Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts
@crymeanaudioriver@amir_asrYou are sitting there worrying if this or that other useless tweak like a cable makes a sonic difference.
I don’t worry about my equipment unless it fails. I never worry about tweaks or cables. The last time I had to choose a cable was after I purchased my first DAC and transport in 2019. I auditioned six and chose one, the Synergistic Research Atmosphere X Euphoria. Why would someone with as fulfilling a life as me worry about cables or tweaks and it is in YOUR mind that they are USELESS.
@prof "would it be safe to say you are not an electrical designer or electrical engineer? If so, under what authority do you make the following comment" - concerning creating a high end DAC out of a mediocre DAC.
Well, I have such a DAC, built by a manufacturer of equipment and cables for his and my use. It beat out a $9,000 COS Engineering D1v and $5,000 D2v by a longshot. It is comparable to an $23,000 Meridian Ultradac. Because I tried all the latter three in comparison I say this with some authority, the authority of a recording engineer (me), a manufacturer (friend) and many audiophiles who have heard the same and came to the same conclusion.
Another DAC with excellent design engineer and inferior execution is the Emotiva XDA-2. No new audio board but 7! audiophile quality regulators instead of the computer grade junk inside, similar high end power and filter caps, resistors, etc. to make this into a high end DAC on the very cheap ($400 new plus about the same in added parts).
@russ69 We must be neighbors. I frequented Woodland Hills Audio Center back in the 70s and 80s. I heard several of Arnie’s speakers including a the large Infinity speakers in a home.
I don’t worry about my equipment unless it fails. I never worry about tweaks or cables. The last time I had to choose a cable was after I purchased my first DAC and transport in 2019. I auditioned six and chose one, the Synergistic Research Atmosphere X Euphoria. Why would someone with as fulfilling a life as me worry about cables or tweaks and it is in YOUR mind that they are USELESS.
....
and the rest of what you wrote.
WHO CARES??? I honestly don't think anyone other than yourself "worries about your audio equipment." If it fails, you will have to spend money for replacements.
What you wrote above is all drivel/conjecture/nonsense.
I liked Paul Barton’s take on listeners in tests and comparisons of speakers. He, if anyone, knows more than a thing or two about it since he participated in the fabled speaker tests that Harmon did back in the day.
He said that when conducting double blind tests on people, they couldn’t take more than 20 minutes or so and that the first test had them all confused due to being in an unfamiliar room. Being unable to differentiate between the speaker and the room made the first round of tests unreliable. They waited the same amount of time for their hearing to settle back to normal.
On the second test, everyone was attuned to the room and could more easily tell the differences, asking the testers what they did to the speakers.
It’s all in this podcast John Darko did with Paul Barton. Worth a listen.
My take was that when auditioning and comparing loudspeakers it's important to have some technical data beforehand.
Otherwise the anomalies of the human hearing system, which is basically always trying to make sense out of sound, can play all kind tricks on you.
As Alan Shaw says, even the order in which you listen to 2 different speakers can make a difference in perception.
I myself have noticed that after prolonged listening to a bright sounding speaker/headphone a more neutral design can, at least initially, sound quite dull.
Measurements on the other hand tend to be rather more consistent.
it would appear that measurements not only matter but are essential when judging loudspeakers.
That little clip is fodder for those wishing to deny the value of measuments in audio. The guy was so unprepared that he often had to refer to hardcopy notes that he flapped around. Not a good look.
A good and talented teacher conveys the message they wish to share in a clear manner. This bloke is not such a one. I still do not understand his message even having watched it a few times. He tries to make such a one near the end of the clip, but so what?
No wonder that anti-measurements dudes are on the prowl with proponents such as this clip confusing the crap out of even disciples such as myself.
holmz : why do you ask? What are you trying to convey?
I have no turntable. Clearly stated under my system here. Pictures, descriptions and all. What about yours? The only thing I see in your picture is you proudly displaying lump cords
@thynamemost of posts have a repetition to them that make them sound like a broken record.
I am wondering how you arrived there without having the opportunity to know what a broken record sounds like? 😂
@holmz: why do you ask? What are you trying to convey?
I have no turntable. Clearly stated under my system here. Pictures, descriptions and all. What about yours? The only thing I see in your picture is you proudly displaying lump cords
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.
