@Amir-asr
Done...
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?
- ...
- 1312 posts total
You are arguing against the very nature of how your perception works. You have already stated that you consider subjective experience is a fantasy. Is there something you are not perceiving yourself possibly? I am just telling you that your ability to detect differences goes down. If you want to ignore that, then fine. I am just telling you that your ability to convince me you are legit is going down. Posting links to third party research is legit like the AES white paper, all good. Posting links to your home movies might be entertaining (for you at least) but that isn’t considered legit third party research.
|
What? I said controlled listening tests, which by definition are subjective, are the gold standard. It seems you are not familiar with the terminology here. It is sighted, ad-hoc testing that produces highly unreliable conclusions. Just close your eyes, follow the protocol in the video I described and you get to proper audio truth about your gear. Otherwise, what you are saying is a mix of your state of mind and gear. |
@kota1 et al
Come on guys, you either place validity in the way Amir does things or you don't. (I happen to believe he is being as scientific about the process as he can. Me? I don't care how my 211 tube amp measures, I like it.) I also season my food to how I like it even if Emeril Lagase says I shouldn't.
Amir has been cordial, even with all the chirping. Let it go...be nice, visit his site or don't...why does it matter so deeply? |
Thank you. Answering your question, I use equalization as an investigation to see if the frequency response errors correspond to what I hear. Say there is a resonance at 1200 Hz. I pull that down with a filter. One of two things happen: it improves fidelity or it does not. If it is the former, then we know the objective measurements match subjective experience. And that the impairment is indeed audible. If on the other hand, the difference is not audible, or varies from track to track, then I declare it such. One positive side-effect is that others with the same speaker can apply that EQ and see if it improves their listening experience. Majority of the time this is the case. Other times, it is not as clear cut which is fine. |
- 1312 posts total