Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts

I seem to remember people here crowing about how ASR shut their thread down, while Agon wasn’t doing that.

How things change ;-)

Anyway, fleschler, I’m sorry but I’m going to be blunt: It’s clear that your previous comments about the quality of the standard Benchmark gear were totally and utterly ill-informed.  You haven't produced one single bit of evidence for your claims about the "junk parts" or any evidence you know what you are talking about.

I’m being blunt because frankly I find it quite galling when truly esteemed and accomplished engineers (and engineering) is sh*t upon by audiophiles who don’t have any real knowledge, going on their pseudo-scientific intuitions.

It reminds me of the moon-landing deniers. On one hand it’s harmless stuff, the fantasies of people who combine ignorance with hubris. But it’s not *just* harmless - by denying the moon landing they are sh*tting on one of humankind’s greatest achievements, and spreading the idea it was fake.

Similarly, seeing a similar combination of ignorance and hubris ("I know more because My Golden Ears are better than anyone’s engineering experience!") spreading ideas like Benchmark’s products underperforming due to "poor implementation of parts." It’s just ridiculous, and I can’t pretend for a second to respect it.

thyname

I'm not "teaming up" with anyone.

I am scratching my head… why don’t you participate in forums with like minded people with the same beliefs and ideology like ASR?

I do.  I've been a member quite a while at ASR.

However, I find the direction of interest in gear too constrained for me at ASR, and I enjoy discussing the subjective aspects of they hobby - exchanging notes on what things sound like etc.  That doesn't go down so well over there. (I mentioned that in the other ASR thread).

For instance if you look at my long running (and quite popular) thread on Agon in which I report my impressions of lots of speakers, that would go down mostly with a thud at ASR, because it's all subjective.  No data.

So ASR satisfies one aspect of my approach, places like Agon satisfy another. 

No problem thyname.

It’s pretty ironic because nobody here has voiced more criticism - or written more pushback - of some aspects of ASR than I have - on the ASR forum!

I’m continually pushing back against the idea that purely subjective impressions and writing are worthless. I'm also the guy there often defending the worth of vinyl and tube amps.

And as I say, I am interested in a much wider view of high end audio products than you tend to get at ASR. I don’t necessarily criticize the fact that ASR tends to converge on some narrowly defined ’X makes for a good product’ trends. That’s perfectly fine so far as it fits the remit of a forum like that. It’s just that my own interests aren’t focused in precisely that same direction.

fleschler

You’d written about the Benchmark LA4 preamp:

"There is a cure for the Benchmark. Replace the computer quality, cheap-ass regulators, power and filter caps, maybe parts of the audio board, the Op-amp, etc. with audio (much more costly) parts. Benchmark products are only okay stock but can be great when modified. "

A ’cure?’

The Benchmark LA4 is among the most transparent, lowest distortion consumer audio products you can buy! They set out for "benchmark" transparency and accuracy and achieved it. They would have used whatever components necessary, but they knew what type of components would make a difference and which wouldn’t. That’s because they are actual highly qualified engineers, not merely audiophiles claiming Golden Ears.

Amir measured the LA4 and it’s low distortion was off-the-charts:

John Atkinson measured the LA4 and was similarly blown away:

Some distortion products measured "close to the residual level of these harmonics in my Audio Precision SYS2722’s signal generator."  (The Audio Precision is far more sensitive than our ears - that's the point of such an instrument in the first place!)

JA stated at the end:

"Benchmark's LA4 is the widest-bandwidth, widest-dynamic-range, lowest-noise, lowest-distortion preamplifier I have encountered."

And yet you are telling me it could be better with some other parts. Show me any pre-amp that measures better, using whatever parts you claim will work better. It must be well hidden because JA, who probably measures more preamps/amps than anyone else, hasn’t seen it!

You see, there are people who actually produce objective evidence for a product, then people who make claims, mostly based on their belief in their Golden Ears, but without any objective evidence to back it up. I’m much more persuaded by evidence, than mere claims.

May I ask: how do you find your evidence? What “persuades” you? 

Well, to take the example that started our conversation: fleschler is claiming Benchmark cheaped out on the parts for the Benchmark LA4, and that "better" grade parts would have made for better performance.

