I appreciate your time here, we won't ever agree but you have explained your process in detail and that is more than most would do. But I have a question about the quote above. You added you listen to loudspeakers "and equalization", can you explain that please. I'm assuming you equalize the loudspeaker for your listening session? Is that right?
Thank you. Answering your question, I use equalization as an investigation to see if the frequency response errors correspond to what I hear. Say there is a resonance at 1200 Hz. I pull that down with a filter. One of two things happen: it improves fidelity or it does not. If it is the former, then we know the objective measurements match subjective experience. And that the impairment is indeed audible. If on the other hand, the difference is not audible, or varies from track to track, then I declare it such.
One positive side-effect is that others with the same speaker can apply that EQ and see if it improves their listening experience. Majority of the time this is the case. Other times, it is not as clear cut which is fine.
|
@woodsage
So have stopped going to doctors now?
|
@russ69
If I had to describe my place in this division, I would say I’m looking at a much bigger picture. I work with the end product, the sound that comes out of my loudspeakers. I’m working for a sound that pleases me. Mr. Amir is looking at the microscopic details, the grain of the wood, if you will, and I’m assembling an entire landscape. The tools I use are different than the tools he uses.
??? Our aim is the same as yours. We want maximum enjoyment out of our music and want to optimize our gear to get there. I believe in uncovering as much reliable data as we can about a product to aim in that journey. What separates us is where we get our data, and whether it is based on sound engineering and scientific basis, or not. But the final goal is the same. Is this speaker going to sound great for me? How about this amp? Will this aftermarket cable or power conditioner improve the sound in my system? Do I need a specialized USB filter? How about an audiophile ethernet switch?
All of the above have answers. You could look to your gut and opinion of non-technical reviewers, or seek out specialized knowledge and data.
If you get sick, you can go to a doctor or google for information. The final aim is the same: a cure. The doctor puts you through tests and examines you. Perhaps you call this "grain of wood." I call it proper diagnostic based on proven medical knowledge.
|
@axo1989
Anyway, my takeaway is that long term audio memory is a more complex story, it certainly has resilience and differentiation in my experience (but the efficacy for a reviewer who listens to many system will be a different story). Bass is pretty straightforward (watts are good, but current is better, if you'll excuse the vernacular). Stereo image is the complex product of many factors, starting with the recording, but I wouldn't rule out the amp-speaker-room system as contributor.
How do you know this take away is true? Better yet, how can you prove this take away is true? Where is the proof point? At no time did you perform a controlled test like I mentioned in the video, correct? Without it, your conclusions are only yours. They present no value on the topic at hand. Indeed, they go against the consensus of audio research community which has tested these theories.
According to ASR lore, this can be explained by sighted bias. I was (weirdly) biased against my new amp (I know, a bit contradictory).
First, it is not according to "ASR." It is according to accepted audio science which ASR follows.
That aside, no, the problem is not sighted bias directly. Your hearing is elastic. You listen more intently at times vs others. Your hearing system is bi-directional with the brain instructing how your auditory pathways work. This feedback loop relies on the task you give it. Tell the brain that you are testing something new and it will focus more and attempt to dig out detail, listen for transients, etc. And lo and behold, it "hears" improvements even if you thought there should be none. Or be negative. This is why the excuse that "I didn't expect it to sound good but it did" doesn't work. There is no pre-requisite as such although that is also another factor that pollutes the results.
You need to put yourself in controlled tests, graded by others, with conclusions known in advance to see how good at these things. Just running experiments yourself and deciding you were right about this and that just doesn't work. As I showed earlier, audio reviewers performed horribly in controlled tests of speakers. Yet I am sure all thought they were great in telling performance of speakers.
Please remember that all of us also exist in your shoes as well as ours. I like you hear things that later realize where not there. Have this happen to you enough times and you get sober and realize your perception is not what you think it is. That your intuition can be so wrong in audio.
Measurements and understanding of how your electronics work is a powerful antidote to arriving at wrong conclusions. If I perform a digital null that shows your audio device didn't work differently when you upgraded its power cable, then that is that.
|
@milpai
I don't throw rocks and I don't want you to answer anything. Just stop telling folks that measurements tell you everything.
