of that data. If the data supports what you already believe, you may tend towards confirmation sources that believe the same thing, however unqualified.

 

You put down Amir because he is saying things you do not want to believe, meanwhile lauding Darko who is saying what you want to believe. There is no doubt at all in my mind, that where this topic is concerned, Amir is far more knowledgeable and would be far more recognized as an expert by others with real expertise. 

There are a lot of put downs of engineers on audio forums. My background is medicine/medical research. I am very familiar with this mindset from lay people. Curiously, I almost never ran into that mindset from people who worked in unrelated science fields. It was unique to those who worked outside the sciences. Not exclusively, but the majority. Perhaps those who work in the sciences have better training to identify likely correct information from likely incorrect information? They are absolutely skeptical people, but they temper that skepticism with research.

 

Change a few pronouns, descriptors and names to the above post and all of a sudden it's a diatribe against what he's saying.

All the best,
Nonoise

@td_dayton ,

 

My background is medicine/medical research. Fortunately, or unfortunately, at a biological level we are all rather similar. If we were not, medicine, disease, injuries, would be an even harsher problem to attack. Our preferences will obviously have a combination of genetic, environmental, and experience aspect. That is not controversial. That genetic aspect is driven by evolution and while there are variances, there also strong underlying similarities. We see that in all aspects of sensory stimulus, whether sound, site, smell, or taste.  That is why companies like Walmart pick their color schemes as they are, why food products with multiple flavors always have favorites, why we prefer yellowy light when it is dim, why we like the feeling of soft/plush textures.

Our similarities are even more similar at the hardware level. It is surprising how little variation, when we are young and everything is in tip top condition, there is. That applies to site, hearing, taste, even touch. The resolution, sensitivity, and dynamic range of all our senses varies only by small amounts within a population. Some are gifted with better processing capability and the ability to extract more useful information, but they have similar underlying limitations.

 

td_dayton,

Thanks, and your points are well taken.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I am thankful for the approach and information available at ASR, which doesn't mean I share precisely the same goals in terms of my own equipment purchases.

For instance, I love the Devore O/96 speakers.   When they came out there was quite a vitriolic comment thread in Stereophile with some self-claimed experts declaring the design ridiculous and incompetent "nobody who knew what he was doing would match that size woofer with that tweeter" etc.

And yet I found, like so many others, that the O/96 was one of the most special, beguiling sounding speakers I've ever heard!  So given there is a sort of "direction" to what is evaluated as "good" or "bad" design on ASR (again, well justified IF you adopt the underlying goals), that kind of product mostly won't be on the radar there, and indeed the Devore speakers have been mocked by some there.  In that sense, ASR isn't the place where I would likely have been led to auditioning those speakers.   It was the subjective reviews, and listening reports from other audiophiles that got me interested, and I found the general take to be bang on when I heard those speakers.

This is one example for why I have often defended the usefulness FOR ME (and many other audiophiles) of subjective reports about some audio gear on the ASR site. Exchanging subjective impressions is not as reliable information per se as objective measurements, especially when you have a specific goal for the measurements (correlated to the sound you want).    But, as I argue, that doesn't make them completely useless or always inaccurate. 

And I find the case interesting in regard to the research on speaker design (Toole/Olive/Harman Kardon etc).  The research suggests that, in the blind tests, I would be most likely to prefer Revel speakers over the Devore, as the Revels are successfully designed to hit the "preference" target that arose out of blind testing.

I completely accept that research.  I think that if I were to go to the Harman Kardon facilities and engage in blind tests, it would be safer to bet my money I'd select the Revel speakers under those conditions.

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. 

My own decision would be to purchase the Devores over the Revel based on my auditions.  This is because, in "sighted" auditions even IF there are other non-audio factors influencing my perception of the Devores being more engaging, those are the conditions under which I'll be listening to the speakers.  If there are other factors influencing my perception of the sound (e.g. the looks), fine, I'll take 'em because it's sure working to keep me engaged!   Plus, this approach has led to plenty of satisfying purchases over the years, and I just really, really enjoy listening to all sorts of different loudspeakers, so I could never be one of the "order it just on measurements" folks.   But I totally GET that an emphasis on measurements work for some other people.  (AND, btw, over at ASR most members would prefer to hear a speaker before purchasing.  Even when you've narrowed the field down to several "good measuring speakers" there's still enough variation to bring in personal preference).