The type of evidence that would persuade me for this claim is what I asked of fleshcler:  Show me that another preamp with the premium parts he's suggesting measures better (lower in distortion/more transparent).  That would at least be a start.  And of course, an additional subject is whether "even better" would be audible.   But he could at least start by showing some objective evidence.

I don't take the evidence of his merely claiming to hear differences in some other gear as very reliable: that type of "evidence" is presented for literally every dubious audiophile tweak anyone ever dreamed up. So some objective measurements would separate his claims from all the other audiophile anecdotes.

To be clear, it has never been my intention to persuade anyone by sharing my experiences (or “making claims” as you call it). Anything I have ever posted 

Sure, that's fine.  But..

1. People like fleshler is clearly making claims he thinks I should be ready to accept.

2. Whether you overtly mean to persuade anyone, any claim is still a claim, and it's legitimate to counter any claim.  For instance, if you spend $1,000 on an audiophile USB cable to replace a working-to-spec cheap USB cable, and you write about the wonderful sonic differences, you may say you aren't trying to persuade anyone.  But many people take those as persuasive, or real data points, and they are influenced.  It's worth pointing out that there is no good technical reason the expensive cable would change the signal.  That's just adding another "claim" or other take, so people reading are free to ignore what you wrote, or ignore the counter-claim, or both.  Nothing wrong with various views being expressed.

@thyname

People “making claims” is typically people sharing experiences.

Yes, we are making truth claims all the time. It’s how humans work.

But some are greater reaching than others. fleschler is putting forth all sorts of technical claims regarding electronics and engineering. Is there some reason you think that’s ok, but putting forth a contrasting viewpoint is not ok? We are exchanging viewpoints. Is more than one viewpoint ok, I hope?

So I am really confused.

Perhaps because you are trying to fit people in to single camps or boxes.

Again: I highly value the subjective aspects of this hobby - the exchanging of notes, trying to put sound in to words. I think this CAN be not only richly rewarding and fun, but also useful, insofar as a careful listener can put what he/she hears in to words. I’ve been led to plenty of happy audio encounters and gear purchases via the reports of other audiophiles and subjective reviews. I’ve also played a part in leading some people to gear they loved as well.

Over on ASR that doesn’t go down so well. There is a high degree of suspicion regarding sighted or reports on equipment that consist only of subjective impressions. So it’s just not welcoming so some of the aspects I personally highly value in the hobby. So places like Agon can fulfill that itch to talk about stuff from our impressions. Great stuff.

Also, ASR does not generally tell people "What You Should Buy" so much as they provide lots of objectively verified information about audio gear, explaining the relevance of the data. So you don’t "have" to buy anything in particular; you can just pick and choose whatever data may inform you in your own goals. That’s how I approach the site.

However, the emphasis on engineering/measurements naturally tends to have a goal "what measures BETTER and what measurements make for BETTER gear?"

So there is a fairly heavy selection force in terms of what amplifier measurements are "good" and what speaker measurements are "good" and therefore there is a sort of narrowing of the pool of gear seen as "good." So there is, to my mind, a narrowing of the scope of gear there, too much for my own tastes.

Hear on Agon I can see and engage in a wider range of gear I’m interested in reading about or trying.

On the other hand, I’m very aware of how easily a purely subjective approach to everything - a "Take Your Perception As The Ultimate Reliable Tool" for evaluating audio gear - leads naturally to tons of b.s., snake oil and pseudo-science-type claims being accepted and disseminated.

So, yes, I love the subjective aspect of the hobby, but I don’t consider it fool-proof, I’m aware of the liabilities, and I prefer not to believe b*llsh*t as far as I can help it. I usually want to spend my money on things that actually make an audible difference. Places like ASR can help folks find their way through some of the b.s. claims that arise in the audiophile world.  If an Agon member is describing the sound of something plausible - e.g. the difference between speakers, or maybe even some tube amps etc - I'm all ears.  I know it's not fool-proof, but practically speaking I'm fine with accepting he's hearing differences.  But when it moves in to the highly contested, technically dubious areas, then personally I want stronger evidence than some audiophile's say-so and "I'm Just Sure I Heard It."  YMMV.

