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

I had never heard of ASR until I saw a post about Synergistic Research cable and snake oil. I found my prior purchase of a Foundation digital cable really bad in my system. I was offered a trial of their 3rd from the top. I tried it and was blown away at how superior it made my digital system sound. So, I followed the link and wound up with the CD trimmer comment. I made my comment and was pilloried. Further comments came with character assassinations, innuendo and just perverting my initial neutral statements concerning the trimmer, SR cable and whatever. I got mad but mentioned my recording history and work with studios. Nope, just got worse.

Despite being blocked on my Chrome IP, I easily access the site now which is why i know about current postings. I am no dummy, I started using computers full time in 1982 (I am not inferring that anyone who is not computer literate or a late comer to computers is a dummy, just that I can write programming for the software that I used in the past).

I was really mad when I began this forum. Nearly all long time Audiogon posters on this forum see what ASR is about and how angry they are at us for using our hearing ability to determine what is most pleasing in the reproduction of music. Measurements are important. Lack of measurements or less than optimal measurements does not condemn a product. Good listening determines if the result is favorable or not.

Okay, how many vinyl listening Audiogoners claim that cartridges break-in or don’t?

@prof denies what he doesn’t hear or know. Yes, if you can’t hear a cartridge break-in on a good sounding system, you could be suffering with a bad short/long term sonic memory, inadequate vinyl playback system, etc. I’m at a loss here. I have never met someone who does not believe that cartridge’s break-in with use and change their sonic characteristics and usually set-up requirements. I’ve spoken to many cartridge distributors over 50 years and they all said wait until the cartridge break-in to hear what it can do.

I want to know what profession or professor of @prof is as his handle indicates?

fleschler

How do you determine the truth of claims, in your method?

Let's say a manufacturer makes claims about an expensive new digital cable.

Your ultimate method of adjudicating that claim, as far as I can see, is whether you listen and  hear a difference from another cable, or not.

So let's say Audiophile "A" listens and says "I hear an improvement in the sound" and audiophile "B" listens to the SAME set up and concludes "sorry, there is no difference in the sound."

Who is right?  They've both used precisely the same method yet arrived at contrary conclusions.

Is the audiophile who claims to hear a difference ALWAYS in the right?

 

Dang it guys. Any electromechanical device (loudspeakers/phono cartridges) will break-in. How long does that take? Beats me. Then we have electronic components. They need to burn-in to reach their final electrical state. How long does that take? Ask the manufacturer. And finally, we have cables. Do they need to be burned-in? I don't know but if somebody says it took X hours for a new cable to sound right, I have no reason not to believe them regardless of what the mechanism might be, even if it's their brain adjusting to the new sound. So, what's the problem that needs to be disputed? 

@whipsaw

 

C’mon, Amir. As you know, Pass Labs amps have been very well received by audiophiles over decades now. They clearly have sound signatures that are pleasing to the ears of many listeners, and the suggestion that a meaningful percentage of those reactions would likely change if only those listeners were to A/B their amps with those that measure with less distortion is dubious, at best. And the same could be said of high-quality tube amplifiers.

To be clear, I don’t doubt that some listeners would arrive at conclusions that would be at odds with their long-standing, stated preferences. But given the vast weight of the feedback from audiophiles who apparently prefer amps which measure with some distortion in the audible frequencies, it is, in my view, highly improbable that their choices are primarily due to marketing-related biases.

I think ASR is—to a degree—caught in its own hermetic logic here.

One the one hand, Amir does ignore Toole’s advice that speakers should be listened to comparatively for evaluation to be meaningful. Even something as simple as setting up a curtain and turntable and enlisting helpers from his cohort of followers is dismissed. Instead he does measurements first, preps some PEQ filters based on them and on his experience, then compares "blind" original and EQ’d playback through the device under test (just one speaker). Nothing wrong with most of this (except, I would listen and take notes first—as another Kippel user, Erin of Erin’s Audio Corner does—that argument has run a few times on ASR). But I can AB between EQ and original and hear differences (most can) and that doesn’t substitute for comparative testing of (as Toole recommends) three or four speakers. Apart from the magnitude argument, it’s unclear how one type of listening is kosher and another isn’t, but that’s a longer discussion and requires more than ventilation of talking points.

But when it comes to amplifiers, ASR rarely listens, with the general justification that magnitude of differences are too small to differentiate (with some exceptions). As you can see in this thread all listening (that isn’t done by ASR with partial protocols) is routinely dismissed as sighted bias, expectation bias, focus bias etc (you too can play bias Whac-A-Mole). This despite the fact that double-blind ABX isn’t logistically straightforward. And dismissing well-defined subjective listening protocols like those published by B&K or B&O, or the expert listening we use daily to produce music. The escape clause is of course the null test, but that's also a longer conversation.

In cases where people do make a good-faith attempt to try DBT, it can also degenerate into a shambolic series of gotchas. Before my time at ASR I nonetheless read a long and winding thread where enthusiast/reviewer GoldenSound tried to respond to a challenge Amir made to compare DACs. Amir managed to misunderstand straightforward logical concepts like one vs many wrt comparison criteria, using that to reset his conditions halfway and eventually doxxed and banned his antagonist, and possibly some other posters in that conversation. I modified my appreciation of ASR ethics based on that thread. We are all flawed human beings though, so I enjoy ASR for what it offers and tolerate the weaknesses.