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

of course, blind listening tests being worth practically ~SQUAT~, as human hearing is a continual self controlled near unconscious moving target of a variable.

To make such testing (blind) valid, first we have to put human hearing in known quantified straight jacket of a box and call it nailed to the wall as a fact in eternity.

And we can’t. We can’t do that at all.

Blind listening testing regimen is a great idea!... but... if all the facts in it’s attempts in being a chain of logic are not in stable reliable definition, it turns to a giant steaming pile.

What they have found is that blind listening bits have to be limited to what, 5 minutes and then no more than an hour of this, and to then correlate that across many many groups of said listening to then come to a generalized conclusion?

HEY!..what do you know. That sounds a lot like the sighted listening tests of audiophiles who work at audio magazines and websites.

You know, that system many many hundreds of them developed across decades of work toward trying to get it done right.

@fleschler "So what ASR says about your stereo shouldn’t bother you.".

However, It can be an annoyance though if you happen to follow a recommendation based on a unit-test that produced amazing measurements. To then blindly buy the component based on those amazing test results. Install it, listen to it for a while, spending a lot of time - - and then to realize its nothing special at all, not musically engaging, dull, boring, flat, bleh. Then engage the return policy, pay for shipping back to retailer. More loss of time, cost. Been there and done that first hand. Tried it for the sake of learning. Wont make that mistake again.

Lesson learned - yes. Don’t follow measurement reports alone. Test it in your own system, your gear, your ears, your room. You might even prefer something that does not measure nearly as well and sounds very musical to your ears. 👍

The OP will have to admit that his original post was quite combative. He is very fortunate to have such a nice system and above all to be pleased with it. I think most ASR people would agree with that statement, even though they might evaluate the components differently because of their interest in science and engineering. Indeed, the OP was more restrained that many of the others, but all the vituperation against ASR isn't productive, and people are likely to be arguing about science versus subjectivism ten years from now. How many centuries have people been arguing about empiricism and religion? Burning people at the stake doesn't do anything. 

fleschler,

He was an electrical engineer for 30+ years. He used Pangea power cords on his equipment. The sound was not good. Bass frequencies were a mess. The reproduction of the frequency range was very ragged with some frequencies standing out and some recessed. Hearing a bass played on his system was awful.

I lent him an Empress ($300) 7 year old GroverHuffman power cable for his amp. He was blown away. The bass started to sound coherent. He still had this spacey sound, undefined highs.

As I wrote: Most electronic engineers - the ones who are not trying to sell you those products - will explain that. And the few who DO believe inevitably have only anecdotes for the claim.

It is zero surprise that you’ve just provided another anecdote...no supporting evidence.

Please keep in mind that just "being an engineer" doesn’t guard anyone against the influences of sighted bias. Just as "being a scientist" doesn’t stop any scientist from experiencing bias effects. That’s why it’s the METHOD that is important and reliable, not "the person." Every scientist who makes a claim has to provide objective evidence that can be vetted.   "Take my word for it, I'm a scientist" won’t do.

It’s the same in audio. An engineer who is using an unreliable method like sighted listening is JUST as fallible as anyone else and can hear things that aren’t there.

Sorry...that’s just how humans work.

This is not a claim that ’therefore you and he were not hearing any difference.’ It is merely pointing out that just believing it, and claiming it, doesn’t advance the conversation at all.

You say that there were very clear changes in frequency response, both highs and bass. What you are describing is easily measurable. Did your engineer friend measure these differences in the musical signal? If so, that would be truly novel data. But the fact no such data has been presented...ever!...as far as I’m aware, is a Big Red Flag in terms of the substance of such claims.