I’m glad that both types of sites exist, because I find value in each, and also some faults in each (for my purposes).

There is no such thing as EVIDENCE.

I’m afraid that statement seems to make no sense. You go right on to discuss forms of evidence after that statement.

How? Whether by trusting own senses (listening) or by reading Amir’s measurements, does not matter. Pick your method. Just don’t shove your method to other peoples throats

I agree that we are all free to choose the method we want for evaluating and buying our gear. I’ve said this many times. No audiophile needs to become an engineer or do science to buy gear. No audiophile needs to learn a single thing about how the gear works. To each his own.

But who is "shoving their method down people’s throats?"

I don’t see anyone doing this. I see people explaining various approaches, and that will for some people (like Amir) advocating or making recommendations. But since when is that "shoving a method down people’s throat?"

He’s got a web site you can choose not to visit. He’s got a youtube channel you never have to watch. He’s not coming jackbooted knocking down your door insisting you change your gear! Nor am I. Nor, as far as I recall, are other people in this or the other thread.

I see a common bias in your reply, where if you have one viewpoint and someone presents a different one, you just take yours as an assumed default, and therefore the other person’s view is taken as some assault on your own. THEY are the ones "pushing their view" and so you don’t notice yourself, or others with your view, "pushing" your view. People here are declaring all the time People Should Listen And Decide For Themselves! Use Your Ears! That’s How To Evaluate Equipment!"

Plenty of audio reviews, e.g. Darko, are continually saying this. But I haven’t seen you pushback on that as "shoving a method down people’s throats" because, likely, it happens to conform to your own approach. So, I argue, there is a natural asymmetry and blind-spot in your complaints.

@fleschler 

@prof I NEVER MENTIONED THE BENCHMARK PREAMP OF ANY SORT!!!

Can’t you read?

Yes, I can read.

I also have a memory that lasts more than one day ;-)

Here's YOUR post that I was referring to:

Your words:

"As to the Benchmark L4 versus the CJ pre-amp, one of the comments was The LA4 certainly isn't "lacking" anything. It's just transparent. But I could say it does 'lack' certain things in the sense of comparison to the CJ tube preamp.  Based on my experience with both brands, I found CJ to have a house sound, not one that I or my friends prefer.  The Benchmark, on the other hand, stock is clean and clear but lacking in areas the CJ excels-body and warmth of expression.  

There is a cure for the Benchmark.  Replace the computer quality, cheap-ass regulators, power and filter caps, maybe parts of the audio board, the Op-amp, etc. with audio (much more costly) parts.  Benchmark products are only okay stock but can be great when modified. "

So you literally referenced the LA4, mentioned it's "stock" sound and went on to explain the "cure" being higher quality/more expensive parts.  EXACTLY what I was addressing.

An apology would be nice, if you are up to it ;-)

Yes I’m "MattHooper" on the ASR forum !

If anyone delved in to my posts they will see that I voice agreement with many on the ASR forum regarding the more snake-oil area of audio tweaks, and also the liabilities of a purely subjective approach, while also pushing back VERY often against the more rigid form of "objective" thinking that "if X measures this way it is a poor design" or " vinyl or tube amps are silly" and especially against "subjective impressions without measurements or controls are worthless."

I’m constantly defending the idea that we shouldn’t throw un-controlled subjective reports out with the bathwater, and I argue they can be practical, informative and useful. I'm viewed by some there with suspicion for even having reviewed speakers in the past.  It’s crazy how many pixels I’ve spilled over there arguing for the worth of subjective reviews.

Many people think in tribal ways and refuse to recognize an attempt at a nuanced or balanced viewpoint, which isn’t dismissive of "both sides." Even when we largely agree on many things they are "triggered" by any disagreement and therefore "You aren’t with me, you are against me! You are in the other tribe!"

I get that at ASR and I get that here too. And so it goes...

Will all the posters with the IQ as mentioned above please post your systems with pics and measurements in your profile? Please share, it will be really interesting to see how you have applied your knowledge and experience in real life, not just in a chat room. Looking forward :)

If you want to post data from your components, blind listening tests, etc. that would be a bonus.

