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

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.

I am a longtime member here, and a member of several other forums, including ASR.  ASR has its good points and its bad points, as does AudioGon and every other forum.  Just as I am confused about the hostility here by many towards A/B testing, which is one tool, I am confused by the hostility towards objective measurements.  It seems that neither pure “objectivists” nor pure “subjectivists” are correct.  Sound is a combination of system synergy, room acoustics, and even a person’s hearing. So it seems that while neither group is absolutely correct, ultimately the subjective sound counts more to me in my system that objective measurements.  That does not seem to be a controversial position.

That being said, I struggle with the concept that differences in sound cannot be objectively measured, perhaps by REW.  It seems logical that a difference in sound should measurable in some way.  That goes especially for the idea of “break-in,” which theoretically could be measurable in some way.  If a power cord or speaker cable needs 100 hours of “break-in,” which I really dont understand, shouldn’t that difference be measurable in some way?

Power cables are a very good example of the objectivist v. Subjectivist dilemma.  I recently put some pretty pricey Shunyata Research power cables in.  The first one that I used was clearly (to me) an audible improvement over stock.  Why?  Who knows. But why isn’t that difference measurable in some way?  Logic dictates that it should be.  Same when I changed speaker cables.  Many cable manufacturers make all sorts of jumbo-jumbo marketing claims.  But shouldn’t there be a way to test those differences objectively between one cable and another? Sure seems so. Even if there is no way to measure the difference, I hear a difference.  Doesn’t mean that measurements are meaningless . . . It just means that we don’t have the means to test that difference, I suppose.

On ASR, the consensus is the opposite.  If it can’t be measured, then any difference is in the imagination or bias of the listener, which I know at least in my case is not accurate. Nonetheless, I like to know that my $$$ Shunyata power cable measures the same as lamp cord, even if it sounds much different.  To me that shows the failure of pure objectivism, although I can’t explain why the difference cannot be measured.

For similar reasons, I don’t understand the hostility among many to A/B testing.  I know that it is sometimes difficult to set that sort of test up, but logically, a listener should be able to discern differences quickly.  I remember a friend and I wanted to determine whether there was any difference between a manufacturer’s digital cable and a toslink one.  Switching back and forth, we were both in agreement that the Toslink cable sounded better. So there is a value to A/B testing too.

Then there is the tweaking.  Surely, if a tweak improves the sound, there should be a measurable difference, right? What about one of my favorites, the Shun Mook $5,000 record clamp made from aged ebony from swamps in Africa.  The claims made for why that magic ebony makes any more difference than a regular record clamp has got to be measurable in some way, doesn’t it?  Or are we supposed to simply accept the jumbo-jumbo without looking for some scientific basis?

The bottom line to my rambling is that ASR has its place and its utility.  People do not need to accept those findings as gospel, but they are a factoid to be weighed and balanced with other things.  Ultimately, the test is a subjective one:  regardless of measurements, how does it sound to YOU.  And that means that someone might hear an astounding difference and another person might not.  Doesn’t mean that there is no difference.  It just means that when you add a person’s hearing into the mix, it sounds better or worse for that person.

@moto_man  you started fine then rejected science. You can pick and choose what you believe but that is the point where you transition from science to belief.  ASR people don't reject listening as a method they reject personal accounts listening accounts.  The science side has done many many blind listening tests, documented so they can be repeated, that have explored the limits of hearing. ASR does nothing but accept that science absent any well controlled studies that prove otherwise.  They inherently are not the people to prove otherwise in a controlled listening test as they are biased. The people here are. Ideally the best situation is the people from ASR running the test and the people from Audiogon being participants. One group will come away right. I have little doubt the ASR crowd would participate. Would the people from here participate?