Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts


@crymeanaudioriver @amir_asr You are sitting there worrying if this or that other useless tweak like a cable makes a sonic difference.

I don’t worry about my equipment unless it fails. I never worry about tweaks or cables. The last time I had to choose a cable was after I purchased my first DAC and transport in 2019.  I auditioned six and chose one, the Synergistic Research Atmosphere X Euphoria. Why would someone with as fulfilling a life as me worry about cables or tweaks and it is in YOUR mind that they are USELESS.

@prof "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" - concerning creating a high end DAC out of a mediocre DAC.

Well, I have such a DAC, built by a manufacturer of equipment and cables for his and my use. It beat out a $9,000 COS Engineering D1v and $5,000 D2v by a longshot. It is comparable to an $23,000 Meridian Ultradac. Because I tried all the latter three in comparison I say this with some authority, the authority of a recording engineer (me), a manufacturer (friend) and many audiophiles who have heard the same and came to the same conclusion.

Another DAC with excellent design engineer and inferior execution is the Emotiva XDA-2. No new audio board but 7! audiophile quality regulators instead of the computer grade junk inside, similar high end power and filter caps, resistors, etc. to make this into a high end DAC on the very cheap ($400 new plus about the same in added parts).

@russ69 We must be neighbors. I frequented Woodland Hills Audio Center back in the 70s and 80s. I heard several of Arnie’s speakers including a the large Infinity speakers in a home.

fleschler
@thyname

People “making claims” is typically people sharing experiences.

Yes, we are making truth claims all the time. It’s how humans work.

But some are greater reaching than others. fleschler is putting forth all sorts of technical claims regarding electronics and engineering. Is there some reason you think that’s ok, but putting forth a contrasting viewpoint is not ok? We are exchanging viewpoints. Is more than one viewpoint ok, I hope?

So I am really confused.

Perhaps because you are trying to fit people in to single camps or boxes.

Again: I highly value the subjective aspects of this hobby - the exchanging of notes, trying to put sound in to words. I think this CAN be not only richly rewarding and fun, but also useful, insofar as a careful listener can put what he/she hears in to words. I’ve been led to plenty of happy audio encounters and gear purchases via the reports of other audiophiles and subjective reviews. I’ve also played a part in leading some people to gear they loved as well.

Over on ASR that doesn’t go down so well. There is a high degree of suspicion regarding sighted or reports on equipment that consist only of subjective impressions. So it’s just not welcoming so some of the aspects I personally highly value in the hobby. So places like Agon can fulfill that itch to talk about stuff from our impressions. Great stuff.

Also, ASR does not generally tell people "What You Should Buy" so much as they provide lots of objectively verified information about audio gear, explaining the relevance of the data. So you don’t "have" to buy anything in particular; you can just pick and choose whatever data may inform you in your own goals. That’s how I approach the site.

However, the emphasis on engineering/measurements naturally tends to have a goal "what measures BETTER and what measurements make for BETTER gear?"

So there is a fairly heavy selection force in terms of what amplifier measurements are "good" and what speaker measurements are "good" and therefore there is a sort of narrowing of the pool of gear seen as "good." So there is, to my mind, a narrowing of the scope of gear there, too much for my own tastes.

Hear on Agon I can see and engage in a wider range of gear I’m interested in reading about or trying.

On the other hand, I’m very aware of how easily a purely subjective approach to everything - a "Take Your Perception As The Ultimate Reliable Tool" for evaluating audio gear - leads naturally to tons of b.s., snake oil and pseudo-science-type claims being accepted and disseminated.

So, yes, I love the subjective aspect of the hobby, but I don’t consider it fool-proof, I’m aware of the liabilities, and I prefer not to believe b*llsh*t as far as I can help it. I usually want to spend my money on things that actually make an audible difference. Places like ASR can help folks find their way through some of the b.s. claims that arise in the audiophile world.  If an Agon member is describing the sound of something plausible - e.g. the difference between speakers, or maybe even some tube amps etc - I'm all ears.  I know it's not fool-proof, but practically speaking I'm fine with accepting he's hearing differences.  But when it moves in to the highly contested, technically dubious areas, then personally I want stronger evidence than some audiophile's say-so and "I'm Just Sure I Heard It."  YMMV.

