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

Most of the discussions here can be classified as persiflage.  I've noticed that when things get technical the discussion quickly drops off but touchy feeling, "subjective" topics go on for quite a while.  I'm ok with both types of discussions.  They are fun. I find useful information on this site at times.  I would not depend on this site for advice spending $$$ on components.  Nor will I go by the advice of a salesman.  I have to hear them for myself and be convinced the component is robust and reliable.

A story about a buddy of mine who retired some years back and went to work as a salesman for a national tire chain.  He said that one day he gets a call from someone looking for tires for their new Corvette.  The guy says he had a BMW M5 and hated it.  The car practically drove itself he said.  The Corvette is great, he says, it has to be driven.  Some days later he got a call from someone wanting tires for their M5.  They traded in their Corvette for the M5.  They hated the Corvette.  They loved the M5 because it practically drove itself.  

Everybody likes what they like.  Measurements matter to the designers and builders.  

btw- I scour the tire data on the websites and the reviews before I buy.  I buy tires too infrequently to have an informed opinion.  I only know that I liked or disliked the tires that were on the car.  So my behavior is inconsistent but it is difficult to try tires before you buy.  In other words, sometimes we take our chances on a purchase and we will grasp at any information or data that we can find.

I'm always happy with the stereo gear I have until I hear something better...

Measurements?  We don't need no stinkin' measurements.

@jtgofish

The real concern about ASR is that they are unlike any other audio forum on the planet in that they actively censor and shout down anybody who dares to express any experience based opinion.

Wasn’t that the whole point of ASR?

To get away from purely subjective forums where one routinely contradicts the previous one?

As the likes of Dr Sean Olive and Dr Floyde Toole have stated, it’s their wish to escape from audio’s seemingly endless circle of confusion where X is sometimes better than Y, and sometimes y is better than X.

Where we don’t know what a recording is supposed to sound like because we have no idea of technical limitations of the original monitoring loudspeakers that were used in the recording.

By introducing some generally accepted scientifically measured reference points we may finally be able to escape from this seemingly inescapable audio maze.

We know that some of the monitors used in studios on the 1950s and 1960s didn’t always have the flattest of frequency responses.

Therefore what chance have we of hearing those songs as they were intended if we are now using loudspeakers that have a markedly different frequency response?

Bring into the equation different masterings, different rooms and different amplification and this circle becomes very confusing indeed.

Frankly, isn’t it saying something that there are some here that seem to be so intolerant of an entirely different perspective on an entirely different audio forum?

Is Amir really that threatening, or is it merely what he's saying?

https://pro.harman.com/insights/enterprise/broadcast/tech-talks-how-accurate-reference-monitoring-can-end-the-circle-of-confusion/

I want to mention that many of my direct to disc Japanese LPs from the 1970s have very explicit information on the recording chain including the monitors and a schematic of the mike setup/mixer.

cd318,Indeed that might have been the point of ASR.And that is fine.The theory is fine.The idea is fine.But like any idealistic concept the enforcement can become toxic and counter-productive.Just like communism and religion.