You just "wondered" if I listen to music. That didn't require answering?
That aside, you are the one saying "measurements tell you everything," not me. I have repeatedly stated that half of my reviews including listening tests. I also use other techniques like Null testing with real music. I have said that controlled listening test are the gold standard. Why isn't this message sinking in?
But yes, there is no denying of the power of measurements. They cut through audio folklore like butter. Company claims this and that tweak reduces noise? Well, we darn well know how to measure noise even if they don't. They say this and that lowers jitter? Well, we measure that every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Company says that this and that design produces the most transparent sound? Well, if distortions and noise are not competitive, then sure as heck does not do that.
When you get sick, you don't want your doctor to take your temperature and blood pressure on the fear that "he thinks measurements are everything." Measurements do not have to be everything to be incredibly useful and powerful.. Go without them at your own peril.
|
"And I say that you are also biased because you see the measurements and then listen."
Ah, you want me to be uninformed when I do my listening tests. As if not seeing the measurements somehow eliminate bias? Seeing the gear, etc. is not a concern of yours but accurate measurements are? Instead of typing, here is a video I produced on this very topic:
|
All I want to point out is that you say folks on this site are biased because they see the price and hence expectations increase.
Terrible of them, I know. Why let them have common sense and expect more performance when you pay more? It is audio after all. We should make new rules for that expenditure. I pay for a supercharger option for a car. Company delivers it and it reduces horsepower. I should be OK with that according to that rule....
Regardless, I have no issue with recommending ultra expensive gear: they just need to have the performance that is comparable to devices at 1/10th their cost. If they don't, then I will comment and withhold my recommendation.
|
"I wonder if you spend a lot of time measuring the equipment, how much you time would you enjoy listening to music."
Why do you wonder? What possible thing I have written that makes you wonder? Did I share a diary with you that showed no music listening?
I listen to tons of music. I am retired so I have all the time in the world. Even when I am measuring, I am listening to music.
|
Finally this:
You have a degree in electrical engineering field and that is awesome. Kudos to you. But neural sciences and the other fields doing research are not your forte. You seem to portray on your site that measurements are the end-all. I disagree on that with you.
I managed the signal processing group at Microsoft which relies hugely on psychoacoustics. I know what I need to know about perception of audio. No knowledge of "neural science" is needed, nor do any of you have any.
As to ASR, it is clear you have not spent much time there. We have a ton of luminaries there in audio discussing every aspect of audio. It is not just me.
So disagree all you want. But don't mischaracterize me or the forum.
|
@dducat
"My favorite is that Amir only needed one speaker to test and supposedly in his anechoic chamber."
All speakers in the industry are measured one at a time. No way you want to put two in there and have them create interference. If you did, you would not know the response of either one.
You are repeating an argument you don't understand. So let me help you. The argument is why I use a single speaker to *listen to* NOT measure. Measurements are always done with one speaker. Ask any speaker company and they will tell you the same thing.
On the topic of listening to just one speaker, it is what science says is best. It may not make intuitive sense to you but that is why you want to follow science. Not your lay intuition. I have a video on this topic as well:
Testing one speaker also sharply reduces shipping costs and lets me test more of them. Science is good for us sometimes! Try it. :)
|
@whipsaw
@amir_asr
This neatly encapsulates what some may perceive as your apparent myopia, and the associated problem that many have with ASR. If you believe that the above is truly a shared goal, then why on earth would you insist that better measuring components necessarily produce better sound?
You didn't read any of that from me so I don't know why you ask me to explain it. Better measurements mean an audio device is better engineered. Whether that translates into better sound requires analysis which I perform in reviews often. A jitter measurement showing spikes routinely states if they are below threshold of hearing for example.
When it comes to non-linear distortions, audiophiles are notoriously poor at hearing those artifacts. It is for this reason that even poor measuring gear is praised as sounding good.
