AUDIO SCIENCE REVIEW and $50 to spend.........

ozzy,

Ok.

(I've tried 'quality cables,' nordost among them, and there is clearly nothing 'amis' with my system, as other audiophiles who have heard it know).

I am no more pushing ASR on you, than you are pushing your view on me.

We are exchanging opinions, and the reasons we hold them.

their videos have no value. enertainment only

Their videos are more informative than just about anything you'd find here (and I like this place).   ASR videos have educated many people and have doubtless saved plenty of audiophiles wasting money on items that make little to no sonic differences.

They aren't saving you money if you buy something based on specs and it sounds poor in your system.

I'm not aware of a single person on ASR who has reported such a problem.

"I don’t care for ASR" is of course a perfectly valid opinion.

"Their videos have no value" ...is just being silly.

That's great Amir likes your preamp,  but there is a lot of crap they love over on that site so to use it as a barometer for what sounds excellent is silly. 

Nobdy has to uncritically swallow everything at ASR.  Like any other forum you have to weed through things you disagree with or aren't interested in, to lift what is useful to you. Same here, right? 

I agree they trash some gear that I personally think sounds great (for instance, Devore speakers which I love are disparaged usually on ASR).

As for Chi Fi, nothing wrong if they are offering excellent performance for the money.  Unless one is xenophobic.

Amir again?

Exactly. Also, many amplifiers that don’t measure well can sound great.

My two sets of amplifiers don’t measure well, and sound great.

Same here. My CJ tube amps don’t measure great but I defend their use on ASR quite often.

Like I said, any forum has things we agree or disagree with, so it’s up to the individual to find value. If you can sift some value, there’s no reason to toss the whole forum out as worthless. But if someone doesn’t find any value, obviously it’s not a forum for them.

So then, if we are not infallible, is the instrumentation and controlling for biases in listening tests infallible? Nope.

That's a strawman.  It's not simply that our ears are infallible - it's the specific ways our perception is fallible. Instruments can both detect things we can not hear (or see), and also detect things we can hear, but more reliably.   Nobody has to claim objective measurements are "infallible" in order to point out that they are in many ways more reliable (and more sensitive) than our hearing.  Why do you think humans invent measurement tools in the first place?  To extend beyond the power of our limited senses, as well as to gain more reliable results.

Our ears are the most objective tool we have...

It would hard to come up with a more "wrong" statement than that...

Again, you seem to be ignoring that our hearing isn't merely our "ears" but is ultimately an interpretive process via our brain. 

Also: ever had your hearing tested?  You will in all likelihood have variations in your frequency response, and of course your hearing will drop off well before you can hear what the tool is actually playing.  Tools really can play, and detect, things your hearing can not.

ASR again? I wonder if many treads including this one were created purposely here by the ASR members. No value but to stir up the crowd for their entertainment.

I think it's worth taking a step back and asking: why is anyone triggered by the appearance of ASR discussions in the first place?

It seems to me to be a very odd reaction.   Why should the letters "ASR" or discussions of that forum "stir up" anyone?  That doesn't seem to be a mature reaction.  Audiophiles aren't some monolith who all agree on everything and use precisely the same approach.  There should be room for all sorts of approaches. If someone doesn't agree with something just add that opinion, no need to be "stirred up." 

Hi fsonicsmith1,

Just so you don’t get an incorrect impression: While I definitely side with ASR that, strictly speaking, the most reliable method of evaluating gear would include measurements and if possible blind testing, in the real world that’s often not possible or practical so we all make our decisions on how to evaluate gear.

Yes many ASR members are very measurement oriented (which is perfectly fine in my book), but there’s also members who enjoy a range of equipment, lots of it not on the "ASR approved" list.

I’ve spent lots of time defending my use of tube amps, vinyl (to those who don’t see the point, some ASR members do understand the point) and even liking speakers that don’t measure great re the Harman curve And I’ve been a thorn in the side very often defending the worth of subjective reviews.

