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

Is this becoming a right to free speech discussion?

There is a right to remain silent when confronted with an angry crowd, as some may know goes back a couple millennium.

@crymeanaudioriver 

If you have to resort to lying to make your point, I can only assume your position is weak

"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak" - Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

For the crowd here that  are blind testing advocates get over it:

 

@fleschler , would it be safe to say you are not an electrical designer or electrical engineer? If so, under what authority do you make the following comment?

 

Yeesh.  I hadn't seen that post about the Benchmark.  That's particularly telling....

It must feel nice to feel better informed than truly technically proficient designers, because you have Golden Ears.  Someday I'll reach that super power....

 

@kota1

For the crowd here that are blind testing advocates get over it:

Did you actually read that article? It doesn’t make the point you seem to think it makes.

It re-enforces the liabilities of sighted listening. In other words, even taking the article's argument as given: sighted listening has ALL the liabilities cited in the article PLUS the addition of sighted bias.