So no, when it comes to electronics, better measurements don't "necessarily" translate into better sound. In acoustic measurements however, they are highly powerful in predicting preference. A colored speaker is simply liked less than one is that more true to the source. Again, not guaranteed but highly likely.
So if you want to be critical of what I say, first state my position correctly and failing that, quote me. Don't use talking points by people with aims other than finding the truth in audio.
|
@tonywinga
Amir says, "When it comes to non-linear distortions, audiophiles are notoriously poor at hearing those artifacts. It is for this reason that even poor measuring gear is praised as sounding good."
Tsk Tsk, another generalization without supporting data- bad science. Actually, everyone is poor at hearing non-linear distortions because they occur naturally around us and even in our heads, inside our ears to be specific. That is one reason tube amps without negative feedback sound better but SS amps without negative feedback can sound good too but look worse on paper.
You complain about my statement not being scientific and general and proceed to give me the very definition of those in your response! :)
I am happy to back my statement with proper research and references. To hear small impairments you need to know what to listen for. And for that, you need to understand the underlying system. Audiophiles tend to be poor at both even though some walk around thinking they are very gifted on that front.
For above, reason, when we care about reliable data, we use trained listeners. Earlier I showed research by Dr. Sean Olive on reliability of different groups of listeners when testing speakers:
Notice how poorly audio reviewers did which audiophiles tend to regard to have superior ability to evaluate other gear. Harman research showed that you need to have 10X more trials or number of testers to create the same set of reliable data as their trained listeners.
Trained listeners are extensively used in other domains such as hearing compression artifacts. When at Microsoft, and without that knowledge initially, I suggested to my manager of signal processing group that we recruit the hundreds of audiophiles we had at the company to identify impairments in codec. Blind test was created and distributed to them. A while later my manager came back telling me how poorly they had done. And that they were essentially no better than general public, and far worse than our trained listeners. I asked him to give me an example. He gave me one of the tests where I easily found the artifact. I apologized for wasting his time and from then on, we continued to use our trained listeners (of which I was one).
It took me about 6 months of intensive training to learn to find small non-linear artifacts. Those skills now allow me to hear them in broad set of tests which most audiophiles would not dare to take let alone pass. I gave an example of this in video I post on blind testing (I think).
Back to your comment, I have tested a ton of tube gear. I find their distortion to either not be audible or simply manifest in brightness, lack of clarify and edginess. Yet audiophiles make the claims you repeat. There is not one publish controlled test which backs their or your position. None. So if you are a fan of "science," I suggest not repeating folklore like that which can't be proven. At least not on the same breath as telling me I was unscientific.
|
@whipsaw
Do you have evidence supporting the claim that amps which measure better than tube (or Pass Labs) amps are preferred by a high percentage of audiophiles because they are more true to the source?
No one has done such side by side testing. If anyone should do that, is Pass Labs given the huge premium they charge for their amplifiers. If they sound better, then it should be trivial to perform controlled tests to show that. Alas, not only do they not provide such a listening test, no do any other amplifier companies. So much for "it is the sound that matters." In really, it is the marketing that matters.
To be clear, I have not test any Pass Lab commercial product. I did test his "ACA" DIY amplifier design and thought it was a distortion factory. I am confident I can put together a test that shows it to perform very poorly against some other amplifiers without all of its flaws.
|
@russ69
How is price part of audio science?
I am not in audio science. I am posting here. Ask a pedantic question, you receive an answer in kind. :)
|
@axo1989
But when it comes to amplifiers, ASR rarely listens, with the general justification that magnitude of differences are too small to differentiate (with some exceptions). As you can see in this thread all listening (that isn’t done by ASR with partial protocols) is routinely dismissed as sighted bias, expectation bias, focus bias etc (you too can play bias Whac-A-Mole).
The pushback like that is made when the claimed sighted tests go counter to solid body of engineering and research. Say a power cable improves the sound because you swapped one for the other and proof of being right is "I have been an audiophile for 30 years" and you rightly get strong pushback. Don't offer such as proof point and you are generally fine. And even if folks object, you should be cool because you weren't going to prove anything.
