The Audio Science Review (ASR) approach to reviewing wines.
Imagine doing a wine review as follows - samples of wines are assessed by a reviewer who measures multiple variables including light transmission, specific gravity, residual sugar, salinity, boiling point etc. These tests are repeated while playing test tones through the samples at different frequencies.
The results are compiled and the winner selected based on those measurements and the reviewer concludes that the other wines can't possibly be as good based on their measured results.
At no point does the reviewer assess the bouquet of the wine nor taste it. He relies on the science of measured results and not the decidedly unscientific subjective experience of smell and taste.
That is the ASR approach to audio - drinking Kool Aid, not wine.
True, but... on ASR, a good DAC costs $200 whereas on Audiogon you might be made to feel like an ignorant peasant if you haven’t "invested" $1000 in a USB cable. Then folks wonder why younger people are flocking to ASR |
I think it has more to do with reinforcing what some hope to be true. Exposing the virtues of a $ 1000 USB cable isnt the same as making a person feeling foolish for not buying one. On a personal note, my brother an engineer, bought both Topping mono amps and the $ 350.00 Topping DAC and sent both back within the return period. The DAC fared better than the amps, but neither were very good.
|
Ya know, you bring up a very valid point. The decades of going into audio stores in my region and listening to a wide array of systems is something I cherish to this day. Going to listen to other peoples systems, all great learning experiences. Most of this is gone any more - so, how do younger people learn and decide, today. It’s easy to see why they are in search of data to try and make more informed decisions -vs- sifting through forums, or watching reviewers with opinions pedaling gear, then trying to figure out who to trust and follow about their hopeful audio purchase. And then, any remaining local dealers sell what they sell too. I guess all of us need to be mindful about what we post, and who’s reading.
|
People here get their pants in a bunch over ASR, its contributors and its methods. You would think they were doing something illicit. Their methods are explained and disclosed, their results are published, the results are open for comment. As that goes, there is nothing objectionable. I am not sure the ranking differences mean all than much as concerns SINAD numbers between closely-rated devices. Some of their speaker ratings, when done correctly, provide useful indicators as to which speakers can be expected to perform well in on and off-axis listening. They don't make useful comparisons of other features of a particular device aside from SINAD, Spinorama and frequency response. They do point out response irregularities and comment whether the deviations are likely to be audible. The commenters are a mix of thoughtful and knee-jerk, and you have to filter out the latter. I don't agree with the wine analogy in the OP, but if you were to extend the wine analysis to things like acidity, sugar content and tannins content you might have a better comparison. Unlike other reviewer outlets, ASR isn't heavily supported by advertising like most of the audio print media. They have posted unfavorable reviews of generally successful if not popular products and have given good reviews for little known and inexpensive new products. What I think bothers readers here about ASR the most is their objective methods and general lack of favoritism, which forces those who disagree into the inherently weak position of attacking their methods. |