 

 

 blind testing is not the answer, you might pick out a speaker in blind testing and hate it once you listen to it for a while in your room. Like I said before look what blind taste tests gave us the new coke, where is that product now?

I want to thank the Audiogon moderator for permitting this forum to continue and expose the narrowmindedness of the "objectivist" measurement is the gold standard for determining audio equipment quality. 

Except it hasn't really worked out that way.  Kind of the reverse if anything.

I mean...you think Your Ears are the ultimate arbiter for sonic quality, right?

You'll believe what Your Ears tell you, whatever objective evidence Amir might bring against the plausibility of your belief.  Or, am I wrong about that?

 

The ASR site/Amir has not extended a mutual openness to permitting our members from participating on their rebuttal forum or their site. 

That's quite a spin.

Another way of seeing it:  Generally speaking, Amir does not care for his forum to be a place simply to gripe about other audio sites.  He or the moderators have closed a number of such threads once they seem to have gone down that route.

He'd rather the conversations be about audio, vetting claims made for equipment,  vs griping about people in other forums.  That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  But generally speaking, in the context of the fact everyone including Amir is fallible, he's often trying to take the higher road in that regard.  (And unfortunately  some folks will unfairly take Amir's tests and technical claims as threats or insults to their own beliefs, and just impute ill will or dogmatism.  That happened in this thread too).

On the other hand, you are happy to see a thread here that continues to berate the Amir and the ASR crowd.

Personally I'm happy to see this thread continue insofar as some fruitful dialogue can happen among some of us.  But I don't think the very fact this thread is continuing is necessarily taking the higher road.  "Amir shut down griping about us, but we didn't shut down griping about them!  Hurray for us!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@crymeanaudioriver i am not talking about physical ability (or limitations). i am referring to the unique circumstances in our lives that inform our personal, emotional responses to experiences. 

@prof I agree with you there. As I have stated, equipment should be selected based on one’s personal preference, engagement with the music. It should be listened to in "a system" "in a room" (preferably the room the music is to be heard). Typically, this means one’s own audio equipment in one’s home.

One of my audio dealers told me a story about hearing a pair of ($40,000) speakers at an audio show. He thought they were fantastic and purchased them. He brought them home and found out that he disliked them with his system in him room. He vowed never to buy speakers based on a show again and cautioned me not to do the same.

@nonoise +10 Amir acknowledged that I have superior experience in performing and recording in major venues. @crymeanaudioriver has a lesser view of me. Too bad.

 

invalid,

blind testing is not the answer, you might pick out a speaker in blind testing and hate it once you listen to it for a while in your room.

That's conjecture though.  How often has that claim been born out?

Again, knowledge is power, and if you understand enough about speaker measurements and your room, there is some level of predictive power about the sound. 

Further, speaker design has actually been advancing due to all the blind testing research that identified what type of resonances and anomalies we tend to identify as unnatural or sounding poor.  More and more companies are using this information in their design, even purchase Klippel Analyser Systems (like Amir uses - Magico for instance now uses the Klippel and designs with goals similar to that targets that arose out of the scientific research.

KEF has had enormous success with their designs, especially as they also have been designing their speakers ever closer to the "best practice measurements" goals that arose from blind-research.  So there really is a through-line from the studies to what many people will hear as Good Sound.  It doesn't necessarily predict what any particular individual will choose, but it's clearly been helpful.

 

Like I said before look what blind taste tests gave us the new coke, where is that product now?

A single such instance isn't an argument against the usefulness of blind testing.

