Why HiFi Gear Measurements Are Misleading (yes ASR talking to you…)

@thespeakerdude

You say that publishing is normally the audit process in the scientific world.

Scientific papers are subject to peer review. Publishing the results instantly is not a great idea. There is always someone more qualified to do a job. And that person ends up auditing and making sure the work is suitable for release.

Audibly transparent is a catch-phrase I hear all too often. More descriptive language is required...such as using: Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary J. Gordon Holt |

Furthermore, large discrepancies between mass customer reviews and measurements still exist with plenty of gear reviewed on ASR. You can find an audio product that has plenty of positive reviews, mentions particular sonic traits, etc. from numerous online stores (not just amazon). and even impressions from audiophiles in person whose experience lined up with yours almost exactly.

Then you go to ASR, only to find that product does not score well there. And yet, we find a mountain of information from others that suggests otherwise...actually the total opposite.

I think it would be great to hear from @amir_asr about 3rd party testing his measurements/results...let the man speak. 

@clearthink I agree 100%. The experience is all-important vs measurements alone.

Here is a post where Amir may not understand what he measures.

mastering92

Scientific papers are subject to peer review. Publishing the results instantly is not a great idea.

Quite so. Typically, a paper would undergo at least some informal peer review before it is even submitted for publication. When it is submitted, it’s then subject to a formal review before even being accepted for publication. When that part of the process is poorly done if often reflects poorly on the publication itself, so although mistakes happen, it’s exceptional.

There are those who wrap themselves in science, then use the pick-and-choose smorgasbord approach in practice. You see some do this with religion, too. Measurementalism is rather like religion in that it is taken on faith (there’s no need to listen!) rather than facts.

Of course other factors influence these YouTubers, too, as has been noted.

A lot of scientific work revealed to the public is not peer reviewed and all that is reviewed is method. The peer review does not consist of other people replicating the work as you have suggested. You are moving the goal posts. Even with peer review, many poor papers are published and if you are presenting new concepts there may not be any one "better than you".

On correlation between ad hoc consumer reports with little in the way of comparative analysis and measurements, there are many flaws in that statement. The most obvious being what is liked and what is accurate are often different if not almost always different. The other obvious reason is simply that people often assign better to new purchases, whether actually better, or in audio even noticeably different. Many people played the exact same thing twice will be absolutely convinced one is different. Either way, both of these are psychological effects of which measurements are immune.  I would also say using the word "mass" is exaggerated, but if you want to go down that path, there seems to be mass like of some of the inexpensive gear they have measured. 

Audibly transparent is not a catch phrase and needs no further words or explanation. It is a simple concept. When certain products achieve a certain level of technical performance they are audibly transparent.  You could make a product that measures better, but it will sound exactly the same as the one that does not. That is confirmed by the inability of people to hear a difference.  You made a comment about "quality" of parts, but this would be a prime example. An expensive part is often that, an expensive part but offers no benefit in improved sound. The change would be transparent. No audible difference.

@thespeakerdude  audibly transparent according to measurements maybe, but not in listening tests.