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

@samureyex 

What has the better predictive value for the sound of a DAC: SINAD or price? I go with SINAD. Not perfect, but better. Scientifically expressed as higher factor loading in a PCA.

Why are expensive DACs generally reported to sound better? Because buyer would otherwise have to admit of having wasted money. Pure psychology.

I just bought a Topping D50III ($250) based on ASR assessment. If memory serves me well, it measured SINAD 123 vs. Molamola at 124. So the Topping appears to be good bang for buck, particularly for my little secondary desktop system. As an aside, the D50III gets some recommendations by audiophiles. I compared it to my HoloAudio May L2 ($5K; not in ASR listing) in my main system. Plugged both into Roon server, volume matched, linked the two sources in Roon, plugged both into preamp, so can switch in an instant. Listened to a bunch of different tracks and music styles from EBM (attack/punch) to indie pop (soundstage) to chamber (decay). On some I liked the May better, on some the D50III. Essentially, overly analytical recordings sounded better on the more laid back May, whereas more relaxed recordings sounded better on the D50III. The differences were very subtle, much less than different tubes, headphones, or cartridges. Bad recordings were equally unmasked by both. So a $250 DAC is not clearly worse than a $5K DAC. Price difference: 20x. Shockingly (not) it depends a lot on the recording.

ASR serves as a good buyers guide for those of us who rather listen to music than to gear. Not the only one, but a good source.

Did I waste $5K on the May? Arguably yes, though the D50III did not exist when I bought the May. Am I replacing the May with another D50III? No. I already have the May and it looks nice, but admittedly does not sound clearly better. I still have to compare the May to the D50 [OG] with SINAD of ~90

Re cables, again, you do not hear capacitance or resistance or inductance, just as lille as you hear color. As pointed out by others here, go start a double blind testing series with listeners, and report your findings. If the EFFECT of cap/ind/rest can be heard in sound waves, that will be most fascinating. A possible EFFECT of cap/ind/rest is frequency response, noise etc. and that is precisely what ASR measures.

@mdalton I only responded to 1 of your 3 examples because I am very unfamiliar with the other 2.

All of the 3 mentioned dacs are exceptionally clean and have exceptional detail retrievals. Which makes no sense because Amir measured the Dave to be very poorly.

@mdalton I sense a bit of disappointment in you in that I only responded to the dac section. I’ll talk about the power conditioner part here. I’ll do you a good one.

The Puritan 156. A HIGHLY beloved product among audiophiles. How does Amir measure it? Well let’s quote Amir himself.

Conclusions
As you see, I have run a number of tests to give the PSM156 ample opportunity to show it can do something to improve audio but it can’t even move the dial one hair. There is no indication or logic that would tell us that it can make an audible improvement. Yet the company says this in the feature list of this product:

The only thing reliable about ASR is severe inconsistencies, which is exactly what good measurements avoid.

Calling ASR a cult and selling snakeoil is out of good conscience, a very accurate description.

 

@samureyex 

Think you may have intended your post referencing the Dave for someone else.  I don’t have one.

Regarding your post about the Puritan, you left out what mattered in Amir’s conclusions, which contained no inconsistencies.   Here’s the full conclusion: 

“Conclusions
As you see, I have run a number of tests to give the PSM156 ample opportunity to show it can do something to improve audio but it can't even move the dial one hair. There is no indication or logic that would tell us that it can make an audible improvement. Yet the company says this in the feature list of this product:
 

1630123343700.png



None of these things is observed in the measurements. 

The device however seems to have real filtering in there as opposed to toy implementation we see in other audio devices. So if you have audible mains related interference that is above a few hundred Hertz, then the PSM156 may have an effect.

As an audio fidelity improvement device, I can't recommend the Puritan Audio PSM156.  As a mains filter in general, it seems to be well built and does a far better job than typical consumer gear sold for this purpose.”