Based on your previous response, I have a hunch you aren't that interested in data and blind tests, and the request for an equipment profile is often a distraction from the arguments.   It's been quite typical when discussing these issues that some audiophiles say "Well, I don't know whether to take you seriously until I see that you have Audiophile Certified High Priced Gear."  None of the arguments rely on whatever gear any of us have.  (And it NEVER matters what gear you have anyway, because the same people dismissing you will still find a way to dismiss you.  See for instance posting Amir's clearly high-end system, that didn't make a dent here).

I've posted many times about the various gear I own and have owned.  I don't care to make it a distraction in this particular thread.

kota1

I have no idea what you mean by "showcasing" anything or what "data" you are requesting.

Lesson in communication:  Don't make a request of someone, pretending to be politely interested, in the same post where you disparage their views as "rants." 

It comes off as disingenuous.

@djones51 

After reading Prof comments on Audiogon and MattHooper on ASR I would say they are the same person. Seems like a well rounded intelligent fellow who understands the value of measurements but not to the exclusion of what he enjoys. One can like vinyl but understand it doesn't measure as well as digital. You can like tube amps and know they can't measure better than a lot of SS amps. One can understand they are subject to human biases without assuming they are hallucinating, can understand that extraordinary claims that most tweaks advertise should provide extraordinary evidence. 

Hey!  Someone gets it, actually reading what I've written.  What a refreshing surprise!   Thanks djones51 !

kota1

Yeah, I never intended to use the Bluesound NODE without my external DAC.

No, never taken measurements.  Not interested in doing so.  It's not my thing. The Benchmark equipment has been measured by people far more knowledgeable and competent than I am, and the reports are stellar.

Kota1,

Thank you for the recommendation. However I have no need for the NAD.

I'm very aware of DIRAC - the AVSforum especially has been a DIRAC love-fest for many years.  I listen to records more than digital these days and prefer not to digitize my analog system.  If only out of conceptual purity :-)

I also tried subwoofers - JL Audio, their CR-1 crossover, and the Dspeaker Anti-mode.  I preferred my speakers without all of that and sold it off.  I'm pretty old school I guess.

@cd318

Thanks!

I’ve realized no forum will be everything to everyone. I get what I can from ASR and don’t expect it will satisfy all my needs. Same for AGon (and the other forums I visit).

There are inflexible thinkers in all forums. Fortunately I find they are in a minority, and many appreciate the nuance between the extremes. In fact when one of the more inflexible members at ASR needles me for my subjective reports or love of vinyl, and implies I’m there to troll, I point out that my "likes" ratio to my posts are much higher than his (almost 6,000 likes). So there is clearly a significant number of people at ASR who value my participation and the viewpoint I bring. Sometimes I have to remember that when things get rancorous.

They suffer minor abuse by other members for their "subjective" views, not using blind testing or measurements to determine their preferences. 

The ironic thing  is I'm one of the very, very few ASR members who has actually posted detailed reports of (my) blind tests.

@axo1989

That is amusing actually, I wonder why that is ... 🤔

I think it’s understandable to a degree. For one thing, doing blind tests can be a hassle, sometimes totally impractical (speakers especially). And generally speaking I think the members there can and do rely on the relevant tests having been done by other parties. For instance all the research by Toole/Olive/Harman Kardon et al, for selecting the relevant measurements in speakers. And also they can look to measurements of DACs and amplifiers to see that distortion levels are below known thresholds of audibility. So in many cases they don’t really need to perform their own blind tests, depending on what approach they take to buying equipment.

On the other hand, it is fairly galling to be disparaged as some pure subjectivist-in-sheep’s-clothing by folks there who haven’t really "put up or shut up" themselves in terms of personally having experience blind testing.

Generally speaking I don’t like to run from one forum to another, in order to bash the other. And clearly I’ve written a bunch in support of ASR here. Any critiques I raise here about ASR I’ve raised plenty of times on ASR.

Having been involved in many a philosophical debate, where you really have to have all your ducks in order because every assumption is going to need justification, I can’t help notice a tendency among *some* on ASR that I’ve seen elsewhere when people are appealing to science. It’s the mistake that "because I am citing the science" I am therefore "on the side of the facts" which means "my argument is sound whereas yours is bereft of The Facts."