@prof: I think you already got enough points with Amir to be out of his shit list again at ASR 😉😉😉. Just with your kissass posts here. He loves you again 😉
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!
This ASR (Science=Measurement=Infallible) argument reminds me somewhat of selling Audio in the late 70's, early 80's and the SPECIFICATION WARS.
Customer enters the store...meet and greet... several open ended questions later... no SAE, Harman Kardon, Apt-Holman or B&O for this guy.... Too much distortion (on paper)...Customer is ALWAYS RIGHT (no matter how WRONG he is)...Biggest Technics receiver (with .001% THD) and a set of Advents (or Cerwin Vega if a youngster) is what he wants and what he is going to get. Yup, that's the Best Sound (your) Money Can Buy, Sir. Almost Zero Distortion...No Musicality... Perfect (for you)...
I will be truly amazed when you can find 1, factual, independent report of Veronica Seider’s abilities. Something so truly amazing would be studied with published research. It would show how she is able to accomplish this, either by having a grossly curved lens, which could achieve high magnification, but would make every day life exceptionally difficult, or an extremely large central eye region, which would require about 10 other birth defects all at once to make this work. This is real life though, not X-men.
It is a tall tale, one that seems to grow, including claims such as "In a demonstration before a group of Stuttgart University professors, Veronica Seider cut out a piece of paper the exact size of her thumb nail, and wrote on it — neatly set out — 20 verses of a poem; without any magnifying glass."
I do not need to have been there to know this is a fake report. It would be impossible to put 20 verses of a poem on a thumbnail sized piece of paper for 2 reasons. The first, is the size of fibers in paper would make this impossible. The second is no device a human could hold with a working stylus small enough to accomplish the task.
I think there was a bit too much beer in the guinness article. It does not say they observed it does it? The picture often associated is of a German actress. Check enough sites and it appears there was no record of this student either.
The only parallel between Veronica and much of what is discussed in audio is that neither of them exist in anything but some writings on the internet.
Just like we know that while sight varies among humans, no one is seeing X-rays!
As usual, you science guys always go to the extreme. Looks like life for you is digital - 0 or 1. Based on your "vision" example, look up "Veronica Seider" and her Guinness Book record. She was a normal human having super-eye. Normal eyes have visual acuity of 20/20 while Veronica’s acuity was around 20/2. She could easily distinguish people from as far as 1 mile. And before you call out, below is the link from Fact or Hoax
My point is - many people struggle at 20 feet with average vision. And yet there are individuals who have this extraordinary ability. So think about it - from 20 feet (should be 10 feet or less for people with real eye issues) to 1 mile is the variation when it comes to sight. Before you say - that is only one person - I would say - the earth's population is appox 8 Billion. And not every single person is aware of Guinness records or has time or inclination to come out with what their vision is, etc etc.
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.
No one is denying the research that Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and others have done. Does advancement in science stop there? We cannot be blind to the fact that as humans progress more research will discover things that we currently do not know. Current state-of-the-art will probably be stale in a few decades. That is the whole gist about being scientific - understand the "how to" and advance.In that sense this forum seems to be open minded about future possibility, while the scientific community seems to be harp on the notion that all that is to know about human hearing is researched and everyone is on par no more,no less.
It amuses me that in every debate you guys state about "X-ray vision" or "bat hearing". Need to get real.
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.
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.
You could take a hundred people and probably throw some dogs.cats, a few bats and an elephant, and maybe even a cobra in. And no matter their ear structure they would be listening to the same thing, and those that can communicate would know it as the same song.
Even the cobra knows the Indian flute, and does not come out of the basket to the sound heavy metal or dub step.
One pretty much can use a microphone to evaluate the sound pressure field, much the same way that they are used to get the sounds onto the LP or CD in the first place.
And that phrase was from the deleted original thread. I cannot forget that - because it reflected arrogance. He also mentioned that he was the head of some department in Microsoft. And I read it on other threads as well, which seems to be his "go to" line when someone does not agree with him. So what?! Does not mean he understands everything.
How much do you expect to gain from that?
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.
"You are not supposed to post anything on how something sounds unless you have proof to back it up". How can you "prove" how anything "sounds" without listening to it?
"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)."
This is such an important point that it's worth repeating.
No manufacturer would sit idly by and ignore criticism of their products if they believed it was unsupported.
Not a single one.
