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.

toronto416

petaluman:

I am aware the small list of speakers I mentioned are "box" designs (stretching the definition for the Genelecs and the Dutch&Dutch) and am well aware of the several categories of speakers that are not of a box design. My comment was specific to Amir's own "reference" speaker--his Revels, and my general observation of the preferences of commenters on the ASR site appear to be. I do not believe I wrote anything to suggest I was unaware of the alternatives to box design speakers, planars, planar-hybrid, horn, horn-hybrid, open baffle, never mind the variants of box designs, transmission line, or for that matter transducer variations with ribbon tweeters, long-stroke woofers, field coil transducers, too many to list.The ASR site seems to sample whatever the readership sends for testing, and most appear to be monitor-size boxes, which is to be expected at those dominate the market. Occasionally a product from an audiophile brand is sent in only to be tested and found wanting, which then excites contentious responses.

I am sure if you were willing to ship Amir a pair of Magnepans for testing, he would oblige.

If you ship a non-traditional item to ASR for review, no matter how good. Amir will absolutely destroy that product in his measurements. This I can guarantee you.

He absolutely obliterated, massacred the Chord Dave he reviewed. There is no shortage of great and beloved products that he had destroyed with his reviews. But strangely no products he endorsed are beloved.

I read ASR, but don't agree with the attitude that measurements are all you need.  My biggest problem are the members who can ONLY see the audio world through their own narrow vision.  Every time someone seeks advice, it's the same routine of "it doesn't matter," rather than having any REAL input/advice.

What I DO value it for is the measurements (sans "recommendations") because MANY internet reviews these days ONLY speak about sound with no hard measurements - the exact opposite - and where I do believe sound is the ultimate arbiter, I feel modern equipment should at least measure reasonably.

“My biggest problem are the members who can ONLY see the audio world through their own narrow vision.  Every time someone seeks advice, it's the same routine of "it doesn't matter," rather than having any REAL input/advice.

What I DO value it for is the measurements…”

@wtyamamoto - Well said. The enormous chasm between the ASR faithful on one side,

  • i.e., routinely displayed disdain and skepticism for expensive gear and those who own expensive gear, intolerance and frequent pile-ons when something doesn’t measure as well as a Topping, Gustard, etc., and banishment of those with dissenting viewpoints,

and the listening-over-measurements crowd,

  • i.e., everything can’t be measured, human hearing is more advanced than any current measurement equipment, the wrong things are being measured, science cannot explain everything in the wide universe, etc.

has created a sort of ASR Derangement Syndrome where the mere mention of ASR results in a basic war of words.  It seems the delivery style by the ASR members and, in some cases Amir himself, could be a bit more insightful and understanding of other viewpoints, while the listen-only crowd might open their minds to the possibility that occasionally, certain sacred cows aren’t worth defending.  There is probably room for compromise on both sides.

I find ASR a refreshing, fact-based antidote to the florid nonsense hyperbole in traditional audio reviews.

Take Fremer who argued in a TT review in TAS last year that one arc second is audible with respect to wow&flutter. That is physics nonsense*. And the editor didn't catch that either. So I cancelled my TAS subscription again.

I also appreciate Amir's firm grasp of engineering, for instance that a USB reclocker is pointless (one of the latest videos). Plus emphasis of psychoacoustics, e.g. second one is better, as demonstrated by listening test of the USB reclocker, where it sounded better after the $4K reclocker was taken out. Plus the emphasis that objective testing of subjective listening test IS possible.

* for those who don't see it immediately, one arc second is an angular measurement, whereas speed stability if expressed as change of velocity over time (dv/dt). Even as a marine biologist I notice this. For fun, one can calculate the acceleration required to make audible changes in speed over 1 arc second, taking threshold of hearing for frequency (~2–3¢ on a good day) and time changes into account, and then it becomes even more ridiculous.