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

If I had to sum up why websites like ASR are not that interesting to me;

I would say firstly, they have an emphasis on low price gear, a segment I don't often shop in.

They have one mantra: If it's not measured, it's BS. Totally ignoring the scientific area of observation.

I am called an audiofool. 

Distinct bias against people of means.

Almost total lack of statement level equipment testing, unless it's something that measures poorly.

Little time actually spent listening and quantifying what is heard.

No respect for outside opinions. 

Websites like ASR could double their viewership if their approach allowed discussion and opinions outside their own belief system, but they could still present their rebuttal with their own emphasis on measured performance.  But not with the you're a crazy, audiofool, with sight and general biases that make your opinion worthless.  

  

@prof

So what do I do with the fact that I actually did audition a few Revel speakers (which were very competent sounding as predicted) and yet still heavily preferred the Devore? Well, it could be that I happen to be one of the outliers, and even in blind testing I’d select the Devores. Less likely, but possible.

I think that’s one of the interesting things about listening to gear (especially speakers). We have the standard measurements for frequency response (FR) on and off-axis, which are a foundation of Harmon research and a staple of Stereophile Reviews. We have the Kippel robotic measurement systems automating that process and outputting various results, including CEA2034 with its implicit room model, reflection calculations, sound power and directivity indices.

Associated with these we have measurement of linear and non-linear distortions (harmonic, intermodulation and compression, for example).

Also part of Stereophile review and presented (albeit roughly and without as much understanding) by ASR we have time domain measurements, including step response and cumulative spectral decay. Some German magazines (I’ll have to refresh my memory) publish a spectrogram similar to the latter but somewhat different in its parameters and presentation.

Then there are supplementary measurements of attributes that may affect sonic presentation including cabinet vibration. And at the design level we have more sophisticated laser tools to study vibration and movement, along with mathematical models to predict and optimise behaviour of most design characteristics.

All of this stuff provides a wealth of information about speaker behaviour and performance and likely does tells us how they will sound. Except we as humans can’t integrate all of that meaningfully to get all the way there in terms of predictive sonics, so often we have surprises when we listen. We can also hear very subtle things—notably timing and timbre—that don’t stand out in measurements but affect our perception and enjoyment of sound.

Many STEM-educated people relate better to numbers than words, and within that category we have people who relate to numbers in two dimension (like the FR graph) versus three or four (like time domain and spatial behaviour of sound). Personally, I find FR-obsessives a bit dreary and unimaginative. But my personality and value type biases notwithstanding, there is the—entirely valid— argument that the all is captured in the sweep and the Fourier transform gives us both frequency and time domain information complete. Sure, but as a human I can’t read FR and see time. If we want to tease out subtle sonics we have to dive very deep into all the measurements (and a fair bit deeper than an ASR review). Of course many speaker designers do this.

That’s one very good reason why we listen. Our ear-brain integrates and perceives the sonics. And naturally, our musical taste affect our reproduction preferences and vice versa. But there’s no need for the self-flagellating, judgemental argument ad lazarum of our friends at ASR. If we practice, do our best to avoid subjective listening pitfalls and avoid telling ourselves fairy tales, we can hear meaningfully and use both measurements and subjective listening to assemble gear that gives us enjoyable sound.

@axo1989 very thoughtful post

@prof i think we basically agree - when push comes to shove, the one view i've expressed in this thread that i will 100% 'go to the mat' for is that listening to music is the only way to really know whether a piece of equipment is going to work for you. and i do think there are aspects of the experience of listening which vary by individual and affect enjoyment. testing is fine, and extremely valuable for a designer, but it does not tell you how something is going to affect you on an emotional level. and from my perspective, the whole point of this hobby is to deepen our love and appreciation of music - the emotional response. how we get there - by graphs and charts and spec sheets, by trial and error, even by wasting a ton of money following some reviewer's hype - is ultimately a pretty low stakes conversation. as long as music and enjoyment are front and center, that's what is important (to me)

When someone cannot effectively convey how something sounds in a descriptive and meaningful way without citing graph results at you first, I stop right there.  

Except we as humans can’t integrate all of that meaningfully to get all the way there in terms of predictive sonics, so often we have surprises when we listen....and use both measurements and subjective listening to assemble gear that gives us enjoyable sound.

At least somebody is honest about consuming all that data. I've been looking at that data for many decades, it's useful to a point, then it gets too much to process.