That said, I think the New Coke Problem could be raised against the type of blind tests used at, say, the Harman Kardon facilities - that is, do some speakers sound better in the shorter time period quick-switching scenario of such tests, but don't necessarily predict long time satisfaction?  I think that's a possible flaw.  But it might actually have been addressed, I can't remember at the moment.  And it also seems fairly doubtful to me.

But to grant the proposition that people prefer X speakers in blind tests is useful does NOT mean it therefore predicts customer satisfaction per se.  Clearly plenty of audiophiles have found satisfaction with a wide variety of speaker designs over the years.  All sorts of confounding factors occur once you are in to the real world.

 

 

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.

 

@crymeanaudioriver , No, it isn't.

@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.

@axo1989 very thoughtful post

@prof i think we basically agree - when push comes to shove, the one view i've expressed in this thread that i will 100% 'go to the mat' for is that listening to music is the only way to really know whether a piece of equipment is going to work for you. and i do think there are aspects of the experience of listening which vary by individual and affect enjoyment. testing is fine, and extremely valuable for a designer, but it does not tell you how something is going to affect you on an emotional level. and from my perspective, the whole point of this hobby is to deepen our love and appreciation of music - the emotional response. how we get there - by graphs and charts and spec sheets, by trial and error, even by wasting a ton of money following some reviewer's hype - is ultimately a pretty low stakes conversation. as long as music and enjoyment are front and center, that's what is important (to me)

When someone cannot effectively convey how something sounds in a descriptive and meaningful way without citing graph results at you first, I stop right there.  

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....and use both measurements and subjective listening to assemble gear that gives us enjoyable sound.

At least somebody is honest about consuming all that data. I've been looking at that data for many decades, it's useful to a point, then it gets too much to process. 

@amir_asr

Once more: listening tests are the gold standard in audio research. No one is telling you to substitute measurements for it.

What we say is that don’t go believing marketing claims that have no verification with controlled testing, or make sense at engineering level. We prove the latter with measurements. Company claims the power conditioner lowers your audio system noise? Well, we measure that. If the result is that noise has not changed one bit, then you know the claim was wrong.

Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept?
You say your local water is making you sick? Folks come out and measure to see what is in it. If it is pure and clean, then that is very important information.

Importantly, don’t confuse creation of art with replay of it. Our business is the latter. The two are completely different universes. Audio equipment should NOT be in the business of creating or modifying art. If it is, then it is not high fidelity. And will impart the same signature on every music you play -- something I dislike dearly.

As to what you think you are hearing, that is NOT in doubt. What is in doubt is what you say it means when you did not block all other senses than your ear.

 

Wouldn’t it be great if these words could be accepted as a starting point for all further discussions?

Unfortunately, it appears that some people do not, can not, will not agree with the above and subsequently any further discussions are a waste of time.

 

"Audio equipment should NOT be in the business of creating or modifying art. If it is, then it is not high fidelity. And will impart the same signature on every music you play -- something I dislike dearly."

 

A very good argument for the importance of the playback system to be as neutral and as uncoloured as possible.

 

"Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept?"

 

Now there’s a question that must have been asked countless times around various negotiating tables worldwide.

Some foible of human nature?

Lack of cognitive ability to focus or listen?

Contrariness?

Vested conflicting financial/emotional interests?

Or just plain pig headedness?

"I don’t like you, so I’m not agreeing to anything you say."

 

Whatever it is, it’s something that’s eluded mankind since forever and I doubt we’ll find any solution here.

I'm not sure what is yours and what is quoted text. Use the quote function. 

"Once more: listening tests are the gold standard in audio research."

Amir repeated this a few times but he means controlled statistically valid listening tests, that are well beyond the individual listener (Since one reference point has no statistical validity).

"Importantly, don’t confuse creation of art with replay of it."

We don't have the science that will create a perfect playback system so there is some art in creating a pleasing system. It may not please you or your measurements but at long as it pleases the end user, the goal is accomplished. 

Very nice posts above.  

As to equipment or a system which imparts the same sonic signature on every piece of music statement, unfortunately, I’ve heard local high end/high cost systems that do just that and I get listeners fatigue and bored.