How else do you want us to behave? I once asked my doctor if he could help me with research into weaknesses of blind testing. He just about threw me out of his office! He said, "Amir, the foundation of what I do is based on blind testing; I can't participate in any attempt to cast doubt on it." It wasn't my intent to cast doubt but I fully understood his position and continue to see him.
Before funding ASR, I was the co-founder of Whatsbestforum (WBF). We thought by allowing both camps to state their position, life would be good. Well, it turned out to be anything but. The conflict eventually crept between me and my partner and I sold out my shares and got out. I decided then to go the "pure" route and start ASR. The name clearly states that we are committed to teachings of audio research and engineering for decades. We don't pretend to be smart enough to invent our own rules of universe for audio and champion that to everybody else with vengeance as folks are doing here.
Net, net the response you mentioned is what you should expect if you come and make outlandish claims. You have seen me respond similarly here. As I said, it is a jazz club and you shouldn't expect folks to take kindly to you demanding that you play country music.
You want to come and challenge our position? Do so with solid research and science driven listening tests. Be ready to defend yourself and not cry victim with "oh they ask for controlled test and tell me about bias." Of course we do.
Indeed, many people who have a short life in ASR mistakenly assume they are stating something new to us that we are just going to roll over and accept. Member @kota1 for example shows up and says every cable needs to be broken in for 100 hours or the test is invalid. We have heard these claims a million times. Don't be the million and one member who thinks you should just throw that at us and we go, "oh, I didn't know that; thank you for that information!"
Read the forum a bit and get educated on what and who we are. Then participate if you need to. You are welcome to challenge us on every topic. Members do that to me all the time. But be ready for heaven's sake with some back up worth more than a fortune cookie paper!
|
@axo1989
One the one hand, Amir does ignore Toole’s advice that speakers should be listened to comparatively for evaluation to be meaningful. Even something as simple as setting up a curtain and turntable and enlisting helpers from his cohort of followers is dismissed.
This was a planned activity from day one that I started to test speakers. Indeed, i have held on to a mountain of speakers for this very purpose. But you may have heard of a thing called the pandemic. Our local audiophile group where I was hoping to conduct such tests stopped meeting (and went virtual) so the project is on hold. Meanwhile, one member did post such a comparison:
And a much more sophisticated one using a turntable was created as well:
I highly encourage such efforts. I provided speakers for the second phase above to the organizer and happy to do so for anyone who likes to conduct them.
Such testing is extremely time consuming. But good news is that anyone can do it. You don't need my experience or instrumentation. So no one should be waiting on me for it. My time is best spent providing objective data such as measurements.
To position this as me against Dr. Toole's teachings is very much out of line. Nothing remotely is true in that regard. I simply don't have the resources or time to do this kind of testing on every speaker that lands here.
My listening tests in reviews is provided on "as is" basis. I do them because if I didn't, I would get more complaints. "Oh, he doesn't listen." I have tried to make more sense out of them by developing the EQ technique. The outcome there has been quite positive with many trying my EQ profiles and liking them over stock performance. If folks want to ignore them -- and many do -- it is no skin of my nose. I perform them because I am curious myself how the measurements translate into sound and a form of listening training.
|
@tonywinga
Some of the greatest sounding musical instruments, in fact most all musical instruments and even concert halls were designed and built without computers and electronic analysis equipment. They were designed and built by artisans with skilled hands and ears. It's all about what we hear. When someone tries telling me I am not hearing what I think I am hearing, well that goes over with me about like putting a tax on a child's piggy bank.
Once more: listening tests are the gold standard in audio research. No one is telling you to substitute measurements for it.
What we say is that don't go believing marketing claims that have no verification with controlled testing, or make sense at engineering level. We prove the latter with measurements. Company claims the power conditioner lowers your audio system noise? Well, we measure that. If the result is that noise has not changed one bit, then you know the claim was wrong.
Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept? You say your local water is making you sick? Folks come out and measure to see what is in it. If it is pure and clean, then that is very important information.
