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

@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.

Well, some standouts may provide contrast, prof.

like the head of the calibrations lab for the biggest design campus of Texas Instruments. He was an 80 year old expert at the peak of his craft, that’s why he was there.

Now there’s a man who knew regimen and it’s correct application, regarding all forms of electrical measurement, and more.

He was an avid hard core audiophile. Cables, rooms, treatments, tweaks, the works.

Here are a few audio(?) products that are either close to irrelevant or not a good value/can be substituted at 90% or less the price.

1. McIntosh LB200 Light Box $1500.  Not an audio product.  99% irrelevant.  Useful for vanity purposes.

2.  Furutech DeMaga LP demagnatizer $3300.  Furutech's own Destat III at $300 does the same thing.  So do $100 demag guns.  Heard it, no difference than Destat III. 

Hint: Brushing one's tonearm prior to play, one swipe, with an anti-static record brush can be effective for free and is quick.

3.  DS Audio’s ES 001 Eccentricity Detection Stabilizer $6000  For the fastidious LP listener who will spend more time centering his LP than listening.  It is not easy to use and the results can be beneficial, but at what cost to one's time?  

4. Shun Mook LP Clamp $5600  Heard on a high end system (Wilson Audio Alexandria Xlf, McIntosh MC 1000s, DS Master 1 cartridge, etc.)   Yes, all four of us heard a positive benefit from using this versus not using a clamp.  Was it worth it?  Not to any of us.  The owner is a audio reviewer.  Actually, the system was extremely resolving with fantastic bass and dynamics.  But, it was fatiguing to listen to after an hour.  

These are just a few examples where dubious value of high end products exists. 

As to centering LPs, a turntable that was designed to do that were a Nakamichi TX 1000 from the 1980s as I recall. I heard it at Beverly Stereo back then.  It sounded great.  I could not afford it then.