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

What I find interesting is they won't acknowledge that measurements came about by simple observation first.

No one responded to my comments concerning use of the most exacting computer modeling and measurements to construct the $850 million orchestral hall that is very inferior to 19th and 20th century smaller, shoebox designed halls with zero computer technology and very basic mathematics.  Great posts today from Agoners.  

Well, I'm reminded of the old computer maxim, "Garbage in garbage out".  Just as true today apparently, as in 1957.

 

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.

my question @amir_asr was whether "if it cannot be measured then it doesn’t exist" is an accurate description of your views.

all of the above is perfectly fine and i don’t take issue with any of it. and i appreciate you answering at length.

but i am genuinely curious whether you believe there are real-life auditory experiences with recorded sound that simply fall outside the purview of your approach to evaluating gear. in other words, do you think that everyone who hears a difference that isn’t reflected in your tests (to say nothing of the tests of other measurement-focused reviewers like goldensound and erin - guys whom i’m given to understand have been banned from your forum for mysterious reasons) is simply delusional? or is it possible that this phenomenon is just an obvious example of the incomplete/imperfect measurements you refer to in your last paragraph?

Pretty sure I can be a drive-by poster if I want to be.

Regarding electronics, there can be no debate. You put it on the bench. If the output matches the intended output. Then it is good. Else, it is bad. Example: amps turn little waves into big waves that can sufficiently drive the load as if they are an ideal voltage source - which all classAB or D amps that cost >$100 can do now. That’s it. It’s just too easy to screw up, and @amir_asr is one of the best in the world at not screwing it up.

Regarding analog/digital interconnects, there can be no debate. It’s just simple physics and/or EE theory. It doesn’t matter, but I’m an MSEE w/ 25 years experience designing analog and digital chips. I know the math better than most.

If you want to debate speakers with me, then first watch this video on Floyd Toole’s landmark research (link below). @amir_asr can correct me if I’m wrong, but he uses an implementation of this research to predict speaker performance, along with subjective listening to verify expectations. I haven’t read all the reviews, but I don’t recall anything he’s heard that wasn’t predicted. If Spinorama says it sounds good, then so will blind listening tests. Other than that, as @amir_asr points out, the only other thing that matters is if it can go as loud as you like it without hitting large-signal limits.

If you don’t believe in blind A/B/X testing to verify your assertions, then please don’t debate anything with me. You’re an audio theologist with money to spare, not a scientist.