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?
ASR as audioholics anonymous? It probably is (with all that likeness implies). Although I do wish damaged abstainers like our crying friend would stop at 12 steps instead of going for 256. |
When I was in my teens to early 30s, I relied upon audio dealers in purchasing equipment. There were virtually no boutique cabling companies Some major brands started by the end of 1970s. I was not content with the sound of my system and kept changing speakers and amps. By 1998, I was financially capable to invest in higher end equipment and cabling. I did spend money on a modded SME IV/VPI 19 in 1989 and in the 90s on Audio Research SP 14 & Classic 60 amp. I had read audio magazines since the early 70s. I found so many reviews just wrong in the mainstream mags. Tons of feedback on the "new" solid state gear sounded bad compared to the 50’s and 60’s tube gear. High school friends wanted to show off their 125 watt or 200 watt Pioneer receivers with JBL and Cerwin Vega speakers and I wanted to run from the sound. I purchased Yamaha lower powered gear which I thought was more musical sounding. I didn’t get into tube gear until law school and never looked back. |
You travel in different circles than I did/do. Yes, they sell more cheap bookshelf speakers than large difficult to drive loudspeakers but that doesn't mean the hard to drive loudspeakers are an anomaly. Back in the late 60s there were not many high-power amps for home audio. Let's start with the Bose 901s series I. They sucked the few 200 wpc amps dry. So much so that Bose built the 1801 amp to solve the issue. After the Infinity Servo Static system and the SS1A was being developed (a difficult electrostatic load), Infinity developed the Quantum line reference line of loudspeakers. They were amp killers and started the development of many new high-power amps as did the Magnepan Tympani Loudspeaker. Amps like the Ampzilla, BGW, Phase Linear 700/400, and others. Later the Infinity Reference Standard 2.5s/4.5s, RS1Bs, Monitor IIAs, stacked Advents. You might say the Magnepans are not hard to drive but a pair of 3.7s driven at volume can stress most amps. Probably not as many hard to drive speakers by pure numbers today due to the requirements of multi-channel and low power AVRs but there are still many out there in the high-end world. |
| Post removed |
I expect I travel in a much wider circle than you do. You may note my sideline in my first post and I don’t go chasing cheap. With my newfound knowledge: Magnepan Tympani - Not hard to drive, though tube amps would struggle and older SS gear may. 901 - Does not tax a good modern receiver. Perhaps when they first came out it was an issue. ASR does not test 1970s SS gear. IRS - Challenging in its time, but ASR does test amplifiers down to 2 ohms now, and that would be sufficient for the IRS Plumbing the depths of what are at this point ancient speakers while not recognizing what tests are done does not prove your point. It reinforces my point that the goal here seems to be to find the one obscure situation where ASR measurements may not be correct, and attempt to use that as an excuse to discard all the work they do. Maybe that fools some people.
|
