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

Well, ASR members are going wild over at ASR on their rebuttal forum with 165 posts.  One member lists this statement to prove his point: "The inability of some posters there to accept evidence-based science is stunning. It is a similar logical construct as saying “I’m not going to treat my cancer because the treatments make me feel worse. Your fancy MRIs, blood analyzers, and pathology tests can’t measure my feelings.”

"Then he lists uses of technology: If they DID say that, then they would at least behave in a consistent manner. But they DON'T behave in a consistent manner.
Realistically speaking, they will use the science-based medical technology. Ergo, they trust it.
They will trust the science-based technology that goes into their cars, hybrid or otherwise.
They will trust science-based aerodynamic technology when they travel by airplane.
They will trust the science-based digital technology that enables their refrigerators and stoves to operate correctly.
They will trust the digital technology that allows their TV to entertain them.
They will trust the technology-based science that warns them of hurricanes, tornadoes and storms that are broadcast on said TV.
They trust the science-based digital technology that allows them to use their cell phones.
Most of them even trust the science-based use and control of nuclear power, so they can enjoy the benefits of electricity."

His insane conclusion about audiophiles not subscribing to ASR dictum:
"They just reject evidence-based science when it come to audio.
Selective little buggers, aren't they? " 

Of course we all know (except ASR members/Amir) that we do not reject technology and science.   Again, analogies that are replete with incompatible comparisons of sound equipment with wine glasses, etc. that posters make and Amir indicates the fallacy of their thinking.  They cannot separate the innately technological for products that are consistent in form and factor from the ephemeral, like wine.   Sound reproduction is NOT finite.   The equipment obviously (to us) has sonic parameters which are not being tested.  If it were, then all equipment that measures the same would sound the same.  Hence, there are a great multitude of equipment choices as well as synergy aspects to consider which are also, not tested.  Imagine if there were a million choices in cancer treatments?  How about the long list of trusted technology information above?   No, there is a clear cut difference between sound reproduction and science only based information and products. 

@gxalan , thanks for the reply. I have a thread going elsewhere on this forum and I need advice about a mcintosh streamer/dac vs a just dac, feel free to post something over there, appreciate it. I have never tried mcintosh and am thinking hard about it.

@rtorchia @tonywinga @kota1 @kokakolia @td_dayton @laoman @djones51 and others on this forum. We are a more intellectual group, willing to converse in terms of possibilities in reproduction sound equipment that can be different yet sonically appeal to each of us, even in different ways. Measurements can find faults and limitations (as well as shoddy construction/materials) in equipment, they cannot determine how they will sound compared to one another or in an AUDIO SYSTEM and IN A ROOM (both of which vary more than the possibilities in chess.

Amir appears to be sincere and I don’t doubt that he is not exclusively in it for the money. That does not equate with the nonsensical diminution of non-ASR audiophiles who listen to different music, differently in different systems in different rooms.

Then there are personal choices that run counter to the major audio magazines. I used a Benz Ruby 3 for over a decade with an audio interface SUT with matching resistor impedance. I purchased a Zesto Allesso SUT which sounded slightly better using trans matching impedance. When I replaced the worn cartridge, I sought something that would play most of the 28,500 LPs and not just be outstanding on 20% of my collection. My friends were gaga over the Dynavector 20x2 H which I also heard great sound from. I purchased the L unit since I had the Zesto. At max gain and 100 ohms, it was a perfect match, including my modified SME IV arm. It doesn’t have the very wide separation of a $4K to $18K cartridge (many do) but the tonal balance is to my liking despite missing some resolution.

Here is the choice, resolution over tonal balance. I would not own a Lyra as I consider them tipped up in the highs (compare the measurements). My Dynavector has a flat frequency response. I like that. See-measurements can help determine something. But that was only a starting point. Without my Zesto SUT, I may not like the Dynavector low output as much in my system.

@fleschler +1

ASR love to quote Floyd Toole and research done at Harman.Which is fine but the findings there have also shown that the average listener does not prefer a flat frequency response .Far from it.And different types of listeners prefer different frequency response curves and these are only averages anyway so do not properly reveal the extent of this variation.So there is substantial variation between different people and how they hear or listen and what they prefer and yet the hardcore objectivist tends to obsess about electronic components needing to have ruler flat frequency responses and also makes the assumption that everybody has a room that can reproduce a flat frequency response.And yet if you dare suggest that not everybody lives in an anechoic chamber you will be banned from commenting.It as if they want to construct and inhabit some sort of alternative reality based on theoretical parameters and totally ignore real world variables and personal differences.

I do wonder if a lot of them have spent too much time behind a computer screen absorbed in online alternative reality and are not comfortable with the foibles,complexity and diversity of the real world and real people.For them a theoretical construct is going to  be where they feel comfortable.