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

@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.

@axo1989 

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".

It was a spin and a debating stunt which I called you on.  Dr. Toole's collective research is how a specific set of measurements highly predict listener preference.  Those measurements are created by me in every speaker review (and then some).  This is the lead and core of my review.  

My listening tests and EQ are a supplement that I have chosen to include.  A ton of people have argued against it on ASR.  I have answered them in the video I produced.  It is not important or core to my review of a speaker although I personally value it.

What you did was elevate the listening test to something it is not, then complain that it doesn't follow the extensive protocol Dr. Toole used for research.  That was improper and I responded to you as such.

Your business model is based on rapid testing and fast turnover and of course that has advantages and disadvantages. 

Another debating stunt.  I do not run a "business" to have a model.  I have a hobby which creates great value for large swath of audiophiles and the audio industry in general. That hobby is based on objective data on audio gear and explaining the science and engineering of audio.  

As an engineer, I try to optimize for the resources I have.  A $100,000 speaker measurement system needs to be in constant use to provide that level of value.  Me sitting on a single speaker to test for weeks and months doesn't provide the right value.  Creating predictive measurements absolutely does.

And it is not like you have shown any of those editors that hold on to gear perform comparative blind testing of speakers.  They have the time according to you but waste it away with who knows what.  You want to complain about something, complain about that.

@fleschler 

As a cable beta tester, I hear the cable raw, then burn it in for 24 hours.  I can't say I can always tell if it sounds better, but I can always tell when it sounds worse.  Depends on the cable. Doesn't matter to ASR. 

Now do the same thing blind, run a camera and repeat 10 times.  Let us know if you can tell the raw from burned in cable.  Should be easy for you to run such a test.  I post the video on how to do it.  All of us at ASR would love to see such an experiment.  Your anecdotal claim above where you included your eyes and full knowledge of what is being tested, not such much.