Nearly all manufacturers do not advertise/exhibit their product measurements? Why?
After my Audio Science Review review forum, it became apparent that nearly the only way one can determine the measurements of an audio product is wait for a review on line or in a publication. Most equipment is never reviewed or is given a subjective analysis rather than a measurement oriented review. One would think that manufacturers used tests and measurements to design and construct their products.
Manufacturers routinely give the performance characteristics of their products as Specifications. Those are not test measurements.
I searched the Revel speaker site for measurements of any of their speakers and could not find any. Revels are universally lauded for their exceptional reviewed measurements. Lack of published manufacturer measurements is true for nearly every speaker manufacturer I've searched for on line, perhaps several hundred. Same is true for amps, pre-amps, DACs, transports, turntables, well you get the picture. Do they have something to hide? I doubt the good quality products have anything to hide but poor quality products do.
ASR prides itself in providing "true" measurements that will aid in purchase decisions. Why don't the manufacturers provide these measurements so that reviewers can test if they are truthful or not?
Then there are the cables and tweaks for which I suspect that there are inadequate tests available to measure sonically perceived differences but which objectivists believe don't exist or are "snake oil."
Well, please chime in if you have some illuminating thoughts on the subject.
I would have loved to see manufacturers measurements on my equipment and especially those that I rejected.
@prof, thanks for posting this. @amir_asr , can you confirm this is your actual room, system, measurements etc? Any comments about it you want to share re: the specs/measurements that the manufacturer supplied? If you want help or just want to discuss improving your FR I think this thread would be appropriate, feel free to join:
|
People who believe in the results of everything from homeopathy, to new age healing crystals, to...name your unscientific belief...give anecdotes just like yours for their beliefs. Everything from green pens on CDs, little brass bowls placed on walls, stickers and pebbles placed on components, have had such testimony! Until you grasp the relevance of listener bias and it’s influence on our perception, your continued use of anecdotes to support technically dubious claims will continue to miss the point. Okay, you 100% ignore my abilities to determine at least in the acoustic music realm, what sounds correct versus incorrect, better versus worse. Amir admited he has no comparable EXPERIENCE in the performing and recording in major concert venues (in Southern California, old and newer venues) as well as examining many recording studios for professional evaluation of their construction for appraisal purposes. I am not an expert although I have friends who are leaders in the remastering industry. My "anecdotes" are based on my hearing abilities. These are NOT unscientific beliefs despite being unfounded on scientifically tested measured results. I’ve dismissed most tweaks I’ve tried or heard/experienced because of the lack of significant differences or no differences heard. All your above named audio tweaks I've dismissed after trying them (green pens) or hearing them elsewhere, in and out of a room/system. I have repeatedly stated that everyone has their own listening bias. This does not negate relevant claims of differences heard. Audiogon is replete with anecdotes from contributing listening members. It does not mean everyone’s anecdotes are relevant. I desire measurements as a starting point. I’ve mentioned why and how they can help avoid badly measuring/sounding equipment/cables/tweaks earlier. Without measurements, the next best thing is trial and error. You admit that the better measuring equipment does not always provide the most enjoyment. I am old enough with sufficient audio experience to determine significant differences which can be explained in anecdotes. You don’t have to believe me. You can try them for yourself if given a 30 to 90 day trial period from many manufacturers.
|
You continually ignore that you are not superhuman, and that your "hearing abilities" are fallible. You really can imagine hearing differences. You really, really can! No amount of "expertise" can get around these biases. It’s why scientists themselves - those MOST in a position to be aware of their biases - use methods to counteract the influence of their biases.
Then what about all the audiophiles who claimed the DID hear differences with those tweaks that you have "tested and dismissed?" Are they right that they work, or are you right that they don’t work? What do have to offer beyond a form of he-said/she-said approach to these problems?
Yes, as you have seen I have argued that here and on ASR. The fact that there is some noise in the system - listening bias - does not mean our perception is entirely unreliable. HOWEVER, when you want to be REALLY SURE your conclusion is true or well justified, THEN it makes sense to account for the variable of human error in your method! And even more: the more a claim edges in to the "extraordinary" category: that is the more that it would seem at odds with what relevant experts in engineering or the relevant science understand to be unlikely, it makes sense to be MORE cautious about how you are drawing your conclusions. That’s why the claim someone added more salt to their recipe changes the flavour doesn’t immediately demand rigorous evidence, but if they say they’ve built a perpetual motion maching in their backyard..sorry...a group of guys saying "It’s true, I seen it with my own eyes" will hardly do. It’s going to have to pass much more rigorous lines of evidence. The people who are IGNORANT of the relevant physics and THINK they saw a perpetual motion machine really DON’T have just as much of worth to say about the claim as relevant experts, even if they don’t have a grasp of their own ignorance on the subject. This is what Amir has to deal with all the time. Most audiophiles are simply not very technically informed, and can’t really evaluate the plausibility of the technical claims made by high end audio companies. So what they have just their "experience listening" which has the problem of perceptual bias. And if they think they hear a difference, well that’s enough to show the claims made for the product are true! This really is a problem of people who just don’t know what they don’t know. Many audiophiles just aren't in a position to understand when a claim made for a product is bullsh*t or very dubious. And until some level of intellectual humility arrives, as in "hmm, maybe I shouldn’t be as confident as I am, and maybe someone with expertise does have something to teach me..." then this cycle will never be broken, and the expert will be cast as the dogmatist or ignorant. And so it goes...
|
@prof your memory is failing you, kind a like a guy I know. So move along I really do not care and will not patronize his site. |
Ok, so I am wrong that you ever participated in, or read the other recent threads on ASR? (In which Amir appeared, and in which his system was posted)? Please be clear on that if I was wrong. In either case, you were the one who wrote:
So if you had not participated in or seen the other ASR threads, how can you tell anyone that you KNOW Amir has never posted his system? Best to pick a story to stick to :-)
|
