Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy
"Audiophiles are Snobs" Youtube features an idiot! He states, with no equivocation, that $5,000 and $10,000 speakers sound equally good and a $500 and $5,000 integrated amp sound equally good. He is either deaf or a liar or both!
There is a site filled with posters like him called Audio Science Review. If a reasonable person posts, they immediately tear him down, using selected words and/or sentences from the reasonable poster as100% proof that the audiophile is dumb and stupid with his money. They also occasionally state that the high end audio equipment/cable/tweak sellers are criminals who commit fraud on the public. They often state that if something scientifically measures better, then it sounds better. They give no credence to unmeasurable sound factors like PRAT and Ambiance. Some of the posters music choices range from rap to hip hop and anything pop oriented created in the past from 1995.
Have any of audiogon (or any other reasonable audio forum site) posters encountered this horrible group of miscreants?
Yeesh. I hadn't seen that post about the Benchmark. That's particularly telling.... It must feel nice to feel better informed than truly technically proficient designers, because you have Golden Ears. Someday I'll reach that super power.... |
Why wouldn't Amir defend himself? If someone was defaming you on another public forum, wouldn't you think it reasonable to defend yourself? It makes sense to defend yourself directly to the criticisms in said forum, given people are mostly disinclined to come over to ASR to take a nuanced view of what goes on there. As we've repeatedly seen the forum strawmanned in this thread. Do you expect to just be able to publicly criticize anyone you want, and with any level of misrepresentation, without any consequence or pushback?
|
Did you actually read that article? It doesn’t make the point you seem to think it makes. It re-enforces the liabilities of sighted listening. In other words, even taking the article's argument as given: sighted listening has ALL the liabilities cited in the article PLUS the addition of sighted bias.
|
It’s amazing isn’t it? By the very logic of the article kota1 wants us to accept, he’s not a trained listener. It would be at least as damning of his own method. PLUS he has added sighted bias in to the mix when he "breaks in" and listens to products.
(This happens all the time when audiophiles attempt to pick apart the usefulness of blind testing. They suddenly get all picky about variables in an attempt to dismiss the tests, conveniently forgetting that the variables would apply to their own method of testing gear!)
|
