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

The problem I have is people telling me what I can not hear. If I hear differences in cables, I want to learn what is happening. If other people tell me that it is impossible and I am delusional, I find that not the right attitude for investigating the parameters for what is causing that effect. (geometry, dielectrics, purity, etc...). 

Good scientists push the envelope, share knowledge and are humble. Measuring things is just measuring. Nothing more, nothing less. Measuring is not a sacred, end to all discussions, type of knowledge.

"With all the qualified people that participate in ASR, and accept the results, it is arrogance on your unqualified part to be sniping about his methods"

Normally I do not answer trolls, however.

1) Failure to understand Klippel measurements

2) Poor testing methodology - eg the tests conducted on the Chord M Scaler

3) Failure to read user manuals about tolerances before engaging in testing

4) Testing cables for interference when they are not plugged in to anything

5) Not checking if the samples sent are "cherry picked"

6) A refusal to take responsibility for recommendations when the product quality is not satisfactory eg Topping.

7) Conducting speaker listening tests based on 1 speaker only ( I do not care what he says about the validity of this, as this is nonsense)

8) Reliance on Sinad rather than use industry standard "THD" and "S/N ratio when this an old and arguably inefficient method of measurement.

9) Listening at ridiculously high volumes eg on the Focal Clear headphones at 115 db. Are you serious??

10) The farcical review of HiFiMan Ananda headphones where he was simply way off beam.

Do you want more, because there is plenty more. By the way

 

1) Failure to understand Klippel measurements

Are you referring to Danny Ritchie claiming this? It took 5 minutes to find engineers taking apart Danny for his lack of knowledge of how Klippel works.  If you mean his Magnepan test I cannot comment and neither has Magnepan.

 

2) Poor testing methodology - eg the tests conducted on the Chord M Scaler

Poor how? The unit does not so anything when connected to a half decent DAC. It's output is very jittery.

 

3) Failure to read user manuals about tolerances before engaging in testing

Tolerances of what? You are really reaching here.

 

4) Testing cables for interference when they are not plugged in to anything

 

Took me a bit longer to understand this, but your comment is false. He tested unconnected to examine shielding and then connected it.

 

5) Not checking if the samples sent are "cherry picked"

In this topic Amir stated that most of what he tests comes from listeners.

 

6) A refusal to take responsibility for recommendations when the product quality is not satisfactory eg Topping.

 

You have both made up a failure rate for topping and no review site does. This is a ludicrous attempt to discredit.

 

7) Conducting speaker listening tests based on 1 speaker only ( I do not care what he says about the validity of this, as this is nonsense)

 

It is not that you don't care it is that you are not qualified to make this comment. I read the paper posted. Makes total sense.

 

8) Reliance on Sinad rather than use industry standard "THD" and "S/N ratio when this an old and arguably inefficient method of measurement.

 

Flat out incorrect. Have you even read any review on ASR? There are pages of measurements. IMD, SINAD, THD. Many different test levels and frequencies.

 

9) Listening at ridiculously high volumes eg on the Focal Clear headphones at 115 db. Are you serious??

 

Another flat out misrepresentation. Did you even read the review?

 

10) The farcical review of HiFiMan Ananda headphones where he was simply way off beam.

 

Farcical how? Do you own it and he disagrees?

 

 

@laoman I will give you the benefit of the doubt  that most of this list is not your own.  It was not hard, even at my knowledge level to tear apart your list.