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

@cd318

At best they are subjectivist entertainment, nothing more. At worst they are little more than a collusive practice with mutual benefits for the manufactures, dealers and reviewers.

Re "at worst" I agree. But "at best" they are informative descriptions of the sonic characteristics of the devices reviewed.

I’m not a former/converted subjectivist, however, so I don’t have recovery PTSD to contend with or commiserate over.

Anyone telling you an audio product sounds bad based solely on a THD of 0.003% compared to another product with 0.001% without even listening as to whether that has any effect is delusional. 

Anyone telling you an audio product sounds bad based solely on a THD of 0.003% compared to another product with 0.001% without even listening as to whether that has any effect is delusional. 

Are you implying that happens on ASR @henry53 ??  Haven't we had enough hyperbole and lying for one topic already?

But "at best" they are informative descriptions of the sonic characteristics of the devices reviewed.

How do you know they are that and not a reflection of a very nice or very poor aesthetic, or prior conditioning, or the ongoing fight with the spouse?

I too was taken with tweaky products and equipment. Luckily, most of them were only auditioned and returned. The biggest loss versus cost was a Muse Signature 9 SE CD player $3800, sold for $550 years later. Touted by my late audio dealer who was an expert in analog and had some very good product lines, I bought it and disliked it for a few 100 hours, then stopped listening to it. For some reason, it sounded like the beginning and ending transients were lopped off and the remote was a horror. I went back to listening to older Sony CD players and a new Marantz CD 63. Then the EAR Acute for 15 years.

As to tweaks, so many only made a subliminal difference I returned them as not worth it. When I moved into my new high end listening room, I removed the bandaid subtle "kitchen magnet" products from my system. They reduced dynamics and appeared to add distortion.

My favorite tweak is the Shakti Hallograph, an acoustic tweak. Not subtle at all.  It works wonders with my speakers but maybe won't be necessary with high end Von Schweikert speakers I want to eventually purchase with their great imaging, timing and soundstage coherence for very wide listening area. 

I have extensively read magazines, now internet sites, about audio equipment. I don’t believe most of them (especially cable reviews). My favorites were from J.Gordon Holt, but that was a long time ago. Today, with so many reviewers not using classical or jazz to audition equipment, I cannot get a sense of what the reviewer is hearing from a modern recording. I like when sound comparisons are made between multiple pieces of equipment.

I know that even many high end cable manufacturers do not state what the difference in sound will be using one or another of their cables. Synergistic Research, from Foundation to SRX, 6 lines of cable, what difference will I hear moving up or down? Ansuz cables-"the more transparent, holistic and authentic the resulting soundstage. The resulting sound is even more refined, more spacious and truly amazing." What does that tell me, that’s it’s just better? Masterbuilt cables-so little information that it is just based on their price. Yet I’ve heard these three lines sound great in high end systems. Maybe they only work well in those systems. Transparent, Audioquest, Cardas, Nordost, Crystal Cable, Shunyata, etc. etc. There is just too little information, all marketing and puffery. Many do give me a good idea about their construction such as SR. I want more information to try them, certainly don’t want to buy them without trying them.