I’m glad that both types of sites exist, because I find value in each, and also some faults in each (for my purposes).

There is no such thing as EVIDENCE.

I’m afraid that statement seems to make no sense. You go right on to discuss forms of evidence after that statement.

How? Whether by trusting own senses (listening) or by reading Amir’s measurements, does not matter. Pick your method. Just don’t shove your method to other peoples throats

I agree that we are all free to choose the method we want for evaluating and buying our gear. I’ve said this many times. No audiophile needs to become an engineer or do science to buy gear. No audiophile needs to learn a single thing about how the gear works. To each his own.

But who is "shoving their method down people’s throats?"

I don’t see anyone doing this. I see people explaining various approaches, and that will for some people (like Amir) advocating or making recommendations. But since when is that "shoving a method down people’s throat?"

He’s got a web site you can choose not to visit. He’s got a youtube channel you never have to watch. He’s not coming jackbooted knocking down your door insisting you change your gear! Nor am I. Nor, as far as I recall, are other people in this or the other thread.

I see a common bias in your reply, where if you have one viewpoint and someone presents a different one, you just take yours as an assumed default, and therefore the other person’s view is taken as some assault on your own. THEY are the ones "pushing their view" and so you don’t notice yourself, or others with your view, "pushing" your view. People here are declaring all the time People Should Listen And Decide For Themselves! Use Your Ears! That’s How To Evaluate Equipment!"

Plenty of audio reviews, e.g. Darko, are continually saying this. But I haven’t seen you pushback on that as "shoving a method down people’s throats" because, likely, it happens to conform to your own approach. So, I argue, there is a natural asymmetry and blind-spot in your complaints.

@prof : I completely miss the point of your dissertation. But I am not a professor. My reply I thought was pretty simple. 
 

You say:

I’m much more persuaded by evidence, than mere claims.

May I ask: how do you find your evidence? What “persuades” you? 
 

To be clear, it has never been my intention to persuade anyone by sharing my experiences (or “making claims” as you call it). Anything I have ever posted 

What are we discussing?  Does audio replay equipment sound good or not.  I’m confused.

@hotei :

Does audio replay equipment sound good or not.

You are not supposed to post anything on how something sounds unless you have proof to back it up. If no proof, they you are in a nutshell making baseless claims 🤦‍♂️

 

May I ask: how do you find your evidence? What “persuades” you? 

Well, to take the example that started our conversation: fleschler is claiming Benchmark cheaped out on the parts for the Benchmark LA4, and that "better" grade parts would have made for better performance.

The type of evidence that would persuade me for this claim is what I asked of fleshcler:  Show me that another preamp with the premium parts he's suggesting measures better (lower in distortion/more transparent).  That would at least be a start.  And of course, an additional subject is whether "even better" would be audible.   But he could at least start by showing some objective evidence.

I don't take the evidence of his merely claiming to hear differences in some other gear as very reliable: that type of "evidence" is presented for literally every dubious audiophile tweak anyone ever dreamed up. So some objective measurements would separate his claims from all the other audiophile anecdotes.

To be clear, it has never been my intention to persuade anyone by sharing my experiences (or “making claims” as you call it). Anything I have ever posted 

Sure, that's fine.  But..

1. People like fleshler is clearly making claims he thinks I should be ready to accept.

2. Whether you overtly mean to persuade anyone, any claim is still a claim, and it's legitimate to counter any claim.  For instance, if you spend $1,000 on an audiophile USB cable to replace a working-to-spec cheap USB cable, and you write about the wonderful sonic differences, you may say you aren't trying to persuade anyone.  But many people take those as persuasive, or real data points, and they are influenced.  It's worth pointing out that there is no good technical reason the expensive cable would change the signal.  That's just adding another "claim" or other take, so people reading are free to ignore what you wrote, or ignore the counter-claim, or both.  Nothing wrong with various views being expressed.