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

@alexatpos 

In the same time and please dont take this personally, I am surprised that there are people pretentious enough, who are trying to convince others that their choices are the ’right ones’. But, than, why stop only on hi fi? I am sure that there are more interesting challanges, or more noble ones?

Your surprise should be directed at whoever created this thread, directly challenging what we do at ASR, and manufacturing comments about me and what we do to boot.  And those of you flagging me personally, causing the form software to send me a notification.  I should ignore it but then folks go on and on here, piling on falsehood on top of falsehood.  A fellow here even went after my personal career!

As to your car example, no, it doesn't apply.  There is a ton of scrutiny of car performance through measurements such as 0 to 60, breaking, cornering, etc. from press and online reviewers.  As such, a car company can't claim that it has built the fastest car in the world where in reality, it is slower than a Honda Accord.  Yet, that is what happens in audio.  Until we came about, objective evaluation of audio was delegated to an appendix at the end of a few reviewers and that was it.  Yet, every audio company claimed to recreate reality of live music, etc.

We get started and shine a light on equipment performance and folks are up in arm.  How dare you do this and give audiophiles more information?  As you say, demand is made to "leave them alone!'  Personally, I do leave them alone.  We have a great audiophile society locally and you don't see me going there trying to change the opinion of many subjectivists there.  Thankfully many come to me at meetings and ask me questions.

So please don't pull that stunt and debating tactic at me.  The reality is that you are bothered by what we do so you want it stopped.  Well, it can't be stopped.  People are seeing the value of reliable information about audio and are abandoning what some of you have taught them.  Not everyone of course.  But we are not running a sprint but a marathon.  And not trying to boil the ocean....

prof

Whether it’s Amir or me or some other like-minded folk, we are open to ANYTHING

If that were true, Amir would be sure to listen to every component that he "tests." That he sometimes manages to avoid listening - and has a whole bunch of wordy rationalizations to justify that - undermines whatever science he’s trying to pursue.

It is a mistake to presume skepticism or demands for good evidence equates to close-mindedness.

This is a hobbyist’s group, not a scientific forum, so your "demands for good evidence" really don’t belong here. If you don't like the evidence presented, it's really your problem. No one here owes you anything.

@thespeakerdude , the cable changed not me. How do I know? Because I had a control (the original cable).

Did you know which cable was in the system, or did you have someone switch it such that you did not know?

And actually the >1.5m is the guidance for USB according to some - pretty easy to google. Even Mark Coles of Sablon confirmed to me that he’s heard that as well (he said he hadn’t heard that for AES/ SPDIF). But as I mentioned I don’t believe this is “scientifically proven” anywhere. As a side note I repeated this finding with a .7m Audioquest Diamond USB cable that sounded very compressed and closed in compared to the equivalent 1.5m Diamond. I even preferred a generic USB cable to the .7m version of the Diamond.

The 1.5 meter is definitely for SPDIF and there is a good explanation for it. I have a formula written down.  (Rise time)/(1.5 * 3) in feet.  SPDIF rise time first google hit = 25nsec. Cable = (25/4.5) = 5.5 feet = 1.7 meters. USB rise time 0.3nsec first google for 2.0. That is 0.3/(1.5*3) = 0.07 feet.  I think if a cable supplier has not heard of the 1.5 meter thing with SPDIF, you need a new cable supplier. Maybe you were having some noise issues?

cleeds,

Amir does listen to much of what he reviews. You know it.

And in the instances he does not, when you say Amir merely has a "wordy rationalizations to justify that - undermines whatever science he’s trying to pursue."

That is a completely unsupported claim on your part. He may well have a perfectly good justification. It’s like if you claimed that I need to come to your place to see your Perpetual Motion machine, and if I point out that current understanding of physics suggests your claim is so unlikely it’s not worth my while to make such a trip. The reason for not bothering to "go see your perpetual machine" would BE based on currently understood science!    You could try to dismiss my reasons as some "wordy rationalization" but that does NOT actually address the REASONS. It’s just a dismissal of an argument using a lazy characterization rather than an actual rebuttal.

Likewise, if Amir doesn't listen to a certain component after measuring, he may well be justified based on all sorts of studies and science that tell us "X won't be audible."

If you want to point to specific examples to make your case, and you can show why Amir was unjustified in not listening...be my guest.

prof

... It's like if you claimed that I need to come to your place to see your Perpetual Motion machine, and if I point out that current understanding of physics suggests your claim is so unlikely it's not worth my while to make such a trip.  You could try to dismiss my reasons ...

That's the logical fallacy of the Exluded Middle. Don't be silly.

If you want to point to specific examples to make your case, and you can show why Amir was unjustified in not listening...be my guest.

I've already done that. In my view, a test of an audio component is not complete without a listening evaluation. I understand you disagree, and that Amir disagrees vehemently. So be it.