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

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.

@axo1989

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I second your final sentence, in particular.

@russ69 

How is price part of audio science? 

I am not in audio science.  I am posting here.  Ask a pedantic question, you receive an answer in kind.  :)

@axo1989 

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). 

The pushback like that is made when the claimed sighted tests go counter to solid body of engineering and research.  Say a power cable improves the sound because you swapped one for the other and proof of being right is "I have been an audiophile for 30 years" and you rightly get strong pushback.  Don't offer such as proof point and you are generally fine.  And even if folks object, you should be cool because you weren't going to prove anything.

How else do you want us to behave?  I once asked my doctor if he could help me with research into weaknesses of blind testing.  He just about threw me out of his office!  He said, "Amir, the foundation of what I do is based on blind testing; I can't participate in any attempt to cast doubt on it."  It wasn't my intent to cast doubt but I fully understood his position and continue to see him.

Before funding ASR, I was the co-founder of Whatsbestforum (WBF).  We thought by allowing both camps to state their position, life would be good.  Well, it turned out to be anything but.  The conflict eventually crept between me and my partner and I sold out my shares and got out.  I decided then to go the "pure" route and start ASR.  The name clearly states that we are committed to teachings of audio research and engineering for decades.  We don't pretend to be smart enough to invent our own rules of universe for audio and champion that to everybody else with vengeance as folks are doing here.

Net, net the response you mentioned is what you should expect if you come and make outlandish claims. You have seen me respond similarly here.  As I said, it is a jazz club and you shouldn't expect folks to take kindly to you demanding that you play country music.

You want to come and challenge our position? Do so with solid research and science driven listening tests.  Be ready to defend yourself and not cry victim with "oh they ask for controlled test and tell me about bias."  Of course we do.

Indeed, many people who have a short life in ASR mistakenly assume they are stating something new to us that we are just going to roll over and accept.  Member @kota1 for example shows up and says every cable needs to be broken in for 100 hours or the test is invalid.  We have heard these claims a million times.  Don't be the million and one member who thinks you should just throw that at us and we go, "oh, I didn't know that; thank you for that information!" 

Read the forum a bit and get educated on what and who we are.  Then participate if you need to.  You are welcome to challenge us on every topic.  Members do that to me all the time.  But be ready for heaven's sake with some back up worth more than a fortune cookie paper!