Importantly, don't confuse creation of art with replay of it. Our business is the latter. The two are completely different universes. Audio equipment should NOT be in the business of creating or modifying art. If it is, then it is not high fidelity. And will impart the same signature on every music you play -- something I dislike dearly.
As to what you think you are hearing, that is NOT in doubt. What is in doubt is what you say it means when you did not block all other senses than your ear.
|
@russ69
You have been very generous with your time, I'm sorry I am testing your patience, but I've am seriously curious how you inject price or value judgements into your reviews.
Thank you. As a general rule, I do not incorporate price. If a piece of equipment performs superbly, I give it my highest recommendation irrespective of price.
There are situations where I bend the rule. For example, in amplifiers that cost less than $100, I allow impairments that I would not in more expensive gear.
Conversely, if something is super expense and performs middle of the road or lower, it will get my scorn.
All in all, it is a personal opinion which can be discarded and reliable measurements and other data used for yourself. At the risk of stating the obvious, measurements don't care what something costs.
|
@axo1989
I’m not positioning you as "against" Toole, simply stating that you ignore that specific recommendation. Ignore in the sense of "intentionally disregard" which is what you’ve specifically stated here. If the semantics don’t suit you, change ignore to "doesn’t follow".
It was a spin and a debating stunt which I called you on. Dr. Toole's collective research is how a specific set of measurements highly predict listener preference. Those measurements are created by me in every speaker review (and then some). This is the lead and core of my review.
My listening tests and EQ are a supplement that I have chosen to include. A ton of people have argued against it on ASR. I have answered them in the video I produced. It is not important or core to my review of a speaker although I personally value it.
What you did was elevate the listening test to something it is not, then complain that it doesn't follow the extensive protocol Dr. Toole used for research. That was improper and I responded to you as such.
Your business model is based on rapid testing and fast turnover and of course that has advantages and disadvantages.
Another debating stunt. I do not run a "business" to have a model. I have a hobby which creates great value for large swath of audiophiles and the audio industry in general. That hobby is based on objective data on audio gear and explaining the science and engineering of audio.
As an engineer, I try to optimize for the resources I have. A $100,000 speaker measurement system needs to be in constant use to provide that level of value. Me sitting on a single speaker to test for weeks and months doesn't provide the right value. Creating predictive measurements absolutely does.
And it is not like you have shown any of those editors that hold on to gear perform comparative blind testing of speakers. They have the time according to you but waste it away with who knows what. You want to complain about something, complain about that.
|
@fleschler
As a cable beta tester, I hear the cable raw, then burn it in for 24 hours. I can't say I can always tell if it sounds better, but I can always tell when it sounds worse. Depends on the cable. Doesn't matter to ASR.
Now do the same thing blind, run a camera and repeat 10 times. Let us know if you can tell the raw from burned in cable. Should be easy for you to run such a test. I post the video on how to do it. All of us at ASR would love to see such an experiment. Your anecdotal claim above where you included your eyes and full knowledge of what is being tested, not such much.
|
Another story. :)
Our audiophile society was invited to a stereophile reviewer's home to see and experience his setup (he just left that organization). He had a new amp to review against his own. Room was too small for all of us to go in there so we divided into two groups. First group went in and came out. Without telling us anything, we went in there. At the end, reviewer asked which amplifier sounded better which folks did.
When we came out to join the larger group, we realized the first group had voted the exact opposite!!! The reviewer said he had played the amps in reverse order for them vs us.
You see how faulty sighted evaluation is?
We create controls in listening tests to create reliable outcomes and avoid the above.
|
@fair
Thus, while testing on 2 ohm has its merit, it appears from the discussion that testing on non-purely-resistive loads is of more interest to people with practical experience in designing and repairing amps.
It is not in my review charter to help either camp in that. That aside, I did build an emulator of a 2-way speaker per stereophile. And used it for a bit of testing. It didn't reveal anything useful so I retired it.
I have used real headphones for headphone amps. That too was a useless exercise as the back EMF combined with the impedance of the amp produced completely erroneous and misleading THD measurements. Similar situation exists with testing amplifiers with speakers.
Even if something useful popped out, who is to say that speaker is representative of any other? It may be a corner case, an easy case, or a difficult case. Who knows.