And, yes, there IS a certain strain of thinking on ASR that, if it were widely adopted would, in principle, rule out a huge variety of speakers that are currently available and the many speaker designs people have loved over the years, that don’t meet ASR-like standards. I’ve made threads on the topic there, and it is a type of philosophical difference I hold vs many on that forum. My personal preference is that there continue to be a wide variety of speaker designs that don’t have to meet a certain "best practices" dictum or house curve, so people who want those speakers can be catered to. I’ve often used my enjoyment of Devore speakers as an example. I’m glad as heck such designs exist, where they don’t get a second glance by many at ASR.

I’ve never tried to beat anyone up over the method they want to use for evaluating gear. But when we are trying to get at some truth of any matter - and audiophiles are making truth claims all the time - then we can have a discussion with varying viewpoints IMO.

As to cables: I always try to be careful not to make some broad claim based on my personal experience. So for instance I blind tested Shunyata cables against off the shelf cheap AC cables. Thought I heard a difference sighted listening. Couldn’t tell them apart under blinded conditions. Do I therefore say "my own blind test proves AC cables don’t make any sonic difference?" Of course not. No person familiar with the scientific method should make that mistake. Rather, it’s useful for my own purposes, and if someone else cares to use my report as a data point in their own

view, that’s up to them.

Likewise regarding any cables. I don’t propose that not hearing cable differences in my system, or anywhere else, means "no cables make sonic differences." I AM however, I think, rightly skeptical based on the nature of claims made about cables - many of which people knowledgeable in electronics theory point out as highly suspicious - and the nature of how those claims generally are made (audiophiles claiming to hear differences, when I know both from science, and from personal experience, how our perception can be fooled). So I wait for stronger evidence.

Note though, that if many here think that they are seeing an "objectivist" suggest from their blind test that cables don't make a sonic difference, they will leap on the objectivist for illegitimately drawing such general conclusions from their experience.

And yet all the time we see people here saying "Cables make a difference! I know that because I've done the tests in my own system!"  But these generalizations are immediately glossed over because, well, that's the going bias in forums like this.

Finally, my anecdote about my recent cable swap is only one of many. I’ve had many audiophile friends, including many in the industry, and so over the years I’ve been able to play with lots of different cables. I’ve even heard speakers I own with over $50,000 worth of Nordost and Crystal cable (and others). So, even for my own purposes, I’m not just basing my lack of being impressed on a one-off with those recent interconnects.

If someone else feels expensive cables are worth their money...enjoy.

Cheers.

ozzy,

Is that the usual "let’s see if you have a resolving enough system" request ?:-)

Speakers:

Thiel 2.7

Joseph Audio Perspective Graphene 2

(Other speakers I’ve used include MBL Radialstrahler, a variety of Audio Physic speakers, Von Schweikert, Waveform, Hales Transcendence, Quads, and many more).

Pre-amps: Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS2 and a Benchmark LA4

Amps: Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks (as well as various other tube and solid state amps through the years).

Sources:

DIGITAL: Bluesound NODE streaming to a Benchmark DAC2L

VINYL: Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable, acoustic solid arm, Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge

JL Audio HP10 phono stage.

...why do you ask?

@whipsaw 

Much appreciated.

Unfortunately this is a type of discussion, like abortion, religion, politics, where many have dug their heals in and are easily triggered by an opposing view.  The reaction is to get emotional and defensive and ad hominem sometimes, rather than just address the arguments.

ozzy,

Ok, you still won't explain how my equipment helps explain why I have the view you think I have.

This happens literally every time I get the demand "list your system!"  If I report being skeptical of cable differences the response from at least some is always "either your hearing isn't good enough or your system isn't good enough to hear the differences other people OBVIOUSLY hear."

