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

@jerryg123 ,

I looked over that "cable test" at Alpha Audio. I will reiterate my comment. It is very amateur. How can anyone call themselves and audiophile of any experience and not know even the most basic things about a blind test. They even have a video of them doing this blind test. They don't have a good explanation, so we work with the video and what they wrote. Apparently, all they did was listen to each cable only once, write down their notes, then gave a rating at the end. They could have put all the names into a hat and pulled them out to determine the ranking. The result would carry the same weight and validity. Based on their data, the Shunyata would have been the loudest.

@amir_asr perhaps you would want to jump in at this point, but I don't get a very strong impression these Alpha Audio guys have much idea about what they are doing. I don't have the confidence to solidly identify measurement mistakes, but some of the things they wrote have me shaking my head, this like this statement. How could any measurement they made provide any indication of material purity?

The conductance is purely indicative. It shows how pure the material is that has been used. Ricable claims to use very pure, 7N copper. That matches up pretty well with what we measure on 2 x 3 meters (we go out (+) and back (-) in the cable in this measurement). Shunyata tops that with the very purest copper. And so that is visible in this measurement.

Think it was said earlier that no one cares what a Phlebotomist or @cindyment has to say about anything.

Troll keeps a 🧌 ing.

@jerryg123 , someone on ASR spent more time evaluating their methods. The word amateur keeps repeating in my head. I will point this out to you as well @kota1 .

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/loudspeaker-cable-test-and-comparison.35712/post-1247963

The guy doing the switching is there. The two listeners discuss their findings which isn’t good methodology during the test. The switcher also had done the measurements. This isn’t even good single blind. Plus they discuss things for several minutes as cables are switched. They can see the cables being pulled out as switching is done. The first one was a white thin little cable, the next one is a big black fancy looking cable which they might have noticed even though not scrutinizing the cable as this happens. The switcher even gets involved in the discussions of what some of the cables sounds like with the test listeners. At one point even discussing what the measurements of the cable currently listened to was. This is a preposterous test. They are listening to not quite 10 minutes of music once, then talk amongst themselves for 7 to 8 minutes while cables are swapped (again in their view) before listening to the next one. And the results are random even though the author tries to spin it as meaningful.

@jerryg123 , did you notice how actual scientists don’t put pics of toys, like "piggy banks" in their cable reviews? Good example for the pretenders in this thread :)

@kota1 , posting a link to a personal report of what someone thinks they heard does not prove your point. If the reviewer was truly curious, or fully believed their conclusion, they would have gotten two DACs, one burned in, and one not, and compared them in blind test.