One may as well say that because I’m standing on a stack of study papers, my claims are scientifically true. There is a self-blindness to the interpretation one is making from the science to the claims of any argument. Often a pretty glaring gap there. Citing purported facts isn’t good enough; what matters is whether the inference you are making from those facts to the claims in your argument are reasonable and sound. And it’s in there that you see people who claim to be of a scientific mindset making starkly anti-scientific leaps of inference! (That includes taking confident positions from studies with ridiculously small sample sizes, when it suits their prejudice).

As I’ve argued on ASR many times, I see some people arguing in a bubble, not really looking at how the implications of their position plays outside of the ASR bubble. For instance, the rejection of the worth of subjective descriptions, reports, reviews as utterly worthless and unreliable. I’ve argued that you simply can not take that too far because you will hit contradiction and absurdity, given the general reliability of our senses in navigating the world. There’s clearly some of a pure engineering mind-set who have never actually had to work in the "real world" where one must communicate about sound without appeal to instruments and measurements - an example being my own profession working in sound post production for film and TV. We communicate successfully all day long via subjective descriptions of sound, to pass information, guide and alter the sound to an agreed upon result. The proposition that purely subjective impressions and descriptions are Totally Unreliable simply can not explain this success, or offer anything practical in it’s place.

That’s what I mean about the way many people "argue in a bubble" where they think a conclusion makes sense just when applied to their particular area of interest in a hobby, while not examining it’s implications in the rest of the real world.

What timing.  Sure enough, after writing the above, I'm going through just this same debate on ASR once again, where someone there has declared subjective impressions as meaningless and useless.  

thyname, if you are trying to catch me in self-contradiction, you haven’t really understood what I’ve been writing.

Here it is again:

There is "noise" in our perceptual system - forms of bias that influence our perception, which can also lead us to hear things that aren’t there.

But...as I always point out on ASR...that does NOT mean that our perception is therefore wholly unreliable and useless. Clearly it can’t mean that, since we use our perception successfully to get us through the day, hearing included. So we have to acknowledge that our senses and perception is to some significant degree, reliable.

But, just as you can’t go too far towards "our perception is wholly unreliable" you also can’t go too far towards "our perception is wholly RELIABLE." Because we know our perception is fallible to some degree. We can be fooled.

Clearly some middle-ground has to be found between the two, to make sense.

And the line will be drawn depending on how reliable you want your conclusion to be. So, as I’ve given in the example of cooking: taking adding salt to make a dish taste more salty. if you want to be REALLY sure that the amount of salt IS detectable by your taste buds as "more salty," then you could take a scientific approach to control the variables involved including bias. So you could use measurements of chemical properties and blind testing to weed out what could be mere bias (e.g. "I added more salt, and my expectation leads me to ’taste it as more salty’), and establish more reliable thresholds where the salt is detectable in a dish.

But the fact you can get more certain, reliable information that way DOES NOT entail that normal sighted cooking tests are wholly unreliable and useless. Why not? Because we know adding salt CAN quite plausibly increase the taste of saltiness. So in a practical sense, experimenting with our recipe isn’t producing scientific level certainties (caveats about the word "certain" in science...), but it’s still reasonable given the inherent plausibility that introducing ingredients will change the taste.

But the reasonableness will always rest on the plausibility of what we are doing. That is where "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes in to help out. If for instance someone claimed to be practicing a homeopathic version of cooking, where adding a thimble of water that "once had a molecule of salt" but now has no detectable salt molecules is still claimed to make the dish taste "more salty..." then that’s a whole different ballgame. That claim should rightly be held with suspicion, and if those practitioners are claiming the dish tastes ’more salty’ after adding their homeopathic ’salt,’ it’s reasonable to presume in the absence of rigorous testing that it’s more likely their imagination.

I apply just this type of reasoning in audio. Yes there is noise in the system of our subjective perception. But we can still sift reliable-enough information out of the system, where there are ACTUALLY THINGS TO HEAR.

Different speaker designs, for instance we know from both engineering and studies of human hearing, to sound audibly different from one another.

My work in post production sound is in the same category: we are hearing and altering sounds in ways that are utterly uncontroversial in terms of audibility.

