Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

I think it is interesting to see measurements and compare them with subjective impressions, especially my own. If something sounds pleasing to me, or doesn't, I'd like to learn more about why that is whenever possible. What parameters of sound reproduction really matter to me?  If it turns out it is added distortion that I like, that's good to know! What bothers me is when a claim is made that something sounds good because it doesn't have some particular distortion when measurements clearly show that it does. That claim needs to be reconsidered. They should just say it sounds really good for some reason and it's added distortion. I for one think that any added distortion like that should be on the recording itself, or in an effects box that can add it or subtract it to each listener's desire. Ideally dacs, streamers, amps, preamps and the cables connecting them should all sound neutral and the same. That's my ideal. That part should be under control and a known quantity. I think it is not only possible but is actually frequently achieved by moderately priced equipment that is properly engineered. I know some people will swear up and down that they can hear a difference between all these inexpensive devices but I'm convinced it is a lot harder than they think when they don't get to know which device they are listening to. Neutral may not sound the way people want it to and that's fine. From there they can adjust using known parameters which are repeatable using an effects box with adjustments. Mixing and matching using cables, amps, and sources as effects boxes on purpose is a really messy, uncontrolled and expensive way of solving the problem. But if people enjoy that method or feel it's unavoidable because of their hearing abilities I'm not going to tell them to stop. I agree that ASR puts an awful lot of weight on measurements that are way beyond audible. But that fact it is mentioned and acknowledge frequently on the forum, even by Amir himself. Some people want to see where the state of the art is, and it is amazing how quiet and distortion free they can make equipment even at very moderate prices these days. If anyone can show new measurements that reveal how the expensive equipment is really outperforming the moderately priced stuff I'm very open to it. If some amp or streamer or other electronic audio device is readily preferred by a vast majority of listeners under blind testing but there's no measurement known to indicate why, that would be fascinating. Nothing of the sort is going on out there that I know of.

Reliability and consistency are big issues that I think are overlooked by all reviews, somewhat out of practical necessity. To really do it right is quite expensive and time consuming. Multiple units should be tested over long periods of time with a variety of different inputs and outputs and configurations. My personal experience with digital audio and video equipment is that intermittent problems can and do pop up that are audible and visible without totally destroying the signal. The "bits is bits" argument clearly isn’t true. The music or video can come through distorted at times but mostly intact, meaning some bits are being misrepresented. After a system reset the problem usually resolves for the short term. If the effect is subtle it might be misattributed to a fundamental flaw in the quality of the media or in the playback potential of the component in question, when really it’s just an intermittent inconsistency caused by various devices not coordinating well with each other.

As for audibility of various cables and other electronic components, what might shine some new light on those and how they interact with each other would be a set of measurements off a speaker in an anechoic setting rather than test bench measurements of the components in isolation. It would be important to keep everything identical in the measurement space each time, only changing equipment upstream. I suspect that some unexpected differences in the speaker’s output might be measured as amplifiers, dacs, cables, etc. are interchanged. To keep things exactly the same with each measurement the speaker would probably have to be built into a wall so that it’s front side was in the anechoic measuring space and all other equipment was outside, preventing any potential effects from the size and shape of the components changing the response in the measuring area. Even that might be a bit misleading because some equipment might be effected by being exposed to the sound the speaker is making in a sort of feedback loop. So a second speaker might have to play in the equipment room to provide that input, but it would be very important that none of that sound leak back into the measuring area. You can see why this sort of testing isn’t done very often.

A scientifically established fact on limits of human perception can easily be misapplied. Take for instance the claim that a light blinking fast enough will appear to be not blinking to the human eye that’s looking straight at it. This is true and demonstrable, but someone might say something like "If it’s blinking at a certain speed you can’t detect with your eye that it’s blinking." That’s not true, because as you sweep your vision across you do detect that it is blinking. So there’s a fact that’s been well established and then there’s a story about that fact that isn’t really true. I don’t know that I can come up with a really good comparison with audio but one might be masking effects. MP3 data compression relies on known tonal masking effects in human perception to throw away data that you "can’t hear" anyway. This may work better in some situations than others. I recall listening to a recording of the cocktail party effect, where on the recording you can hear a whole bunch of voices talking at once but can’t really make out a word anyone is saying because they all mask each other. In stereo over speakers I still couldn’t make out a conversation. Because it was, I believe, a binaural recording using a dummy head, when listened to over headphones or using a divider plate between my speakers to prevent crosstalk, I suddenly could make out a nearby conversation because spacial cues became available to more distinctly separate it in distance from the surrounding hubbub. So why am I bringing this up? I’m just wanting to acknowledge that while I really appreciate reviews with measurements like ASR does, I do acknowledge that there’s a strong possibility that there are things being missed that are audible. I think it's a worthy effort to keep trying to find ways to measure everything we perceive and enjoy in audio. With more understanding we have a better chance of more consistently getting the perception that we want.

@prof 

Having done various blind tests over the years, it's a very powerful lesson.  It's too bad many audiophiles haven't experienced their 'sighted' impressions dissolving away when they can't use their knowledge of which piece of gear is actually playing.   There's nothing that sinks in like an actual experience.

Yup, I've experienced my sighted impressions "dissolving away." It's both a  humbling and amazing experience. I've done it both with cables and testing a burned in amp against an identical model that hadn't been burned in. I can't express how obvious the difference in sound quality seemed to me during the sighted listening, so having the effect completely vanish just because I couldn't see which device I was listening to was like experiencing magic. In the end it taught me how malleable my perception of sound quality is to both conscious and unconscious expectations. My ear transduces the sound and then my brain interprets the resulting signal in the light of other sensory information.