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

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.

@crymeanaudioriver

I agree with AXO1989’s comment.

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?

Generally I note whether a subjective reviewer is good at putting sound in to words - usefully! - and if I note his/her descriptions correlate very well with equipment I’ve owned or heard myself, then I gain some confidence that his observations can be useful. I also note reviewers who seem to care particularly about noting the things I care about, so I feel ’ok, this person listens like me, he’s listening for the same things, and he’s very good at detecting and describing them."

I have been led to quite a few wonderful products, parsing reviews in this way. I’ve also been amazed how perceptive and accurate some of their descriptions have been when they are describing speakers I’m familiar with.

In fact I was just reading an old review of the Devore O/93 speakers that I’ve auditioned numerous times and love, which also sound like the bigger O/96 that I like even more. I was bewitched by those speakers - they did something really special that stood out from all the other speakers I auditioned. And the reviewer nailed the way the Devores reproduced realistic organic timbre and density:

"A snare drum skin sounds exactly like a real snare drum skin. A cymbal crashes, splashes, sparkles, and has airborne sonic decay as if a drum kit is being played in front of me. A singer’s voice has chest resonance – not just throat vibration – which signals my brain to believe that vocal emanation is being projected by an organic, physical mass, just like a real singer standing in the room would sound."

Those words could have been taken right out of my head after my first audition of the Devore O-series speakers. The FIRST thing that hit me, as a fan of drums, was "man THAT sounds more like a real snare than I’ve heard anywhere!" Then I listened to one of my drum solo test tracks and was blown away by the sound of the cymbals. I’d rarely heard them that big, brassy, airy, splashy...so much like the real thing. The startling sensation of a "drum kit being played in front of me" stuck in my mind for weeks (having grown up with drums, played them, played in bands).  I was also struck by the way the Devores gave a sense of body and density to sounds missing in many other speakers...exactly as the reviewer pointed out.

So I can see this guy is caring about what I care about, listening for what I’m listening for, and his description (including most of the rest of the review) is bang on from what I took away from the Devore auditions.

The thing is, over on ASR the Devore speakers are just immediately dismissed because they immediately see "problems" with the design, that don’t fit the "harman kardon curve" school of design that is favored there. I would never, ever have been drawn to the Devores via that web site. It was subjective descriptions from other audiophiles and writers that kept hitting on certain themes about those speakers, which made me say ’these sound right up my alley.’

I could mention all sorts of subjective reviews that I found very accurate. (For instance Herb at Stereophile nailed the character differences comparing Harbeth and Joseph Audio speakers, both of which I have owned).

@prof Thank you for the lead. I forgot about this head to head speaker comparison. I heard the Joseph’s and the Harbeth 40.1s and Herb’s description is right on target. I prefer the Harbeth sound (possibly because I have over 10,000 opera/classical vocal LPs/CDs and 78s) for voice. Fortunately, my speakers are somewhere in the middle of these two with big, deep bass as well (six drivers/3 12" woofers each).  

Did you decide on the Devore O/96 because it was an amalgam of those two speakers that you previously owned? I only heard Devores (O/93 or O/96) under audio show conditions and while it was pleasant, it didn’t excite me (the room was very wide and I have no recollection of the other equipment). Your description makes me want to hear them again in a better setting.   All 3 speakers you own/owned are also moderately priced and as two ways, maintain excellent coherence and imaging. 

I have under 100 bongo jazz and pop LPs/CDs and 1000+ jazz recordings commonly featuring drums . As my equipment got better, I could also relate to hearing the skins and feeling the snap plus the shimmering of cymbals. Very exciting. I know what you’re feeling.