My two systems (and three friends systems) reproduce music whereby every recording is a surprise in sound. I get a jolt from well recorded music from the freshness of the sound. That’s why I am anxious to get to hear my system when I can. The sound and music captures me. I am addicted to music since before I could talk at 2 years old.

My choice of speakers after two decades of unsatisfying five sets of electrostat speakers came down to price and quality. I purchased used speakers which I saw used in two sound studios I was appraising, used by three friends and used to evaluate LPs for sale by Better Records. I’ve had them for 20 years. Only sounded better as the rest of the system and room improved. Well, it will cost $25K to $50K for me to replace my main speakers, so I’m not pulling the plug yet. Another major concern is that if I purchase a boutique speaker and the parts or manufacturer become unavailable for repair-then an I have very expensive boat anchors.

 

@cd318 said:

“What we say is that don’t go believing marketing claims that have no verification with controlled testing, or make sense at engineering level.”

and:

”Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept?”

Speaking for myself, I cannot accept the first statement because “make sense at an engineering level” is too limited. I firmly believe our current state of knowledge cannot fully describe the sound quality that will result from a given system/room. 

 

@axo1989

 

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.

Yes, even very experienced people can be surprised. John Atkinson, as experienced as anyone, often enough notes things like "this measurement looks bad, but surprisingly it was not noticeable in most program material."

In terms of the usefulness of measurements for any particular individual, there are so many variables.

For instance, a real by-the-measurements buyer may be quite satisfied with his "blind" purchase for any number of reasons. Maybe there were subtle differences between that and another speaker, but he decides he doesn’t care that much. Or perhaps he is simply satisfied that the measurements show it to be an accurate speaker and "whatever the source sounds like, it sounds like." So it can be a sort of plug-and-play purchase.

Other people (like me) may be really focused on certain aspects we really are seeking and take notice of. I don’t mean by that being more of a Golden Ear, but simply slightly different taste and goals. If you ask some at the ASR forum "what does your system sound like?" I wouldn’t be surprised to be greeted by numerous shrugs. "Accurate. It doesn’t really sound like anything. I don’t want my system to sound like anything, I just want it to pass along the source accurately and that’s mostly what it does."

So there is at least a sense, in this approach, in which one’s system "doesn’t have a ’sound.’" But if you are someone like me, I will immediately notice the particular "sound" of that person’s system, because I tend to be "chasing a type of sound."

I’m comparing the sound of systems both to live voices and instruments and against different sound systems, and I’m nudging my sound to where I want it. So I’m always aware of "how a system sounds" and don’t just treat it as if "accurate to the signal" was the last word about a system. There will be some in the mostly-measurements crowd who’d dismiss some speakers because they clearly depart in certain ways from "The Goal Of Speaker Design" as they see it. They may even have heard the speaker and declared it "terrible, just like it measures!" Except they may not care that the speaker is doing something I and others might find to be very compelling because of (or in spite of) it’s wonky design. That’s why I can’t just go by the criteria and reports of measurements-or-bust audiophiles. It’s not that I have better ears, it’s just that I may be listening for something they care less about.

One also sees a form of justification at places like ASR that learning more about audio, and then seeking and obtaining "better/more accurate equipment" is a way off the "audiophile merry-go-round" where you are just throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping to see what sticks, in a despairing viscous circle in which you don’t know how to make yourself happy. Some number of ASR members are sort of escapees from this previous audiophile life. And I completely understand that point of view.

But of course the satisfaction with gear is far more centered on the mindset of any individual than it is on the gear. What’s another way of "getting off the audiophile merry-go-round of dissatisfaction?" Well, you could just decide to be less picky. Like most of the world who are not obsessed with the gear. That too will get you off the merry-go-round. So it’s not the gear, it’s the individual. Some "subjectivist" audiophiles will get wrapped up in endless tweaks (which is fine!), some "objectivists" may be more compelled by measurements yet spend their time reading about SINAD measurements, or fiddling with all sorts of gear, measuring it etc. Just another way of obsessing :-)

Further, while the get-off-the-merry-go-round-using-accurate-gear folks may see the alternative as some form of despair and inevitable recipe for dissatisfaction,

if you look at the "subjectivist oriented" audiophiles most seem like they are having a ball, and plenty of them have actually owned speakers or gear they fell in love with, and kept it for long periods, decades even.

