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

If you are of the "ASR" state of mind, you start of by immediately acknowledging our fallibility... 

So, it's a seven-step program like Alcoholics Anonymous? 

So, it's a seven-step program like Alcoholics Anonymous? 

 

Ha!  Minus the religious proselytizing of AA.  For some I suppose it could be a similar detox from being marinated in audiophile myths ;-) 

 

I had to research the Hedy Lamarr story. That is a huge leap from the website whose text you plagiarized.  Jumping between radio frequencies to prevent jamming is not "scientific genius". It was both a simple solution to a problem and it was already done manually in the early days of radio when two people communicating would decide together to change channels to avoid interference. It took me a total of 5 minutes to find this out. To think that event was necessary to have WiFi, GPS and Bluetooth is a gross reach, but you didn't write those words, so I will only partially hold you to them. She also did not do this on her own, but with someone skilled in the art.

Winchell I know well. He both had medical training and he did not develop it on his own, he developed it with a medical doctor. There is that whole building on prior knowledge. This was purely a mechanical device, a pump to replicate the operation of the heart. He never built one that went in a person, nor could it do anything but pump.

 

Perhaps this is the issue. You don't fundamentally understand science. Neither of the two developments you mentioned are scientific discoveries. The first is a relatively simple engineering idea, a practical solutions to problem, and if Hedy Lamarr had not been involved, it would be a non event, like the other 10's of thousands of practical ideas that people come up with every year. It is akin to intermittent wipers. I don't think we would consider that a scientific advancement would we? Winchell built a pump to replicate the pumping functions of the human heart. Not a scientific discovery, but an engineering development. He was not the first to think of this idea, and it is not clear that he even advanced the overall development. This is a medical view of the development timeline of artificial hearts:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358116/

 

The largest portion of intelligence is genetic. Book learning and experience does not make you smart, it makes you skilled. At the highest levels of "smart", recent research indicates you can only train for minimal increases in intelligence.

 

 

The greatest invention ever. Flawless engineering and execution form concept, design and going to market. 

 flowbee