But some claims fall in to the "controversial" category based on their dubious plausibility, pointed out by relevant experts (or even identifiable as dubious simply by applying critical thinking to the claim). Plenty of audiophile beliefs fall in to such categories. So if an audiophile wants to describe the sound of speakers, like I’ve said, I’m all ears. If he wants to say an expensive USB cable altered the sound over a cheaper functioning, properly spec’d USB cable, based on the claims made by the marketing, then I am justified in wanting stronger evidence than an anecdote.

And, like I’ve said, NO audiophile needs to justify his purchase or engage in measurements or controlled testing. To each his own. I’m just describing the reasons for MY skepticism in the face of some claims rather than others.

The problem with some at ASR, like the fellow I was currently having an exchange with, is that I argue they go too far in the direction of "subjective reports are utterly worthless and meaningless." The claim makes no exceptions, even for cases where audible differences are entirely plausible and likely (e.g. speakers). That level of generalization is incoherent, unless you acknowledge all the caveats I have argued for above.

Well cd318, you've just proven either your system or your ears aren't "resolving" enough.

;-)

thyname, I take it from the smilies your post is parody.

For information purposes only"

It would be rejected by these same folks as "non-informative."

It got to the point I had to add this on to my signature on ASR:

Of course...it could always be my imagination.

However, the points I am raising in that thread about the usefulness of subjective description isn’t baseless, it’s essentially irrefutable (because from the proposition they claim, they can’t explain how my work in sound post production gets done, or offer any practical alternative). Which is why you see people ignore it and go ad hominem instead of addressing the point.

Or, you can just ignore those posts. One should not ask people to only post selectively about their subjective findings only on stuff that you believe have merit. They should feel free to post about anything. Then, we, the readers, can sort through the maze of posts, and only read what catches our interests. No?

Sure that could be someone's approach.

But it's not so simple as that.

After all, you've been in these threads making arguments.  You could have just skipped them, but you didn't.  Why?  Because you see some audiophiles making claims or arguments you disagree with, and you think it's worthwhile to present another viewpoint, presumably. 

It's the same for anything we post in audioforums.  You could see a post that says, say, that Thiel speakers require TONS of power and will ONLY sound good with super high wattage solid state amps.  But if you have reasons to think that claim is false or misleading - e.g. you've heard Thiels sound fantastic with tube amps - then naturally you may want to reply "Hold on, I haven't found that to be the case...here are the reasons why I think Thiel's don't necessarily require the amplification that person claimed."

This is how we hammer ideas around in forums, right?  Exchanging different points of view, giving support for our point of view, which can help someone get a bigger picture of an issue, to decide for themselves which avenues to pursue.

Agreed!

I can share freely here, on What’s Best Forum, Audiocircle, etc. without qualifying every subjective statement I’ve made. I think that’s the point of not liking ASR.

Yes I absolutely see the value in that.

Much of this falls under what the late scientist Steven Jay Gould called “argument from personal incredulity.” That means a person simple cannot accept the truth of something because it is so far outside their personal experience or prejudices that it’s literally unbelievable.

That could be said of people who just find it impossible to doubt their personal experience, right?  Like "Sorry, there's no way I was imagining it!"

@clustrocasual 

This is a non sequitur, but I listened to the top measured products on ASR

Sounds like a lot of gear!  Which gear?

compared to some which measured worse,

Which ones?

That could help put your post in to some perspective.

Because of course, they are not measuring everything you can hear.

How do you know that?  Instruments are developed to augment our capabilities, to the point of detecting things humans can't detect.  What exactly are Amir's instruments incapable of measuring that you can hear?

invalid,

Are you suggesting that those parameters are not contained within the measurements used by Amir?  How would you show that?

First, there are measurements that correspond with things like the soundstage being perceived as bigger (e.g. measurable influence of reflections and also speaker dispersion on those measurements), imaging (good cross-talk measurements, proper balance in both channels reaching the ear etc), good "note decay" would be implied in low distortion, etc.

Also, depending on the gear, you can do things like null tests which, if the results are the same, imply no change to the signal is occurring between the measured components.  It would be question-begging to assert that nonetheless the signal had changed audibly (without some very strong evidence for that claim, beyond anecdote).

