2. tech-talk
  3. 179565-17492

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?  

fleschler
crymeanaudioriver
101 posts
 
fleschler OP
1,536 posts

I did not say anything about their taste in music, only related to evaluating equipment- ...... Compare to classical orchestral, jazz and big band. There is a difference in audio recordings.

I have heard awful classical recordings, and jazz and much big band is old and mono.

However, for a group that goes on and on and on about emotional engagement as the most critical aspect, you sure are pretty narrow minded where you will allow that to apply.

 

You are an incestuous follower of Amir. Maybe his wife or husband posting here.

 

And now your true character comes out as well as a reminder why I did not want to use my main profile to enter this discussion.

 

tonywinga's avatar
tonywinga
844 posts
 

Amir says, "When it comes to non-linear distortions, audiophiles are notoriously poor at hearing those artifacts.  It is for this reason that even poor measuring gear is praised as sounding good."

Tsk Tsk, another generalization without supporting data- bad science.  Actually, everyone is poor at hearing non-linear distortions because they occur naturally around us and even in our heads, inside our ears to be specific.  That is one reason tube amps without negative feedback sound better but SS amps without negative feedback can sound good too but look worse on paper.  

I heard arguments once that IM distortion was more critical to a pleasing sound than THD,  IM distortion occurs inside our heads too.  

Thomas Edison used to have stage shows in the 1900's where he put his new phonograph on stage behind a thin curtain.  He had a live opera singer on stage as well.  He would have the audience guess if the singing was live or a recording.  Sold a lot of phonographs that way.  

td_dayton
320 posts
 

seems like this whole thing is really just a left-brain vs right-brain debate. anecdotally, all the best sounding systems ive heard have been put together by people who cant be bothered with such a binary view of things. instead of either/or it’s both/and

prof
3,480 posts
 

Now the posters are going after OldHvyMec for suggesting/stating that equipment always Breaks-in and mostly because he had the audacity to state that cable also breaks-in/burns-in.

 

How DARE they actually put some critical thinking to those claims and ask for evidence! Why don’t the many members there with technical knowledge and experience with electronics just flat out accept whatever OldHvyMec claims, even if it contradicts their own experience and knowledge of technical theory? Some anonymous poster making dubious technical claims ought to trump all that and they should bypass any demands for evidence out of deference to this new poster!

 

How dare they!  So mean and irrational of them!

 

djones51
4,947 posts
 

"What I hear is pointless, just as what you hear is pointless. We hear what we think we hear, what we want to hear, what we need to hear"

The way I read it, I don't see anything objectionable about that statement. You could substitute "hear" with "see" and it still resonates.

More to discover