So there is some self-confirming rationalization going on at "both ends" of the conversation. It doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth, but good to always look beyond the rationalization to notice how the facts support it or not.

 

@crymeanaudioriver 

"There is no doubt at all in my mind, that where this topic is concerned, Amir is far more knowledgeable and would be far more recognized as an expert by others with real expertise. "

I will ask you for a change. Can you objectively prove this comment? Please give me a list of audio engineers, designers and critics who support this view.
Dis you read Amir’s letter to Darko? Do you think this tone and these requests are acceptable as well as insulting Darko’s guest?
By the way, you have not even thanked me for going out of my way to provide information on wine sweetness for you.

I probably agree with you on Solti’s Ring rather than the Karajan version I own. I saw the Cherau Ring in Bayreuth as well as 3 or so other performances of the whole cycle while I was living in Europe.

@laoman 

 

Why would I thank you for pontificating about things I already knew intimately. You made a commemt about me not understanding wine, but unfortunately the only lack of understanding was yours about my post. There was nothing inaccurate about wine in my post.

 

W.r.t. experts, maybe instead of putting down Amir and ASR you should read more and judge less. When I participated there there were people who were recognized experts in their field. I remember one especially JJ, who I understand is one of the top experts in the world in psychoacoustics, perceptual coding, and spatial audio.  People who one can look up and see 10's of research articles in journals not consumer magazines. A foremost amplifier design expert who I understand is one of the most referenced experts in the field.  These are the people who are happy to be associated with ASR.

@russ69  how many times will you and others repeat this lie?  It does not suddenly become true just because you repeat it.

 

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

 

 

I see @cd318 also called you on this. Maybe it will sink it.

 

@rockrider 

 

Speaking for myself, I cannot accept the first statement because “make sense at an engineering level” is too limited. I firmly believe our current state of knowledge cannot fully describe the sound quality that will result from a given system/room. 

 

If a power conditioner has no effect on the output, or a USB cable has no effect on the output as Amir had shown in tests, then how could the sound of the system / room possibly change?  If you refute the accuracy of Amirs tests, do you have any basis for that?

 

I see your post and many here either anti science or anti authority. I am not sure which.  A comment was made that people here are people of means. People of means often have issues with people in positions of authority putting limits on them. Amir is effectively in a position of authority and is putting virtual limits on what audiophiles can claim without repercussion. Maybe that is what mosy irks many of the posters here

They have one mantra: If it’s not measured, it’s BS.

@russ69 how many times will you and others repeat this lie?

 

...or a USB cable has no effect on the output as Amir had shown in tests,

Does that not include a measurement to underscore any result?

 

@crymeanaudioriver said

“If a power conditioner has no effect on the output, or a USB cable has no effect on the output as Amir had shown in tests, then how could the sound of the system / room possibly change?”

This statement assumes Amir is testing all possible phenomena that effect sound quality.  I do not believe this.  Feel free to believe he is if you want to, but don’t insist I must believe what you believe. 

My belief is not anti science because science is about observation and discovery.  In my opinion, your position is about stagnation and your belief you know everything there is to know. 

It is obvious you know as much about wine as about audio. In other words as much as the man in the moon. Run back to asr and be a minion to your minion leader. "Amir is effectively in a position of authority". Authority of what? Arrogant rude horse manure? It is telling that you were not able to mention one audio identity who thinks your minion leader is worth paying any notice to. I am done talking to you and your ilk.

I feel like the whole discussion comes down to the definition of what is ’better’.

One could say equipment A is ’better’ than B based on measured parameters like frequency response, pulse response, distortion, phase, waterfall and what have you.

