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

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.  

OK, I was just trying to explain my take on it. 

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

This is wrong, as a measurement guy "better sound "  is subjective and not anything I pay attention to. 

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 included it because the argument of "better sound" seems to boil down to how can you say your cheap Class D amp  that measures great "sound better" than my  expensive Class A  that doesn't measure as well? ASR's answer is you have no idea which "sounds better" or can you even make a distinction without controlled testing. It isn't about "sounds great" that's a throw away description. 

@fleschler , I don’t see any reason to continue in a tit for tat with you as your posts, to me, appear to be driven more by emotion than careful consideration.

You said this,

@crymeanaudioriver You LIE just like Amir. You know very well as I clearly stated how he took a neutral statement about someone’s preferred music and pervertedly twisted it into a negative character comment which I DO NOT DO.

And you also said this:

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.

The point of your post was to complain about ASR and also to complain about ASR participants, and the only thing you mentioned about their music tastes is what I highlighted, then I see no way in which that statement could be considered neutral. To me, and likely to others, it implies that those that listen to that type of music could not possibly be critical listeners.

You called me a liar, however, I will point out you also said this,

It is apparent that they don’t listen to music and the music they listen to is so bereft of acoustic information that they couldn’t judge on their cheap equipment what it could sound like.

Do you still want to insist your comment was neutral? You also wrote this:

@orgillian197 Same here as I noted. Between the ASR posters preferred music choices, state of their hearing and immutable belief in cheap, good measuring equipment, our hearing is quite different.