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

@fleschler you said:

the total immersive experience 

With the setup you have you certainly don't need to change anything. It might be interesting to discuss another way to get this "immersive" experience (especially if you like movies from the 30's, 40's, or today)

Please stop my my thread on atmos if you want to discuss more. Thanks

 

 

Immersive audio at CEDIA in 2022, check out how Focal deploys 7 FULL range speakers and 4 height channels so no big box subs needed. The demo spekaers are on display, at home you would use acoustically transparent fabric on the walls making both your speakers and room treatments "invisible":

 

@prof 

Having done various blind tests over the years, it's a very powerful lesson.  It's too bad many audiophiles haven't experienced their 'sighted' impressions dissolving away when they can't use their knowledge of which piece of gear is actually playing.   There's nothing that sinks in like an actual experience.

Yup, I've experienced my sighted impressions "dissolving away." It's both a  humbling and amazing experience. I've done it both with cables and testing a burned in amp against an identical model that hadn't been burned in. I can't express how obvious the difference in sound quality seemed to me during the sighted listening, so having the effect completely vanish just because I couldn't see which device I was listening to was like experiencing magic. In the end it taught me how malleable my perception of sound quality is to both conscious and unconscious expectations. My ear transduces the sound and then my brain interprets the resulting signal in the light of other sensory information.

@fleschler, you and I have similar experiences.  I had an uncle into hifi in the 60s and 70s that caught my attention.  He had a Dual turntable and a Pioneer receiver.  Then I got myself a Kenwood receiver in the mid 70s just before my sophomore year.  I bought more upscale Kenwood gear once graduating college but my hifi experience began when I went to a co worker's house in 1988 and heard his highly modified Quad ESLs driven by a Quicksilver Amp, modified ARC SP-8 preamp and a Sota Star with the ET-II tonearm on a Billybags stand.  It was the most magical musical moment of my life.  Since then I have always had an ARC tube preamp but I shied away from tube amps.  First, having two little boys back then I was afraid for their lives and now that they are grown and gone I often think of getting some tube amps if not for the recurring costs.  Any tube amp with output greater than 100 W/ch gets expensive to re-tube, it seems.  It's not that I can't afford it.  It's my mid-western upbringing I would say, because no one else I grew up with would ever spend a fortune on stereo gear like I have done.  That night alone with Suzanne Vega and those Quad ESL's infected me badly.

You should post some pics of your system.  Would love to see it.  I've gone from Planars through the 90s to Thiels to Wilson speakers.  I built a dedicated room in the early 90s for the Planars but then moved from that house.  That was the best sound I had until now with the Wilsons.  I had double walls, sound treatment in the corners and dedicated power.  I did the ceiling in 1/2" drywall with thick, rough paint for  diffusion.  Now I have that sound with the addition of much more powerful and clear bass.

@axo1989 , one minute you are an expert in engineering, one minute you are an expert in accounting. That is quite the skill set.

 

@crymeanaudioriver I thought I was replying to @cd318 so my mistake. I’m not so interested in your aggressive communication style so don’t expect an extended discussion. I’ve given you enough to go on, you can figure out what material interest means and how it may apply in this context perhaps, if you are sufficiently curious. The number and scope of gifts to ASR certainly crosses the usual thresholds for declaration in the regulatory sector that I have experience in.

 

If ASR / Amir were to start selling the devices, than you could claim it was a gift. The same would be true if the devices started being used as entertainment devices within his home and others. It is almost a given the suppliers are providing these units as non-commercial samples for evaluation, not intended for resales. Companies provide samples for evaluation to other companies all the time. The company sending marked as an expense, the receiving company does not mark as a gift. As ASR sells nothing, markets nothing, it would be a hard stretch to consider the units sent as "input" to their end product. It could even be argued that what Amir is doing is a "stress" test and hence the units are unusable after.  

Of course at the end of the day, like most of what you have wrote, there is a lot of conjecture with a goal of discrediting.

My style is not aggressive, it is accurate. If someone is making claims that are false, or not supported by available information, then I am raising that as an issue. If someone is doing that with the goal of discrediting another individual, then they should not expect soft treatment. Would you prefer I used the wording potentially libelous?