As far as hearing goes, it’s always completely subjective. We can’t use the word ’better’ in this respect, it’s all about how much a person likes the sound. People may like vinyl or tubes more, even though measurements prove the sound is colored or has higher distortion. People may hear a difference between power cords, even though it can’t be measured. So what? If someone likes it more, than that’s a given.

I actually have no idea what the whole discussion is about. Scientific measurements can deduct a certain device measures better than another, and listening tests can deduct a person likes a certain sound more than another. These are two entirely different things, and both can live perfectly together.

I read the reviews on ASR and take the measurements seriously. Why wouldn’t I. I am an engineer myself. But there are a lot of parameters that can’t be measured (yet), or people are not up to date with there skills. I am not on the same level as great designers like Nelson Pass of Bruno Putzeys and I love to learn from them and other great designers on diyAudio.

ASR should take a look at DIY audio forum.The problem is the attitude towards ’audiophools’. Not respectful and sometimes plain arrogant, just like some posters on Agon. More modesty and an open mind would be a good thing.

Don’t tell me what I hear or can’t hear, based on "whatever". Some people don’t like exploration and discussion. They just want to be an authority because there ego is to big (and brittle at the same time). There is no 'one nerd to rule them all', we are all just a bunch of nerds with toys.

One of the youtube reviewers said the simplest thing that resonates about hifi, "what fake do you like".  Hifi is not real it is trying to replicate what occurred somewhere else in your living room. Which fake anybody prefers is completely individual and cannot be measured by instruments.

@henry53 . And you have repeated the lie with different words. That is personal preference. That is not this discussion no matter how many times it is repeated.

@russ69 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.

Is this a reason why many on the forum are dismayed at the rigorous and hard marking provided by Amir?   

You are entitled to not concern yourself with buying the best, despite its modest price..  Nobody cares except the rapidly failing high end components bricks and mortar market.  And the site we are currently on - enjoy it while you can.

 

@rudyb +1

I actually have no idea what the whole discussion is about. Scientific measurements can deduct a certain device measures better than another [within the tested parameter], and listening tests can deduct a person likes a certain sound more than another. These are two entirely different things, and both can live perfectly together.

Possibly the most reasonable post of this entire thread. 

 

Cin Dyment: you are a sick, sad human being. Disgusting. Back here again dude?! Wow!

Nobody cares except the rapidly failing high end components bricks and mortar market.  And the site we are currently on - enjoy it while you can.

The high-end market is very strong with more choices than we have ever had. There is a shift away from the brick and mortar business model but online and direct sales are booming! Business is good.  

I don’t understand the rational foundations of the subjectivists here, if there are any.   As a disclaimer I admire Amir, ASR, and it’s many knowledgeable contributors. But I also like some components for extra-audio reasons that Amir would justly put on his reject list.

The subjectivists here seem to put great stock into human sensory perception, something that philosophers have been questioning for millennia. Sensory perception is highly fallible to say the least. When one puts a pencil in a glass of water it looks bent; we see mirages in the desert; amputees commonly feel the presence of the missing limb, etc., etc., etc. So along came science in an effort to establish deeper insights and establish some degree of objectivity. So knowing that our senses are so misleading how can the audio subjectivists rely solely on their hearing?  They also run the risk of encountering something akin to the Roshomon complex whereby a number of individuals have the same experience but interpret it in all different ways. Sometimes the subjectivists seem to be insisting that that pencil is really bent in that glass! Why would anyone reject science when, given the human condition, it’s all we have to attain some form of objectivity?

Given that the audio subjectivists are so skeptical of science, why do  they so readily believe wild and unsubstantiated claims concocted by manufacturers of all sorts of cables, power conditioners, power supplies, etc.? It appears that they believe in order to understand, thus putting the cart before the horse, which is a questionable methodology. 

Most of the subjectivists here, like the OP, are pleased with the components they own and that is very good. You like what you hear which is all anyone can ask. So what ASR says about your stereo shouldn’t bother you. If I had some of these systems, all connected with the most expensive and exotic cables, I’d sit back and enjoy the music, and refrain from insulting Amir, ASR, and most of all science.
 

