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

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!

"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.

@djones51 Thank you

@amir_asr

So no, when it comes to electronics, better measurements don’t "necessarily" translate into better sound. In acoustic measurements however, they are highly powerful in predicting preference. A colored speaker is simply liked less than one is that more true to the source. Again, not guaranteed but highly likely.

Interesting that you would use a colored speaker as an example, when my post focussed specifically on amplifiers. Do you have evidence supporting the claim that amps which measure better than tube (or Pass Labs) amps are preferred by a high percentage of audiophiles because they are more true to the source?

So if you want to be critical of what I say, first state my position correctly and failing that, quote me.

lol! Ok, here’s a quote from you that helps to support my original point:

Nelson Pass produces products with copious amounts of distortion. If he thinks that is pleasing, then he should develop critical listening skills so that he can hear the damage he is doing to source signal.

@fleschler

I’m sure that I’m not the only one here who feels your frustration but that’s a little disappointing.

What need is there for this kind of bad blood letting here?

@djones51

"My only "belief" is I don’t want to alter the signal I’m given, to me measurements will tell me more about whether that is happening than a hearing mechanism cobbled together by evolution."

"Speakers and room I can adjust to what I like..."

In a nutshell, exactly. Replay equipment needs to be sufficiently accurate to the signal it’s given, otherwise it’s likely to be adding audible distortion.

Some might even prefer that added distortion but that’s not really the point of ASR.

When those who follow such a different opposing philosophy it often seems unlikely the two opposing sides can ever be reconciled on such a divisive matter of faith.

This schism between the objectivists on one hand and the subjectivists (+ a few ’high end dealers?) on the other is probably the biggest one there is in audio.

However it’s fairly obvious which side ASR falls on, isn’t it, and that’s hardly likely to change anytime soon, is it?