And when I list my system it always goes to radio silence....because I've owned plenty of great gear.   In fact I recently had my friend over, an audio reviewer, to listen to my Joseph speakers which recently arrived from being upgraded to the "graphene 2" version.  I've dialed them in very nicely - the detail, transparency, soundstaging, imaging...is just wild.  My reviewer pal was totally blown away, like in shock, shaking his head saying "how did you DO this?"    To put that in context, he has been reviewing since the late 90's or so, currently he's got in $65,000 Estelon speakers for review, hooked up to tens of thousands of dollars worth of Nordost and other high end cabling, conditioning etc.   Yet my system....using "mere" belden speaker cabling and mostly cheap interconnects blew him away.  Which didn't surprise me because I get to hear extremely expensive systems all the time, and I know how mine competes.

So any implication that my system isn't worthy of hearing sonic differences betweeen cables is barking up the wrong tree.  (And audiophiles with far less capable systems claim to hear cable differences, so it can't just be a You Need An Incredible Most People Can't Afford system to hear cable differences).

So I presume the fact you know my equipment is good stuff is why you've avoided directly answering my question.   Until you answer my question, it's fair to presume that my equipment list does not, in fact,  help justify your (mis) understanding of my position at all.

You have tried this or that and you conclude they don't matter. Sort of like the Audio Science guy. Measurements are everything. 

I have been significantly more nuanced in my conclusions.  That's why I bothered explaining them in the first place.  You can either engage with what I write...or ignore it but then we are just left with strawmen, which never helps any conversation.

@ozzy 

Well, since I went to the trouble of listing my equipment at your request:

Can you explain how my equipment list "helped you understand" that?

(And your conclusion is, unfortunately, a misrepresentation anyway of my view.  Look again at what I wrote to fsonicsmith1.  It's easy to throw out the label "close minded" but can you find anything actually 'close minded' or unreasonable in what I wrote?).

@ozzy

Why are you avoiding the question? You are now referencing my previous comments, but not my equipment list. My question concerned what you wrote.

You asked me to list my equipment. When asks why, you told me that my equipment list helps you understand why I am (to use your incorrect characterization) " so negative on the benefits of equipment upgrades. And why you are so close minded about listening vs measurement tests."

So...please...explain HOW my equipment list helped you reach that conclusion.

That’s what you wrote. I’m asking for you to explain.

What’s in my equipment list that supports your conclusion?

Are you avoiding this question because it turns out I don't listen exclusively via cheap "Chi Fi" gear? ;-)

ozzy,

If I found the sound of my system to be just as good with the cheap cables, why wouldn't I be happy I didn't need to spend extra money on the expensive ones?

And...Why are you ignoring this:

prof: As to cables: I always try to be careful not to make some broad claim based on my personal experience. So for instance I blind tested Shunyata cables against off the shelf cheap AC cables. Thought I heard a difference sighted listening. Couldn’t tell them apart under blinded conditions. Do I therefore say "my own blind test proves AC cables don’t make any sonic difference?" Of course not. No person familiar with the scientific method should make that mistake. Rather, it’s useful for my own purposes, and if someone else cares to use my report as a data point in their own

view, that’s up to them.

Likewise regarding any cables. I don’t propose that not hearing cable differences in my system, or anywhere else, means "no cables make sonic differences." I AM however, I think, rightly skeptical based on the nature of claims made about cables - many of which people knowledgeable in electronics theory point out as highly suspicious - and the nature of how those claims generally are made (audiophiles claiming to hear differences, when I know both from science, and from personal experience, how our perception can be fooled). So I wait for stronger evidence.

Note though, that if many here think that they are seeing an "objectivist" suggest from their blind test that cables don’t make a sonic difference, they will leap on the objectivist for illegitimately drawing such general conclusions from their experience.

And yet all the time we see people here saying "Cables make a difference! I know that because I’ve done the tests in my own system!" But these generalizations are immediately glossed over because, well, that’s the going bias in forums like this.

Are you looking to understand my view...or just look for gotchas?

I think it's prof vs. God.  

I have no problem with that debate either.  This isn't the forum, though ;-)

God created all these different cables but somehow they all sound the same according to prof.  What a waste of resources.