I do vary the resistive load to test for load sensitivity and report on that (usually a problem with low-end class D amps although some high-end ones suffer the same).
Finally, keep in mind that any speaker or emulated load of one would have to be at very low power. There, distortion may not be material at all (swamped by noise). This is why JA at stereophile only uses is load emulation for frequency response test.
Yes, there is a $15,000+ load cube that provides a couple of reactive loads (NOT representing any real speaker). Audio critic had one but I think it blew up on them and they no longer used it. I would spend the money if I thought it would add value but it simply doesn't.
Making sure this point is understood: there is a very high bar for adding more tests to the suite that I run. Every test suggestion must come with strong justification which I have not seen in any of your posts. Folks on ASR routinely make such suggestions. You want a new test? Come back with real data that shows usefulness. "Would be nice" isn't going to work. A lot of things would be nice but not when it clutters existing measurements and take time and resources form testing other products.
|
@boxer12
Tammy-
This guy is like a tick that burrows into Audiogon until he causes enough irritation to get booted out... Then comes back under another name and starts the process all over again.
What is the solution? Ban them after a few posts when you realize they are going against the grain of the forum/thread?
|
@fleschler
I do not trust @crymeanaudioriver opinion(s). ASR site is replete with anecdotes and foolish statements concerning cables, especially digital cables. I've tried half a dozen digital cables and none of them sound the same, not even close. I bet they measure the same though, 75 ohms, similar capacitance, resistance, inductance although I have no tests proving that other than a voltmeter. I decided based on listening. None of the cables had specs although five had extensive explanations concerning their construction.
My tests are extensive and include measuring the output of audio devices to see if the waveform has changed at all. I recently started to play music through them and perform null tests showing the cable made no contributions whatsoever.
Reports like yours persist not because the facts are different, but that you think listening with your eyes wide open is the same as doing so without them. Until such time that you can provide reliable evidence of sound only, what you are saying has no value.
One of the top audiophiles in this forum with half a million dollar audio system swore a few years ago that he can tell the difference between his MIT oracle cable and others. He agreed to a blind test where he could not remotely do so. All it took was using just his ears to change the outcome. You can read about it here:
"So our results with Mike as our listener were clear: for this particular methodology, Mike could not accurately identify a difference in the cables."
Mike posts this about the experience: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...184-observations-controlled-cable-test-2.html
"yes; i have, to some degree, changed my perspective on cable differences....but...my mind is still processing the results and what they mean for me. i hope that i can coherently relate the various thoughts that go thru my mind. as Chris mentioned; the controls were successful at keeping me from knowing which cable was which. for each test i felt confident about my choice (except #6...see below).
[...]
when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'. we had discussed prior that any result 7 out of 10 or better or 15 out of 20 or better would mean a positive result and to continue. once we got to only 3 out of 7 it was clear that we were not going to get a positive result.
why did i fail?.....or put another way.....why did this test show no real difference? was i overconfident?
yes; regardless of the eventual answer i was not respectful enough of the challenge.
[...]
in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it."
----
Until this lesson is learned, nothing you know in audio can be trusted to be true.
|
@fleschler
My opinion has no validity without measurements.
What? I didn't ask you to measure anything. I asked you to listen only with your ears. And not with your eyes.
I have repeated over and over again that listening tests are the gold standard over measurements. You have spent a ton of time here posting. In that much time you could have conducted many blind tests showing us how your ears correctly identify one cable vs another.
As for my example, it was a concrete data point. As I keep saying, we are fans of what we can prove and demonstrate, not just claim. Will you follow or are folks supposed to believe an online person because he just says so?
|
@fleschler
And here's a guy who can't hear differences in cables.
With my eyes open like you, and full of preconceptions, I hear the difference every day of the week and twice on Sunday! I report the same in my reviews. Problem is, when I close my eyes, the difference vanishes like a fart in the wind. And that is what happened to Mike in that test. So it doesn't matter which school of thought you arrive from. Use only your ears and then conclusions are something we can talk about.
