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

@crymeanaudioriver

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

Bizarre gaslighting. I’ve claimed neither.

If ASR / Amir were to start selling the devices, than [sic] you could claim it was a gift.

Bizarre logic. A gift is received. Subsequent sale has no bearing at all.

As ASR sells nothing, markets nothing, it would be a hard stretch to consider the units sent as "input" to their end product.

Their end product is published testing, a supply of review units could certainly be considered an input. But I didn’t state that, my expertise is legal/regulatory (not accounting) and I said—correctly—material consideration. My recommendation was not that they shouldn't accept review units, but that they operate transparently—declaring gift vs loan and maintaining a register of the former. What they do is their business of course, but how I regard their unusual ethical claims is mine.

So 55 steps down now, 201 to go. Don’t expect me to follow along though, your journey is your own. 😉

 

@axo1989 , this is just one of many posts where you are trying to put forth that you have technical chops,

The part I asked you to respond to was your statement that my "takeaway" after amplifier listening was contrary to audio (and psycho-acoustic) research. The points I re-iterated were quite sound, but I was interested in your counterpoint (as opposed to your talking points).

But by your own admission, you are just legal/regulatory, and the comment I made w.r.t. to "gift" is tax law, which does not seem to be your forte. I don't think I have seen any other reviewer clearly say whether the reviews were loan, load with discount to buy, etc. so your attack, again, is specious, and given they don't accept advertising, they are already many steps above others from an optics stand point.

Still waiting on those youtube links. I already expected they did not exist or did not say what you claim, but now I am rather more sure.

w.r.t the gift, arguably, the review that Amir provides, assuming the product is technically competent, is of far more value, monetarily, to the company that provides the product, so the concept of "gift" is questionable, not just from an accounting standpoint, but a logic standpoint, and even a dictionary definition standpoint.

 

 

Why don’t we call it a draw and go out for ice cream...🍧

  • what flavor?
  • what make?
  • how much?
  • what kind of dish?
  • cold or hot spoon to dish it out?
  • toppings?

Just saying....

All the best,
Nonoise