Raising strawmen characterizations are always a waste.  Why do you bother? 

If someone is producing an argument in defense of their belief that doesn't make sense, then it's reasonable to be skeptical.  And if they are also using a method known to be fallible in evaluating their own claim, that's double reason to be skeptical and want better arguments and evidence.

So for instance, in another thread Andy2 claimed that SS amps "always have a haze" over the sound.

Yet: most of the music audiophiles listen to, no doubt including Andy2, used solid state equipment/amplification in it's production.  Yet nobody, including Andy2, reports a "haze" over all these recordings.  The sheer internal logical contradiction shows this type of claim can not be true. He has clearly made an error somewhere in his reasoning.

Bolstering an already bad argument with personal anecdotes "I heard a haze with SS amps" hardly suffices to resolve that internal contradiction.   And it relies on a form of anecdote we know to be open to bias and fallibility.

In regard to high end audio cables, there are similar red flags.

Audiophiles will get some new expensive high end audio cable and go on about all the new sonic information being revealed by these cables.  This is supposed to justify the heroic, and expensive, efforts the cable maker went to creating cables that can "reveal" such sonic information.

But the internal contradiction arises:   MOST of the recordings that audiophiles cream themselves over with their new cables were made using bog-standard studio grade cables...tons and tons of them.  The inescapable logic is that WHATEVER details you hear on those recordings through your new cables, the ORIGINAL NON-AUDIOPHILE CABLES WERE SUFFICIENT TO TRANSMIT.  Otherwise...there wouldn't be that detail there to hear in the first place.

It therefore makes little sense to say you "have to" go to the lengths many of these cable manufacturers claim in order to pass through or preserve such subtle sonic detail - non-audiophile cables were already perfectly capable of doing so.

And this is what most electrical and sound engineers have understood.  It's why most of them understand they don't need audiophile cables in creating recordings.

Standard electrical theory suggests this.  Practice suggests this.  Logical reasoning like the above suggests this.

Are there SOME recording studios that go in for audiophile cabling?  Yes, you can find some engineers who buy in to this idea.  What's typically lacking is any rigorous evidence their beliefs are justified - either measurements or controlled listening tests.

So...am I open to audiophile cables making sonic differences?   Yes.  For one thing it is a fact that cables CAN, in the right conditions, audibly affect the sound (for instance too small awg for long runs, resistance/impedance/capacitance mismatches etc).   But does that justify all the claims made by audiophile cable companies?  Of course not.  There are good reasons to be skeptical of their claims, and...for some of the reasons I've given...want stronger evidence than the usual "I heard it!" anecdotes.

Nobody HAS to be skeptical.  You can do and buy whatever you want.  But if you want to disparage someone for being skeptical, please don't just pretend there aren't good reasons for skepticism.  As if it's only just a case of someone being "close minded."   If you care to JUSTIFY your criticism...do so...explaining for instance why some of the arguments above are faulty. 

cleeds,

I can understand why someone might think that from what I just wrote.  But if someone were familiar with lots of my stuff on audiogon as well as on ASR, they would understand why I'm here.

I really enjoy discussing the subjective nature of the hobby.  The end result of all of this is "How Does It Sound?"  I have found many subjective reviews and reports by audiophiles on gear both entertaining and useful, and I try to be useful to some degree for others when I've heard gear they may be interested in.

While I appreciate the approach over on ASR quite a lot, I also can find it gets a bit dry.  It's not that ASR members don't love music as much as anyone here, or don't care about listening or the subjective aspect.  But they tend to be wary of putting sound in to language - which goes along with their suspicion of subjective reviewing being little more than unreliable, fanciful poetry.  I disagree heavily with them on that. 

Here, people appreciate sharing subjective experience with equipment, so I get that aspect satisfied here.  When I want a more rigorous look in to audio claims, I"ll tend to go to ASR for that.