 

 

rudyb

 

People may hear a difference between power cords, even though it can’t be measured. So what? If someone likes it more, than that’s a given.

That confuses the issue.  You've just assumed that people ARE hearing real sonic differences between power cords.  But that is under dispute for good reason.  It's a doubtful proposition based on how power cords/electricity/most audio gear actually works.  Most electronic engineers - the ones who are not trying to sell you those products - will explain that.  And the few who DO believe inevitably have only anecdotes for the claim.

Why does this matter?

It matters to anyone who cares about the truth, and who wants to understand how gear actually works.   Why in the world wouldn't that be worthwhile?  Knowing how things work helps an engineer meet his design goals without unnecessary rabbit holes.  Knowing what type of gear or tweak is likely to make a sonic difference helps someone spend their money more wisely.   I am VERY happy to have the information being made available by folks like Amir (and others over the years).

None of this forces anyone to care.  You don't have to avail yourself of such information.  No problem.  But there are good reasons other people have for wanting to know whether things like power cords actually alter the music signals.

And to get to the bottom of such issues, you have to account for common bias effects in the process.

 

Scientific measurements can deduct a certain device measures better than another, and listening tests can deduct a person likes a certain sound more than another. These are two entirely different things, and both can live perfectly together.

Saying objective data and subjective impressions are entirely different things is like a diabetic saying "Look, the way I may be feeling, tired, peeing a lot etc is one thing.  Measurements of blood sugar is another.  These are entirely different things!"

Well...if you want to remain in ignorance about the correspondence between your measured blood sugar and your symptoms that's up to you.  But, no, they are not entirely different things.  The correlation between blood sugar measurements and diabetes/subjective symptoms, has been studied.

Likewise, there has been plenty of study correlating measurements of sound to their subjective effects for most people.  If that weren't the case we wouldn't have stereo, surround sound, audio codecs, reverb and other plug-ins for professional sound etc.  And the subjective effects of various measurable parameters in loudspeaker designs have been studied.   As have human hearing thresholds in regards to levels of signals or distortions we can hear.

 

tantejuut

 

Don’t tell me what I hear or can’t hear, based on "whatever".

So if an audiologist explains that you, like most humans, can't hear frequencies well above 20 kHz, are you going to dispute that?

If you had an audiogram and the audiologist explains you've lost some hearing at certain frequencies, and you can't hear over 15 kHZ (or whatever the results are)...would you object "Who are YOU mr. 'expert' to try to tell ME what I can hear or not??"

Can I presume you wouldn't be that obdurate?

The question is, then, why your back is so up if someone with relevant technical knowledge tries to impart some of that knowledge (with both theory and tests demonstrating the theory)?

 

Some people don’t like exploration and discussion.

That's an ironic statement following your saying you don't want anyone telling you what you can and can't hear 'based on whatever.'   THAT sounds like someone not open to learning.

Has it crossed your mind that maybe...just as your audiologist is informed about how human hearing works...Amir may actually be right about many of these things?

 

Don't let your ego get in the way of possibly learning something.

 

 

I just revisited another older thread on ASR where someone posted the measurements of the Joseph Audio Pulsar speakers.

The general response to the measurements by the ASR crowd in that thread was "meh, not bad, not great, look at these problems...over-priced."

This is similar to the response to the Devore speakers I mentioned earlier.

If I’d used enthusiasms of the ASR members as my guide to speakers there’s no reason I ever would have pursued either the Devore or Joseph speakers. (And ended up with Genelec or KEF etc lauded in that forum).   And yet after a huge speaker audition binge they stood out head and shoulders as my favorite. I found each to be very special in their own way. And in fact I found the descriptions in subjective reviews absolutely NAILED the sonic characteristics I heard in those speakers. Which, again, is why I still can find worth in subjective reports not just measurements.

Keep in mind, that above is not to say "therefore measurements aren’t useful or don’t tell you anything" or that the ASR members were wrong in interpreting issues in the measurements that would be audible. But rather, there is the wider context about our individual goals and tastes.