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

@juanmanuelfangioii 

I think @amir_asr ​​​​@crymeanaudioriver should get tossed. Pure spam.

Toss this @axo1989 too!

I’d be interested to know what I’ve posted here that you are objecting to, specifically.

@prof I was only pointing out a prior Audiogon contributor who I found interesting who has been an avid ASR contributor but now is ridiculed and deemed unworthy of remaining because he said something different

I find that characterization quite misleading.  It isn't just because "he said something different" it's that he's making dubious yet-very-confident claims, and providing poor arguments for those claims!

OldHvyMec is frankly being treated mostly with kid-gloves in that thread!  Almost all (or all) the replies are quite civil and are simply pointing out the flaws in his argument.  One person asked OldHvyMec if he's sure he'll be happy at the ASR forum, but I didn't see a single person saying he was "unworthy of remaining."

(which most manufacturers of quality audio equipment believe is true, and I believe true of inexpensive equipment as well). Tell me a speaker or cartridge, very mechanical devices, don’t break-in.

The question is always "are the changes audible?"   There are good arguments, it seems, for why even speaker break in is over-hyped (e.g. most of the breaking in of driver surrounds etc typically occur rapidly, not over great lengths of time, though there seem to be *some* data suggesting *some* drivers can take longer to break in.  But this hardly supports the common audiophile assumption that virtually every speaker sounds different after some extended break in period.

As for the other mechanical devices, I'm not sufficiently expert myself to rule it out, but do you have any measurements showing changes in the signal after time? 

If it's based only on the "I Swear I Heard A Difference" method of vetting such "break in" that's not too compelling.  I've seen audiophiles literally claim everything breaks in sonically, even their AV racks!  

And remember OldHvyMec was making claims about cables.

@tonywinga 

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.  

You complain about my statement not being scientific and general and proceed to give me the very definition of those in your response!  :)

I am happy to back my statement with proper research and references.  To hear small impairments you need to know what to listen for.  And for that, you need to understand the underlying system.  Audiophiles tend to be poor at both even though some walk around thinking they are very gifted on that front.

For above, reason, when we care about reliable data, we use trained listeners.  Earlier I showed research by Dr. Sean Olive on reliability of different groups of listeners when testing speakers:

Notice how poorly audio reviewers did which audiophiles tend to regard to have superior ability to evaluate other gear.  Harman research showed that you need to have 10X more trials or number of testers to create the same set of reliable data as their trained listeners.

Trained listeners are extensively used in other domains such as hearing compression artifacts. When at Microsoft, and without that knowledge initially, I suggested to my manager of signal processing group that we recruit the hundreds of audiophiles we had at the company to identify impairments in codec. Blind test was created and distributed to them.  A while later my manager came back telling me how poorly they had done.  And that they were essentially no better than general public, and far worse than our trained listeners.  I asked him to give me an example.  He gave me one of the tests where I easily found the artifact.  I apologized for wasting his time and from then on, we continued to use our trained listeners (of which I was one).

It took me about 6 months of intensive training to learn to find small non-linear artifacts.  Those skills now allow me to hear them in broad set of tests which most audiophiles would not dare to take let alone pass.  I gave an example of this in video I post on blind testing (I think).

Back to your comment, I have tested a ton of tube gear.  I find their distortion to either not be audible or simply manifest in brightness, lack of clarify and edginess.  Yet audiophiles make the claims you repeat.  There is not one publish controlled test which backs their or your position.  None.  So if you are a fan of "science," I suggest not repeating folklore like that which can't be proven. At least not on the same breath as telling me I was unscientific.

@whipsaw 

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?

No one has done such side by side testing.  If anyone should do that, is Pass Labs given the huge premium they charge for their amplifiers. If they sound better, then it  should be trivial to perform controlled tests to show that.  Alas, not only do they not provide such a listening test, no do any other amplifier companies.  So much for "it is the sound that matters."  In really, it is the marketing that matters.

To be clear, I have not test any Pass Lab commercial product. I did test his "ACA" DIY amplifier design and thought it was a distortion factory.  I am confident I can put together a test that shows it to perform very poorly against some other amplifiers without all of its flaws.

@amir_asr  given the huge premium they charge for their amplifiers.

How is price part of audio science?