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


"Audiophiles are Snobs"  Youtube features an idiot!  He states, with no equivocation,  that $5,000 and $10,000 speakers sound equally good and a $500 and $5,000 integrated amp sound equally good.  He is either deaf or a liar or both! 

There is a site filled with posters like him called Audio Science Review.  If a reasonable person posts, they immediately tear him down, using selected words and/or sentences from the reasonable poster as100% proof that the audiophile is dumb and stupid with his money. They also occasionally state that the high end audio equipment/cable/tweak sellers are criminals who commit fraud on the public.  They often state that if something scientifically measures better, then it sounds better.   They give no credence to unmeasurable sound factors like PRAT and Ambiance.   Some of the posters music choices range from rap to hip hop and anything pop oriented created in the past from 1995.  

Have any of audiogon (or any other reasonable audio forum site) posters encountered this horrible group of miscreants?  

fleschler

@djones51 

I have seen this stated more than once "Science is observation then measurement". It's not really how it works,  it would be "verifiable observation". Science has no interest in measuring every non verified observation. ...

Verifying observations a priori isn't scientific though. We develop theoretical knowledge by observation, hypothesis and experimentation in that order.

Initial observation is how we come up with hypothesis in the first place. If you filter observation based on pre-existing theory you can't form new hypotheses. The science is in comparing the prediction of the hypothesis to the result of the experiment.

Of course, myths survive partly because falsifying non-existent things is tricky. I'm not going too far down that rabbit hole this morning.

nonoise, your response was, as usual, strewn with strawmen.

Sometime when you really want to interact with what has been argued, we are here for conversation.

prof, sounds like something a Crusader would say as he marches to retake the holy lands. No doubt they were quite talkative about it.

All the best,
Nonoise

@nonoise and @tantejuut  That's what I have been posting here.  If it is a subtle difference, then yes, my senses can be wrong.  If it is a DRAMATIC difference, not only can my friends with golden hearing, my very educated hearing but also totally equipment uninterested friends and family members can hear the differences.  I invite friends over and they exclaim how wonderful the music sounds (meaning reproduced).  If it weren't for time limits, they would stay all day (2-3 hours is usual).  Covid killed 1.5 years of friends coming over). 

To a few posters today, everything I say is anecdotal and has no relevance because I didn't do blind A/B/X testing to determine the measured differences.   Is that what this hobby (obsession for listening to music) is about?  Maybe it is for some but not for the overwhelming majority of music listeners who are overwhelmingly not audiophiles either.  

Now I think I will begin another forum concerning manufacturers supplying measurements and testing.  WHY DON'T THEY?  

 

@axo1989  in audio we are well beyond the observation and hypothesis stage. However you are wrong or at least simplifying. The hypothethis may be as simple as you are hearing things. The scientific side of audio has already stated that and tested it often. The I believe my hearing crowd simply refuses to test their hypothesis that what they hear actually is there. Hence it remains a hypothesis for them and them alone.   Unfortunately based on a available evidence even if proven they don't hear what they think they hear I don't think they will accept the results. See my Carl Jung quote.