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?
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.
|
My personal preference is getting the opinions of people who bought gear, used gear, and then took a moment to post a review of the gear. I combine both professional reviews as well as user reviews. The cable cranks will blow a gasket about a cable that costs a premium even though they don’t own it, never tried it and never will. Yet you go on Amazon and see a hundred of five star reviews from people who loved it and are now fans of the brand. I’ll take a hundred 5 star reviews with positive feedback over one cable crank any day. Plus if I don’t like it. refund that bad boy. Whether you find value at $10 a foot or $100 a foot as long as it is worth it to you, NP.
|
Quick show of hands, everyone here who conducted their last blind listening test with a PANEL of TRAINED listeners, say aye. Congratulations if your every audio purchase gets judged by your panel. See the link I posted above: "If you want to take the variable of the listener out of the equation, then your listener panel needs training." When I buy new gear I get a 30-60 day return period. I drop it in the rack, let it break in (I know, the horror) for a few weeks and then take it out. If I don’t miss it, refund. If I can’t live without it "grinrictus" sets in and I buy it.
|
@kota1 ,
Did you even read the article you just linked on blind testing? You post reinforces what Amir has said on these pages. Trained listeners are superior to every day audiophiles in detecting anomalies. That you for reinforcing that message. The article provided no evidence to refute blind testing. |
It’s amazing isn’t it? By the very logic of the article kota1 wants us to accept, he’s not a trained listener. It would be at least as damning of his own method. PLUS he has added sighted bias in to the mix when he "breaks in" and listens to products.
(This happens all the time when audiophiles attempt to pick apart the usefulness of blind testing. They suddenly get all picky about variables in an attempt to dismiss the tests, conveniently forgetting that the variables would apply to their own method of testing gear!)
|
