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

@tonywinga 

Some of the greatest sounding musical instruments, in fact most all musical instruments  and even concert halls were designed and built without computers and electronic analysis equipment.  They were designed and built by artisans with skilled hands and ears.  It's all about what we hear.  When someone tries telling me I am not hearing what I think I am hearing, well that goes over with me about like putting a tax on a child's piggy bank.

Once more:  listening tests are the gold standard in audio research.  No one is telling you to substitute measurements for it.  

What we say is that don't go believing marketing claims that have no verification with controlled testing, or make sense at engineering level.  We prove the latter with measurements.  Company claims the power conditioner lowers your audio system noise?  Well, we measure that.  If the result is that noise has not changed one bit, then you know the claim was wrong. 

Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept?  You say your local water is making you sick?  Folks come out and measure to see what is in it.  If it is pure and clean, then that is very important information. 

Importantly, don't confuse creation of art with replay of it.  Our business is the latter. The two are completely different universes.  Audio equipment should NOT be in the business of creating or modifying art.  If it is, then it is not high fidelity.  And will impart the same signature on every music you play -- something I dislike dearly.

As to what you think you are hearing, that is NOT in doubt.  What is in doubt is what you say it means when you did not block all other senses than your ear.

My listening tests in reviews is provided on "as is" basis. I do them because if I didn't, I would get more complaints.  "Oh, he doesn't listen."  I have tried to make more sense out of them by developing the EQ technique.  The outcome there has been quite positive with many trying my EQ profiles and liking them over stock performance.  If folks want to ignore them -- and many do -- it is no skin of my nose.  I perform them because I am curious myself how the measurements translate into sound and a form of listening training.

That all makes sense to me.  Given the range of audiophile viewpoints you can't please everyone.  If you don't listen, you'll get complaints about that.  If you do listen, you'll get complaints that you aren't using a rigorous enough protocol.  If you use a rigorous blind protocol, you'll get pushback from the anti-blind-test faction who think blind tests obscure results and you should have listened "in relaxed sighted conditions, like a normal audiophile."

Personally, I think that yeah, blind listening to speakers would hue most consistently to the ASR remit.  But your compromise of  "here are my impressions take them or leave them" seems a reasonable compromise.

@amir_asr

To position this as me against Dr. Toole’s teachings is very much out of line. Nothing remotely is true in that regard. I simply don’t have the resources or time to do this kind of testing on every speaker that lands here.

I’m not positioning you as "against" Toole, simply stating that you ignore that specific recommendation. Ignore in the sense of "intentionally disregard" which is what you’ve specifically stated here. If the semantics don’t suit you, change ignore to "doesn’t follow".

Your business model is based on rapid testing and fast turnover and of course that has advantages and disadvantages. As this thread started by conflating ASR with Darko, let’s consider that he takes some weeks to listen to and test a speaker. Now—leaving aside potential flouncing about objectivist vs subjectivist approaches, relative value and the like, please—you could take that time, but you choose not to. Perfectly valid decision (and you’d test far fewer speakers). But it’s your turnover preference that precludes turntable testing, or other comparative methods. So ASR has both value, and weaknesses. We appear to agree.

I highly encourage such efforts. I provided speakers for the second phase above to the organizer and happy to do so for anyone who likes to conduct them.

The turntable will be interesting (albeit just a handful of posts so far, and no progress since March?)

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!

I’m not sure about the value of your anecdote about your doctor. I’d prefer you addressed my question about your allegations against my earlier post, for example.

Finally, thanks for the invitation to post at ASR, I’d never thought of that. 🙄😂😉

relevant to the topic at hand (as well as the initial confusion between darko and ASR outlooks) - here john darko interviews paul barton of psb, who explains the importance of measurements and listening tests (following toole’s methodology) to his process, as well as the subjective choices he has to make as he finalizes his designs. fascinating stuff, confirms much of what both "camps" are saying:

@russ69 

You have been very generous with your time, I'm sorry I am testing your patience, but I've am seriously curious how you inject price or value judgements into your reviews.

Thank you.  As a general rule, I do not incorporate price.  If a piece of equipment performs superbly, I give it my highest recommendation irrespective of price.

There are situations where I bend the rule.  For example, in amplifiers that cost less than $100, I allow impairments that I would not in more expensive gear.

Conversely, if something is super expense and performs middle of the road or lower, it will get my scorn.

All in all, it is a personal opinion which can be discarded and reliable measurements and other data used for yourself.  At the risk of stating the obvious, measurements don't care what something costs.