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

1) Failure to understand Klippel measurements

Example would be nice.

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

How so? I’ve read the test.

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

Not sure about this, if you're referring to power cable the cable was plugged into the wall receptacle.

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)

This is your opinion, which is fine but there is testing which supports using one speaker.

This whole thread makes me chuckle. Thinly veiled disciples of a cult “subjectively” preaching to a crowd of those who know better…then when the preaching doesn’t work they continue to sermonize with neither an invitation nor a rational purpose for continuing.

Amir seems like a sincere guy and his niche is his to do with as he pleases. Good for him and for those who hang on his every word. Why isn’t it a good strategy for those still hinged to just grab a cup of coffee and ignore the unhinged disciples until they hop back into their ‘88 Civics with the grapefruit shooter mufflers and return to Toppingville?

I see you have nothing to add but cheap insults @ghasley?

The rejection of science here is akin to fanaticism.

@laoman You clearly have no idea who you are talking, what my qualifications are and for whom I have worked.

Because you introduce this aspect of yourself, it is now imperative that you elaborate for the avoidance of doubt.

I’m not rejecting science @crymeanaudioriver I’m just rejecting the audio equivalent of fanatical Scientologists. U B U, but this isn’t the ideal venue for your message, you’re just too arrogant to realize you are much more entertaining as an anomoly than you are appreciated.