Remember, there is a cost to you what you believe in. Such fancy cables cost money that could be put to other use like buying more music, good food, etc. So you best be sure when you insist that you are right. Repeating misconceptions about me won't get you there.
|
@fleschler
@Amir Keep your fans on ASR.
I have no control of anyone. But if you want us to stay away from this site, then don't create a thread with such falsehoods and continue to repeat the same. For heaven's sake, you confused me with another youtuber in your introductory post which repeats one every page of this thread. And continue to misrepresent what we do.
Can't hear differences in cables that measure the same=something is very wrong here.
Another falsehood. Cables all measure differently. I don't know about you but I don't stick a cable in my ear and listen to it. I listen to the final output of my system. There, measurements show the same results with different cables. And it is this testing which I perform which damns them and other tweaks. That the final sound waves coming out of an amp, DAC, etc. does NOT change when you apply these tweaks.
If you or someone else still finds that the they sound different, it is time to only use your ears. Don't involve any other senses. And repeat the test to make sure you can consistently tell these tweaks apart.
One doesn't have to believe any online person; however, based on the enormous "subjectivist" opinions, people actually do hear differences, right or wrong, personal preferences included, regardless of measurements and decide to what sounds best to them, in a system, in a room. Nothing you say will change that.
That's wishful thinking on your part. Facts are that ASR reach is twice of this site despite being much younger site. That is not because I am more handsome than you although I like to think I am!!! 😁 It is because people see the value we provide in cutting through personal opinion spread by company marketing and random joe online.
I listen in the dark with all lights off when I want to immerse myself in the music, just like a movie theater. I don't see differences in sound, I hear them.
Not really. You are sitting there worrying if this or that other useless tweak like a cable makes a sonic difference. I and others on ASR do not. We have confidence in engineering and solid research and testing of what matters in audio, and what doesn't. Our enjoyment of music then is far greater because we are freed from the wild west of "everything matters" that you live in.
Dismissive of older equipment not measuring as well as cheap current equipment is as wrong as dismissing older recordings because they used older technology with distortions and reduced resolution, etc. of tape versus superior hi-res digital.
What are you talking about? I test plenty of "older" technology.
You think you are superior to nearly everyone who posts on Audiogon because your opinion is based on measurements (except when you don't find a measurable difference ala cables, tweaks, etc). The overwhelming majority do not think so. I am just one music lover with recording/performing experience and a high end audio reproduction system.
Oh, you are now representing this entire forum? Really? The segment of audiophile market you represent is tiny. The desktop audio market dwarfs the rest of the industry like nobody's business. You think there are millions of people who go and buy expensive audio cables???
As to your final statement, no, you are obsessed with things in audio that don't make an audible difference. You spend energy seeking variations there instead of enjoying your system.
|
@jerryg123
@crymeanaudioriver and yet ASR is not doing any blind tests.
There are very frequent blind tests posted by members. Here is a very recent one:
His conclusion: "TLDR; NO DIFFERENCE could be reliably discerned via blind abx testing between the Hegel h390 internal DAC and the Chord Hugo TT2 under close listening in my listening room."
The problem with you all's claims about ASR seems to be that you still don't know what we do there.
|
@cleeds
Amir & Co. believe audio equipment can be evaluated without listening, so sometimes they don't bother to listen at all - blind or otherwise.
Those who clamor most loudly for blind testing rarely undertake such evaluations themselves.
As I just post, there are plenty of blind tests performed at ASR. And tons and tons of listening tests by me. I listen to every speaker, every headphone and every headphone amplifier and dac combo. That is nearly half of what I review. A count that dwarfs what everyone else does considering that I review about 250 to 300 products a year.
Really, if you are a fan of blind tests, then you should perform them and do so properly. If you are not, then don't complain about how much we do it. After all, you are not supposed to care.
Note that I am not demanding anyone go and perform blind tests. They are time consuming. But if you are going to make outlandish claims that go against decades of audio science research and engineering, and stomp your feet that people believe you, then please, do the testing with your ears only. Do not involve your other senses. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for some of you to accept.
|