Yup. Stare on those graphs, and you will know exactly how it will sound. This way, one can “audition” and compare dozens of DACs from the comfort of their home without lifting a finger or spending any money 🙄🤦‍♂️

You say that like it's a bad thing ;-)

I certainly appreciate the fact that measurements can let me know if A is likely to sound any different from B, especially if A is far more expensive.  Yes..it certainly is a time saver and potential money saver.  Nothing wrong with that.

Well...you could actually point out the flaw in the reasoning that makes it so funny.

But if that's too much to ask and you want to keep it to an inside joke....sorry for replying.  I thought this forum was about conversations and not just snark.

Well, some people prefer to benefit from information that can help them spend their money more wisely, others not so much I guess.

If I were thinking I needed to spend extra money on a "high end" USB cable to ensure I get good sound, I’d really appreciate people like Amir putting this stuff under the microscope and explaining the lack of plausibility to such claims:

Of course, anyone who relies in the idea their perception is infallible and trumps all theory, measurements or expert knowledge, won’t be the type to use such info.

The head panther over at ASR sticks a pair of expensive speakers in a room with nothing but dry wall, a hard floor, a microphone and a rug and to me, that is a monumental waste, of speakers, of the time spent listening, and sadly of the lost people following the pied piper over the cliff.

Even if your first claim was granted, the claim of "lost people following him over the cliff" does not follow.

A picture of Amir’s room comes nowhere near actually addressing his technical arguments, backed up by his measurements.

Nor is every ASR member just rotely accepting everything Amir says.

No it is a cult and if you question the leader you get booted. I did. 

I can't imagine why you might ever get booted from a forum.

I agree. Only a person who is insane can spend considerable time there.

I guess I've just been diagnosed as insane ;-)

When the leader of a forum states that "I know all I have to know" to begin a discussion,

I don't know where that quote comes from, but in any case it's cherry picking to seize on one thing he (or anyone else) may have said at one point, to ignore all the other reasonable claims and tests he has produced.  THAT is a form of motivated self-blindness in itself.  It's like twitter-think.

I've heavily disagreed with Amir on a number of issues, but see that on other things he has made a very good case.  Someone looking for an out will seize on something Amir said they don't like.  Someone interested in truth and intellectually honest conversation will have a wider view and note there may be "good" with the "bad."

 

that is the time you know that it's a closed forum and nothing can be gained by spending time with them.

What do you think of someone who insists his perception is so reliable he can not be wrong?  That is essentially the basis of the Golden Ear cohort of audiophiles who push back on every single argument/measurement/counter-evidence with the claim "But I Know What I Heard So I Know What I Know And You Can't Tell Me Otherwise!"

How much do you expect to gain from that?

measurements need to reflect reality. Unfortunately acoustics at this stage of scientific development is more art than science.….and being doctrinaire about using measurements when they don‘t reflect reality is very dogmatic, not scientific.

I agree, but none of that means that any wacky audiophile claim, or any marketing claim made for a product, is legit.  We have to have some way to winnow out b.s. from the real. 

Remember that almost all high end audio present their claims as technical claims of one sort or another.  They are either explicit, or allude to some technical "problem" their products address in getting us "closer to the music."  The technical claims can be addressed via technical inquiry by a knowledgeable person with equipment.  Notice virtually no manufacturer actually corrects Amir, as in "no, you are measuring the wrong things...HERE is how we measured the phenomenon we claim to have addressed in our product."   It never moves beyond marketing.  (The one attempt I've seen was by PS Audio...but their attempt to rebut Amir by showing how they would measure their product flopped pretty badly). 

So mere assertions of dogma are neither here nor there.  People either have better evidence or arguments against what Amir has concluded...or they don't.

As I said, his reviews receive quite a bit of scrutiny on ASR by technically knowledgeable members.  I find the critiques of some tests by ASR members FAR more pointed and convincing than those outside...especially in threads like this.

Which is why I find it silly to presume ASR is some lock-step cult where everyone just uncritically accepts whatever Amir says.   I myself have been in plenty of dust-ups with Amir. 

