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

i find the "he’s just doing this for money" critique ridiculous. way to offer up a perfect mirror image of the bad faith argument you can see on ASR every single day. "we must conclude that by making poor (according to my arbitrary tests) design choices, these manufacturers are clearly only out to deceive gullible audiophiles" "that’s just snake oil" etc : "amir is only in this for money". it’s the same stupid argument from both camps. better to judge peoples opinions on their merits instead of reading malice into every little thing you disagree with

There are probably more than a few here who miss the good old days of arguing over Covid vaccines.

 

@kota1 I am a long time user of Audiogon to buy and sell gear and have a nice collection of vintage and contemporary gear.  The beauty of measurements is that you don’t need to rely on taste or my gear list. :)

I enjoy a lot of different types of music and enjoy different systems depending on my mood.  I have owned Proceed/Levinson gear, contemporary and vintage McIntosh solid state and tubes, Pure Class A Accuphase, PS Audio, Nelson Pass era Adcom, Primare, NAD, Sony ES, Denon, Marantz, etc.  I have had planars, ribbons, omnipolars, soft dome tweeters, metal tweeters, compression drivers, etc.

I find that the most accurate sounding systems are the best for well recorded classical music but are too unforgiving for good but not great singers or good but not great recordings.  (Examples of a good but not great singers are Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling from the La La Land Soundtrack, and a great singer with a poor recording, Joyce Jonathan’s Sur Mes Gardes.)

As a music lover, I have achieved everything I need for great sound and enough experience to pick the system that gives me the most enjoyment for any individual piece of music.  As a hobbyist, and why I spend time on ASR, is that I hope to show everyone that everything that can be heard can be measured, it’s OK to prefer coloration, and there are a lot of tweaks that are just sighted bias/snake oil.

Anyone who is serious about the hobby of wanting to know why something sounds good (or bad) should invest in their own test gear.  Compared to what some are charging for cables or line conditioners, it’s pretty cheap. 

Well, ASR members are going wild over at ASR on their rebuttal forum with 165 posts.  One member lists this statement to prove his point: "The inability of some posters there to accept evidence-based science is stunning. It is a similar logical construct as saying “I’m not going to treat my cancer because the treatments make me feel worse. Your fancy MRIs, blood analyzers, and pathology tests can’t measure my feelings.”

"Then he lists uses of technology: If they DID say that, then they would at least behave in a consistent manner. But they DON'T behave in a consistent manner.
Realistically speaking, they will use the science-based medical technology. Ergo, they trust it.
They will trust the science-based technology that goes into their cars, hybrid or otherwise.
They will trust science-based aerodynamic technology when they travel by airplane.
They will trust the science-based digital technology that enables their refrigerators and stoves to operate correctly.
They will trust the digital technology that allows their TV to entertain them.
They will trust the technology-based science that warns them of hurricanes, tornadoes and storms that are broadcast on said TV.
They trust the science-based digital technology that allows them to use their cell phones.
Most of them even trust the science-based use and control of nuclear power, so they can enjoy the benefits of electricity."

His insane conclusion about audiophiles not subscribing to ASR dictum:
"They just reject evidence-based science when it come to audio.
Selective little buggers, aren't they? " 

Of course we all know (except ASR members/Amir) that we do not reject technology and science.   Again, analogies that are replete with incompatible comparisons of sound equipment with wine glasses, etc. that posters make and Amir indicates the fallacy of their thinking.  They cannot separate the innately technological for products that are consistent in form and factor from the ephemeral, like wine.   Sound reproduction is NOT finite.   The equipment obviously (to us) has sonic parameters which are not being tested.  If it were, then all equipment that measures the same would sound the same.  Hence, there are a great multitude of equipment choices as well as synergy aspects to consider which are also, not tested.  Imagine if there were a million choices in cancer treatments?  How about the long list of trusted technology information above?   No, there is a clear cut difference between sound reproduction and science only based information and products. 

@gxalan , thanks for the reply. I have a thread going elsewhere on this forum and I need advice about a mcintosh streamer/dac vs a just dac, feel free to post something over there, appreciate it. I have never tried mcintosh and am thinking hard about it.