Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy
"Audiophiles are Snobs" Youtube features an idiot! He states, with no equivocation, that $5,000 and $10,000 speakers sound equally good and a $500 and $5,000 integrated amp sound equally good. He is either deaf or a liar or both!
There is a site filled with posters like him called Audio Science Review. If a reasonable person posts, they immediately tear him down, using selected words and/or sentences from the reasonable poster as100% proof that the audiophile is dumb and stupid with his money. They also occasionally state that the high end audio equipment/cable/tweak sellers are criminals who commit fraud on the public. They often state that if something scientifically measures better, then it sounds better. They give no credence to unmeasurable sound factors like PRAT and Ambiance. Some of the posters music choices range from rap to hip hop and anything pop oriented created in the past from 1995.
Have any of audiogon (or any other reasonable audio forum site) posters encountered this horrible group of miscreants?
By background is linked to in my signature on ASR. Here it is: You can also look at my linkedin profile: Amir Majidimehr - Founder - Audio Science Review | LinkedIn I am not a lab technician if that is what you are asking. Is your profile public somewhere? |
Yes to all except that measurement is balanced which is using ($30) Mogami Gold XLR cables. No filters. No cages. No nothing. Just a superbly engineered audio device being measured by state of the art audio measurement gear. They way you are stating that tells me you don't have any experience measuring such audio gear or with this instrument as that kind of performance is routine for devices I test. |
Sorry, no. The myth is that there is time limit to blind testing. Or that you are forced to use supplied music. The AES paper I referred you to allowed audiophiles to take a distortion box home, connect it to their system and spend as much time on it as they wanted, and play whatever wanted. They failed such a test compared to another group that performed fast AB switching. As to always getting null results, that is also completely wrong. I have passed and documented very challenging blind ABX tests. I am able to do that by being a trained critical listener and using very fast switching. If switching is slowed, I fail to test many if not all of them. I suggest reading ITU recommendation (standard) BS111.6 on how to detect small impairments: RECOMMENDATION ITU-R BS.1116-1* "Since long- and medium-term aural memory is unreliable, the test procedure should rely exclusively on short-term memory. This is best done if a near-instantaneous switching (see Note 1) method is used in conjunction with a triple You are arguing against the very nature of how your perception works. Not only experts in audio will disagree with you, so will those in the medical community who research the same. No way your brain has the capacity to remember every bit of fidelity in music you listen to hours and days later. It is impossible. But again, nothing in the protocol requires you to listen for longer if you so wish. I am just telling you that your ability to detect differences goes down. If you want to ignore that, then fine. Just make sure the test only involves your ears, and not the rest of your senses.\ Here is a video I produced on that:
|
I appreciate your time here, we won't ever agree but you have explained your process in detail and that is more than most would do. But I have a question about the quote above. You added you listen to loudspeakers "and equalization", can you explain that please. I'm assuming you equalize the loudspeaker for your listening session? Is that right? |