You did not discuss about my point on how the sound travels through our ears canals, to the cochlea and finally to the brain which analyzes it - which we define as music or sound. Now if you could explain that process and how it is similar in all human beings - we all will stand to gain a lot. Please go ahead with your explanation - I am all ears.

I didn't address it, because, while a fine question, it was a red herring in regard to criticisms of ASR.

You don't have to know, for instance, exactly how every INDIVIDUAL hears everything to know, through experiment, general truths about what humans can hear!   Just like we know that while sight varies among humans, no one is seeing X-rays!

So when Amir is for instance appealing to measurements to say that the signal difference between component A or B will be inaudible, he's typically basing this on what is known about the human hearing range in terms of db thresholds, dynamics, masking effects, etc.  Could any of his diagnosis be wrong?  Sure it's possible.  But given Amir is familiar with the relevant research (and can cite it), you better bring something more than "No It's Not" or "Science Hasn't Explained Everything" or "But I Can Hear It, I Know I Can!"  Appeal to the unknown is not an argument.

Further, Amir will also refer to the tons of research done by, and cited by, professionals like Floyde Toole, Sean Olive and others, which arrived at very strong predictive theories for what people will perceive as "better" or "worse" sounding, once confounding variables like sighted bias were removed.   So the fact people don't hear everything exactly alike does not entail strong trends or patterns aren't there to be found.

As usual, you science guys always go to the extreme.

When there is some basic disagreement, sometimes you have to start on some example we would agree upon, to establish a principle. Then the argument can apply that principle to specific subjects at hand.

We have established that appealing to the idea that humans vary in acuity can not be used in support of highly dubious claims, like hearing distortion differences well known to be below audible thresholds. We can’t just presume "maybe somebody happens to have Super Duper Rare Hearing Ability!!"

That would need to be ESTABLISHED, not assumed.  Just raising the very "possibility" doesn't make it probable.

So us normal being are saying that no humans can do bat hearing. We agree with the super minds at ASR. But how difficult is it for the super intelligent beings at ASR to understand that there are people whose hearing could be so much better than people who cannot hear the difference in sound quality. You cannot measure this variation because there is currently no instrument to measure it.

Everyone at ASR would acknowledge variations in hearing acuity! Could there be anything more obvious? The point is what type of claim is being made? If you claim to be hearing differences in, say, cables, where measured differences are well below established human hearing thresholds...sorry...no...you don’t get to just claim you are special. That claim would require more evidence; ideally some plausible, testable hypothesis for what is happening technically, or at the very least, showing these differences can be discerned under conditions controlling for sighted bias.

Whether your Veronica Seider" example is bogus or not, it only serves to re-enforce this point! If for instance a number of reviewers and audiophiles think they hear differences between expensive and cheaper properly functioning USB cables, that is implausible given how USB cables work, and for instance Amir showed the measurements in the case of one such USB Nordost cable. No detectable change to the signal vs a cheaper USB cable. And yet you will find audiophiles who claim to hear differences in just these situations!

So what is more LIKELY in such cases?

That any individual, or group of such audiophiles are "Super Hearers" - incredibly rare outliers in human hearing? That would be VERY RARE if possible at all.

But what ISN’T RARE is standard human bias effects on perception. Super Hearing is rare: Biased-influenced perception is routine, and EVERYONE carries this around with them.

Therefore it’s entirely reasonable to hold dubious technical claims with skepticism, and to hold claims that are extraordinary should require stronger evidence than "some audiophile’s say-so or belief."

You see, that’s the problem. It isn’t simply that many audiophiles claim to hear Big Differences. Sometimes that’s quite plausible. But many claim to hear Big Differences in scenarios that are DEEPLY IMPLAUSIBLE given how the technology works, and given known hearing thresholds!

^^^ My favorite tune!

thyname,

I don't think you've seen my posts on ASR then. Much of my recent posting has been arguing for the use of subjective impressions and descriptive terminology - basically how audiophiles and audio writers have communicated about sound quality.  I encounter a lot of push-back there, and Amir, though he hasn't responded recently, is generally disdainful of anything that would defend purely subjective reviewing.

thyname,

Sorry, but humor/sarcasm often doesn’t translate on the web (since what some people will say sarcastically, others will say seriously).

Could you be more clear about the point you are making?