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

@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.

@amir_asr " At the risk of stating the obvious, measurements don’t care what something costs."       

Thanks for the reply. BTW: I do look at the measurements you post on your website and read the forums occasionally. I don’t think I ever joined though. I could see that my experience would not be valued so I don’t look at the website as much as I look at others. If the environment allowed my input, I would be much more likely to use the website more. I don’t want to make a wrong guess but I’m thinking if this thread was on ASR, I’d be long gone. Thanx again for joining in the discussion, I’ll lay back now and watch on the sidelines. No need to respond, you have been very patient with me. Thanx.

Another story. :)

Our audiophile society was invited to a stereophile reviewer's home to see and experience his setup (he just left that organization).  He had a new amp to review against his own.  Room was too small for all of us to go in there so we divided into two groups.  First group went in and came out.  Without telling us anything, we went in there.  At the end, reviewer asked which amplifier sounded better which folks did.

When we came out to join the larger group, we realized the first group had voted the exact opposite!!!  The reviewer said he had played the amps in reverse order for them vs us.

You see how faulty sighted evaluation is?  

We create controls in listening tests to create reliable outcomes and avoid the above.

Having done various blind tests over the years, it's a very powerful lesson.  It's too bad many audiophiles haven't experienced their 'sighted' impressions dissolving away when they can't use their knowledge of which piece of gear is actually playing.   There's nothing that sinks in like an actual experience.

(And many audiophiles see blind testing as almost synonymous with "detecting no sonic differences."  Where in fact plenty of differences have been detected in blind tests for various things.  That is of course one way various codecs were arrived at.  And I've had some positive results for identifying differences in my own blind tests).