This is why I'm always saying I don't want to tell any audiophile how he/she should approach the hobby.   Some are far in to the "listening/subjectivity only" camp, some far in to the "measurements or it didn't happen" camp, and many of us span the gamut in between.

@waytoomuchstuff

Thanks.

I find that the blanket dismissal of the value of ASR by some here mirrors the dogmatic blanket dismissal by some on ASR of places like Audiogon. They are mirror images of the same heels-dug-in mindset.

I have tried Audioquest in my system...in fact I might have some in the system now! (I’ve borrowed various cables down the years I sometimes forget which is left in the system or not).

I once sold a pair of speakers I owned to a friend, an audio reviewer. From then I was able to hear those speakers at his place with very highly lauded cables of all sorts - literally up to $50,000 worth of top Nordost, Crystal cable etc. Did throwing all that cable money at them increase the sound quality? Not really that I could tell. I would hear all the same things when I played my reference tracks as I did at home with the cheaper cabling. And I DO listen for these details, I’m an inveterate audiophile after all.

A problem in these discussions is that many people take someone expressing a different opinion or approach as some personal attack on their own beliefs or approach. This is particularly true of people who are in the, for lack of better term "purely subjective" or "golden ears" camp, in which they privilege their personal perception above all other means of evaluating gear. If someone else explains why they prefer measurements or even controlled listening tests, it will necessarily arise from skepticism about relying on human perception alone. And then the subjectivist/golden ears takes that as absurd, even a personal attack: "How can someone tell me I don’t necessarily hear what I KNOW I hear." And then this brings forth lots of insults and ad hominem attacks.

I’ve tried to emphasize over and over that giving reasons why the fact I have my approach - my areas of skepticism - doesn't entail I'm telling others to have the same approach. That we all get to practice the hobby as we want, and that’s how it should be!

Even though I have done blind testing out of curiosity a number of times, I am not a scientist and couldn’t...and wouldn’t even want to...attempt formal experimentation on every audio choice I make.

For instance, I own Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks. I bought a second pair to try out, ones that had been upgraded with the Teflon Caps that many CJ owners seem to rave about. I spent many months going back and forth between them. I seemed to hear certain distinct differences, among them for the upgraded CJs a smoother sound, a "blacker background" in the sense of tonal balance and the impression of finer rendering of ambience/reverb etc. And better bass control. Now, on the ASR forum that would be met mostly with skepticism.

So while I might in fact mention it on the ASR forum, I would be more inclined to come here or other forums to go through my impressions and exchange notes, where people are more open to the idea. The same goes for things like tube rolling.

The thing is, I understand the skepticism held by some at ASR over such a claim, and understand why they would prefer much better evidence, e.g. measurable changes or blind tested, over just my anecdotal impressions. So...I wouldn’t make any such claims there like "I KNOW what I hear and anyone being skeptical is just a dogmatist or cloth eared."

So for the same reason I do not hold myself to some personal standard where everything I choose has to be on the basis of the most rigorous evidence, I don’t propose anyone else has to either. We can be as consistent, or inconsistent as we want.

It all changes, though, when it comes to actually making claims, or defending claims about audio gear. If I said "look, I KNOW from listening that changing caps in amps altered the sound in the way I describe" well, that’s a claim I’ve made and it’s game on for anyone to ask me what justifications I have, and to express why they are skeptical. No problemo.

And that’s the thing. "Objectivists" will make claims about what is measurable or audible. Fine. But "Subjectivists" will often make just as strong claims "I KNOW cables make a difference and anyone who can’t hear these things must use Chi-Fi gear or be deaf." Not very fruitful for exchanging views.

Cheers!

ozzy,

Short version:  Giving reasons justifying my approach is not an attack on yours, or a demand you should approach the hobby as I do (or anyone at ASR does).

You-do-you.

Short enough I hope? ;-)

@waytoomuchstuff 

I was still getting a little midrange glare from your syntax, but since I put my desktop monitor on Nordost isolation Kones, that's cleared up.  Thank goodness!