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

@td_dayton

@amir_asr cool of you to show up. i have a question - would you say that "if

[insert audiophile claim] can't be measured by my tests, it doesn't exist" is a fair description of your view? why or why not? 

Let me first tell you that there is far more to conclusions we draw than measurements. Myself and many members of the forum are engineers and understand how your audio devices operate.  We then combine this with careful measurements.  And then look at what audio research (published) tells us.  If all three arrows point the same way across testing multiple categories of products, then we have very high confidence in our conclusions as to efficacy of such claims.

As an example of above, we know how power supplies work in audio products. So when someone says this power cable "filters" noise that then does the same in your audio output, we can analyze this on all fronts. We know that there are multiple filters working far more effectively in your audio gear than anything a power cable (or conditioner) can do.  We then combine that knowledge by showing that said power cable provided no filtering. And even the company itself showed no such evidence. We then go further and produce highly distorted AC waveform and show that the audio gear did its job and nothing changed in its output.  After testing a number of such products with the same outcome, we then have a very high confidence answer with strong data to back it.

Please note that this is VERY different than what other objectivists do. I put in tons and tons of effort in testing these audiophile claims. I have tested more interconnects and power conditioners than I can keep track of. And when a new one is offered to me, I test it again in the thought that it may be the one that shows a difference. This should show you the openness I bring to this field. There is nothing "cult-like" about what we do.

Note that there situations where measurements provide part of the answer but not all. Speaker and headphone measurements are very powerful in their predictive power but not sufficient. We don't for example fully know the effect of radiation patter for a speaker in different rooms and for different people. Measurements do however rule out the poor designs and do so with authority. Maybe some of those are still good but there are so many good choices with good engineering so why take a chance?

I recently recommended an IEM. A bunch of people purchased it. About 70% love it and can't imagine how great this $50 IEM is. 10% to 15% say it sounds good but better with EQ. 10 to 15% say it is not for them.  This shows how powerful imperfect or incomplete measurements can still be. 

@fleschler 

@invalid BINGO!!!

I was a commercial property appraiser (to be distinguished from residential) for 32 years, constructed apartment buildings and single family tract homes.  I chose/use higher quality materials in low income housing to prevent future repair expenses and the safety of my tenants.  I use higher quality all brass plumbing fixtures and fittings,  only schedule L US or Mexican manufactured copper plumbing and best quality fittings, Bradford-White water heaters, Wilkins water pressure regulators, etc. as an example.  Sure, Loews has cheaper plumbing items, but you get what you pay for-expect plumbing failures sooner (a few years) rather than in decades later (w.h. exceptions since they only last 6 years now).  

If plumbing was judged like how audio is, you would be using paper for pipes, candles to heat water, little dots around water heater to increase its efficiency, magic tablets to add to water to cure every disease made to man. And have even a simple pipe coupling cost $2,000 because it was made out of this or that metal with cryogenic treatment!

My wish is that audiophiles bring the common sense and logic they use in other fields to their hobby. If the above sounds absurd in plumbing, similar talk for audio should do the same.

Okay Amir (if that's ASR's Amir), I also happen to be a beta tester of audio cables for a boutique manufacturer (GroverHuffman.com) for over two decades.  No, it is a subjective test after burning in cables and hearing other manufacturers high end/expensive cables (some, not all obviously).  No, we do not use controlled listening rooms or test equipment.  So, his business model is based on his electrical engineering experience of almost 60 years.  He is also successful with world wide distribution.  His problem is that he charges too little to satisfy many high end audio equipment owners as his cables lack the prestige of ownership (versus Nordost, Transparent, Siltech, Synergistic Research, Shunyata, etc).  I find fault with many "high end" equipment owners who base purchases on price rather than value (musical).   He has loaned cables for use at audio shows in high end systems where they just trounced the other known high end cables (High Fidelity cables being the absolute worst-luckily now defunct).   I've heard many cables which sound great in high end systems as well, with very high price tags (such as Masterbuilt cables used to demonstrate Von Schweikert speakers).  I've even chosen a Synergistic Research high end digital cable over his ($200-great value) but at substantially higher price after auditioning half a dozen.   

So, I don't have the hubris of being a golden eared reviewer of equipment or tweaks but I do have ample experience in listening/experiencing sound (and music) to be considered a critical listener.  I have friends who are superior to me in their critical listening capabilities who are well known (one a producer, another a producer/remastering engineer and lastly my electrical engineer friend who built every type of cable as a business and many types of tube equipment that measures closer to solid state than old tube sounding gear (he also owns a patent he wrote/submitted himself) on cable manufacturing.   

In other words, I trust what I hear more than I trust measurements.  Measurements are helpful, hearing is believing (and everyone hears differently).   

@invalid

amir I guess you never heard the phrase you get what you pay for, of course there are exceptions to the rule, but in my experience the phrase is generally true.

Oh, of course I have. Problem is that audio marketing has gone so crazy, with people willing to accept any story behind an audio product, that the connection you talk about is long, long gone.

It is through objective testing and engineering analysis that we can figure out if you paid for fidelity, or for marketing claims.  I wish this was not the case. I wish there was transparency in audio marketing. I wish people spent more time doing controlled listening tests than to believe every random audio test. If that had happened, yes, more money could get you more fidelity.

A company recently sent me a $20,000 DAC to test. I was very appreciative that they volunteered to do that. I measure it and easily identify and implementation flaw that has long been fixed by "cheap" (but state of the art) asian audio products. The DAC weighed near 50 pounds! It was a massive beast. But it clearly had flawed engineering that was demonstrable. As a courtesy to the company I returned the product to them and didn't publish the results. My hope is that they revise it and produce a performant product. If so, then $20K is not out of  line if someone puts value beyond superb sound reproduction.

So no, your experience is not transferable. Any such conclusion means you are paying far more than you should be in audio. The only way to know is to have data otherwise

@fleschler

@amir_asr Either you are or are not the owner of ASR. Either way, my conclusion is based on listening results after measurement (if it can be measured-the CD trimmer can measure some characteristics prior to and post trimming by listening to the CD). Since I do not rely on measurements only, I (and all of my many music loving friends) use my listening skills to determine if audio equipment sounds more or less to my liking. Measurements can be very deceiving both in what is and what is not measured as well as the potential synergy with other equipment and listening room.

Of course it is me. Who can make as many typos as I can in a post??? 😀

As to your point, listening tests are the gold standard in audio and have more power than measurements. To get that though, you need to have your tests fully controlled and documented. Just saying  you have run this and that test that runs counter to what research and engineering tells us is of no value. You have to document and fully share the controls used to make sure you are only judging sound and results are not random guesses.

If you think measurements can be "deceiving," you have no idea how bad listening tests can be!  I can have you listen to two identical audio files and have you tell us they sound different. Indeed that has happened to me!  Only when I do a binary compare and realize they are the same that I realize how wrong I was.

To be clear, our sense are accurate. It is our brain that plays tricks on us. You have to learn this lesson. There is no better shortcut to audio truth than this. I wish there was. But there isn't.