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

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.

@crymeanaudioriver

 

1) What material consideration do you speak of? Proof or just making that up?

ASR receives review samples which are not returned, meaning they are gifts. Amir posted photograph/s and acknowledged same in a discussion thread recently. I was unaware of the scope of that consideration, and said so. In the same thread ’master contributor’ @restorer-john recommended that a register be maintained for transparency, and that statements of interest posted with reviews be more specific/informative. For example ’supplied by manufacturer’ is often noted, but ’gift’ is not. Amir did some handwaving, but didn’t address the substantive issues ... @restorer-john was attacked by a moderator, and the usual ’out-of-line’ bluster was dished out (the moderator later apologised, which was novel).

2) Amir said that he started working with the AP equipment professionally, I think at Microsoft, so that statement appears false as well. Most of us are self taught on much of the equipment we use. That is what owners manuals, videos, and other resources are for. When our results match others results, we know we are using it properly. He also clearly has a close relationship with Audio Precision, perhaps Klippel too, so this second statement by you also appears to be made up and not factual or relevant.

We all pick up skills using tools in our vocations. Formal training is another thing. You’ve no doubt seen (or should see) the amusing YT videos featuring beginner Amir asking AP personnel newbie questions, and their commendably polite responses (yes, after his time at MS). Close relationship? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

But you’re on step 50 it seems, 206 to go ...

"...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..."

I'm not trying to discount anybody's work or opinion. I'm just relating my experience. ASR doesn't really spend much time testing quality high-power amps or gear priced, let me be kind here, above the most modest level, just a few pieces. I like the measurements provided by ASR, but not much gear that I am interested in appears on ASR, so it's not particularly useful to me.  

So you are saying Stereophile receives gifts @axo1989 ? Virtually every review site seems to get them. Unless he is selling them on Ebay or similar, calling it a gift is really an extreme stretch in an attempt to discredit.

I think you should post links to these supposed Youtube videos as the only one I could find was a "coached" video, 4 years old, when he was getting a new model of analyzer. You really are stretching to discredit.

Formal training? I did a lot of medical research. Formal training on equipment? I expect it is no different from the Audio Precision. An afternoon or maybe a day with the vendor. This is not something you go to school for.  Life saving hospital equipment was a different matter, but equipment used in research?  Just another sloppy attempt to discredit.

I know, I am digging a hole here, but what would be wrong with a general standard at least to start with when it comes to audio, no matter the component? I wince to bring up 'Consumer Reports' Way back then, because they did not seem to have a clue early in the game of audio. They were even more carefree than Stereo Review in some of their opinions as to what made a good deal. In fact, just about everybody lied about the products that they sold. 

 If there were a starting line so to speak for expectations of any piece of equipment, beyond the promise that it won't catch fire, then maybe products could fall into categories/expectation for the dollar. 

 Wow, this hole will get deeper the more I think about this. Goodbye.