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

The measurement guys are convinced, that better measurements equal better sound.

This is the problem with a lot of posters on this forum as the above is a mischaracterization. Most everything I read on ASR that deals with electronics, leave speakers aside for the moment, is not that better measurements equal better sound but better engineered components with improved noise and distortion measurements. The contention is if you take a " less expensive " component with better measurements can you differentiate it from a more expensive boutique component with worse measurements or an SS one from tube using controlled testing.  Their argument isn't  better measurements give better sound but it's highly unlikely people could tell the difference when bias is accounted for, so for those so inclined save money with electronics and concentrate on speakers and DSP or room treatments to achieve your desired sound signature. 

For speakers,   research has shown most people prefer a flat FR  when measured in an anechoic chamber and wide dispersion. The reasoning I believe is a speaker with a flat FR anechoicly is much easier to get it to work well in a lot of different rooms. Doesn't mean everyone wants that. 

This better measurements = better sound is in this threads title but it certainly isn't the takeaway I've gotten from reading a lot of threads on ASR. 

@teo_audio Oh, very good lecture.  I will use this in a Toastmaster's meeting if that's okay with you.  In my religion, we debate everything in life and in many families children question everything.  Maybe that's why so many of my kinsmen are wildly out of proportion to are small population, Nobel laureates, scientists and inventors.

Toastmasters? Perhaps a template for a filibuster.

ASR should rename themselves AMR (for Audio Measurement Review) and leave it at that. Hiding behind the escutcheon of "science" and using it as a bulwark to  promote their agenda while possibly hawking gear or reassuring others that they need not spend their hard earned cash on better sounding gear is getting old as it's now been made clear. 

The jig is up.

All the best,
Nonoise

"The contention is if you take a " less expensive " component with better measurements can you differentiate it from a more expensive boutique component with worse measurements or an SS one from tube using controlled testing."

I exclude pricing completely, it has nothing to do with sound quality. Why include it? It's just somebodies' opinion of a components worth. It's an opinion of value, not science. It has nothing to do with the sound I hear coming from the product. Pricing is a subject for Comsumer Reports, not equipment reviews. It certainly is not part of "Audio Science". Subjective reviews are the place to include value judgements. We all like a product that returns good value, but the "science" of audio quality should be devoid of any reference to price.