The financially ruinous consequences for any reviewer, of wrongly criticizing any product shouldn't need explaining here, should they?
There are many good reasons why reviewers so rarely criticize products, but the most important one is that they do not want to get sued.
Without evidence critical reviews are little more than allegations, which if successfully challenged can be financially disastrous to the person making them.
ASR deals in factual evidence as determined by state of the art measuring equipment.
ASR are also not alone in employing this approach and that is something we should be grateful for if we want anything more than watered down flattery that passes for most reviews these days.
The days of entirely subjective, or if you prefer, entirely fictional reviews finally seem to be coming to an end, and it's difficult to ever see them returning.
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!"
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.
I have to presume you haven't really spent a lot of time on ASR
I agree. Only a person who is insane can spend considerable time there. When the leader of a forum states that "I know all I have to know" to begin a discussion, that is the time you know that it's a closed forum and nothing can be gained by spending time with them.
good cross-talk measurements, proper balance in both channels reaching the ear etc
Very good point. And do all the folks have the exact same ear cavity size, etc? What if some people are hard of hearing, or some people are extra sensitive? You folks realize that not all people hear the same...right? But do you know, the ear sends the "vibration/sound" signal to the brain to process it further? Yes, I called it the "vibration/sound" because, till the brain completely processes it completely, we cannot identify what it is.
Then the following happens, as explained on brainfacts.org:
The next stop for sound processing is the thalamus. Located just above the brainstem, the thalamus is the brain’s relay station for incoming sensory information. Then the information travels to the auditory part of the cerebral cortex.
The brainstem and thalamus use the information from both ears to compute a sound’s direction and location. In the primary auditory cortex different auditory neurons respond to different frequencies, which maintains the frequency map generated by the hair cells. Some cortical neurons respond to sound qualities including intensity, duration, or a change in frequency, while others are selective for complex sounds. Still others specialize in various combinations of tones. At higher levels in the brain, neurons can process harmony, rhythm, and melody. These neurons combine the different types of auditory information so you can recognize a voice or instrument.
I don't think anyone has any instrument to test how person A perceives the same sound compared to person B. As far as I have read and understood - brain is a super complex organ. I believe the scientists community thinks that we hardly know how a brain functions (completely). Of course, the ASR community who mention their PhD, BEEE, MSc, position at Microsoft, etc probably know how brain works like the back of their hand. Unfortunately not many humans are as enlightened as these ASR souls.
Isn't it funny that there's no Food Science Review, filled with devotees who claim that coffee and wine notes are imaginary, that herbs must be measured by % points of acidity, and using your own feelings to create and taste dishes is foolish?
But food and audio are very similar - many things which can and cannot be measured, but ultimately being decided by our senses as the ultimate measurement tools.
Imagine the engineers behind stoves and microwaves tearing down professional chefs for cooking based on their feelings. Yet that what ASR is to audio.
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.
It really doesn't. I have to presume you haven't really spent a lot of time on ASR to produce such a misrepresentation.
Are there group dynamics on the ASR forum? Of course! Just as in every forum! Just as in every aspect of human social life. That doesn't make EVERYTHING LIKE THAT a "religion."
For one thing, the central tenet most adhere to is that inherent fallibility of human beings and what methods can help account for this - among them blind testing and the use of measuring tools that are more sensitive and reliable than our own senses. (That is why, after all, most measurement devices are created - to make up for human limitations).
This very foundation is anti-dogmatic at it's core. It allows people to, in principle, find out they are wrong, and find ways to settle some questions (always, provisionally) that would otherwise reside in unfalsifiable realms, such as purelysubjective claims.
That right there is a massive difference from any dogma or religion.
Does that mean any ASR member can not be blinkered, or dogmatic himself? Of course not. That can happen anywhere (which doesn't make The Whole Thing Like A Religion).
But in actual practice, anyone who actually knows what goes on at ASR knows that it is FAR from religious subjects receiving dogmatic knowledge uncritically. There is TONS of pushback, critique and discussion not only regarding Amir's tests, but on just about any subject you can point to!
Are there viable critiques of individuals on ASR, or perhaps some trends? Sure. And yes there will be social trends. But it's lazy to just call that "fitting religion to a T." That's like saying scientists attending a conference "fit religion to a T" because "look, they are congregating and hashing out their belief system, just like people do at a church!"
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
