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?
@tonywinga100%. I stated as much concerning modern (100% computer/AI designed) concert halls versus classic old concert halls. Funny thing is that after the initial performances of a season or two, nearly all of those modern halls are then "renovated," "adjusted" to sound better generally determined by listening to the results and finding fault.
Luckily, my audiophile friends, mastering engineers and audio equipment manufacturer don't doubt what I hear. The former and latter friends have provided me with acoustic room suggestions in my former home. The mastering engineers just share music.
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.
Right, and after OldHvyMec made his first major statement, there was a dispute, then 2 pancake posts and then posts where he could peddle his wire and break-in assumptions.
As to cartridge break-in, just admit you know nothing concerning vinyl playback. There are no tests that I have viewed indicating new versus 50 hour break-in results in sonic characteristic changes. HOWEVER, just because it wasn’t tested, I am not going out on a limb by stating nearly every other site discussing and reviewing cartridges ALWAYS recommends listening/reviewing after break-in, 15 hours or 50 hours or whatever.
I will swear that I have heard break-in of my new cartridges after 50 hours of play, which has happened over a dozen times since I’ve owned VPI turntables (40 years in 2023).
As to speakers, my dynamic speakers took about 50 to 100 hours to go from very dark sounding to open sounding. Not subtle, very obvious. I'm with OldHvyMec 100% on mechanical break-in.
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. Tubes, maybe an hour or two.
I think measuring amp by driving pure resistive load is not enough. It is much harder for amp to drive actual, far from ideal, non-linear, distorting. etc speaker, vs resistive linear load. Many PASS amps on my opinion are good choice for driving high end speakers.
You are getting emotional. I was pointing out that it is not just the subset of audiophiles that struggle to hear nonlinear distortion but everyone is that way.
I have this image of King Kong hanging on the top of the Empire State Building as the biplanes circle overhead machine guns blazing. The A'gon'rs being the biplanes. You being the big gorilla. Or did I have to clarify that?
Perhaps you can buy everyone dinner and we all go our ways. You are clearly not listening to what we all are saying and we are not drinking your kool aid.
...and I guess my next question to Amir would be: Do you have any significant data to show the correlation of SQ of components priced from $1000 to $30000 as an example.
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.
C'mon, Amir. As you know, Pass Labs amps have been very well received by audiophiles over decades now. They clearly have sound signatures that are pleasing to the ears of many listeners, and the suggestion that a meaningful percentage of those reactions would likely change if only those listeners were to A/B their amps with those that measure with less distortion is dubious, at best. And the same could be said of high-quality tube amplifiers.
To be clear, I don't doubt that some listeners would arrive at conclusions that would be at odds with their long-standing, stated preferences. But given the vast weight of the feedback from audiophiles who apparently prefer amps which measure with some distortion in the audible frequencies, it is, in my view, highly improbable that their choices are primarily due to marketing-related biases.
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.
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.
@prof I was only pointing out a prior Audiogon contributor who I found interesting who has been an avid ASR contributor but now is ridiculed and deemed unworthy of remaining because he said something different
I find that characterization quite misleading. It isn't just because "he said something different" it's that he's making dubious yet-very-confident claims, and providing poor arguments for those claims!
OldHvyMec is frankly being treated mostly with kid-gloves in that thread! Almost all (or all) the replies are quite civil and are simply pointing out the flaws in his argument. One person asked OldHvyMec if he's sure he'll be happy at the ASR forum, but I didn't see a single person saying he was "unworthy of remaining."
(which most manufacturers of quality audio equipment believe is true, and I believe true of inexpensive equipment as well). Tell me a speaker or cartridge, very mechanical devices, don’t break-in.
The question is always "are the changes audible?" There are good arguments, it seems, for why even speaker break in is over-hyped (e.g. most of the breaking in of driver surrounds etc typically occur rapidly, not over great lengths of time, though there seem to be *some* data suggesting *some* drivers can take longer to break in. But this hardly supports the common audiophile assumption that virtually every speaker sounds different after some extended break in period.
As for the other mechanical devices, I'm not sufficiently expert myself to rule it out, but do you have any measurements showing changes in the signal after time?
If it's based only on the "I Swear I Heard A Difference" method of vetting such "break in" that's not too compelling. I've seen audiophiles literally claim everything breaks in sonically, even their AV racks!
And remember OldHvyMec was making claims about cables.
in my experience, mood and environment and company and context affect enjoyment at least as much the quality (sub- or objective, take your pick) of the playback system. some of the best experiences with recorded music you can have might involve mono, 78rpm, poor/decayed/scratched/noisy/generally subpar recordings, crappy bar speakers, harsh PA's, etc. in other words if you need everything to sound like Aja to really get into it that's fine. i don't.
would also note that if your goal in building a home system is to get the stuff that's best-engineered according to one website's measurements, that's a little different from setting the goal to maximize your enjoyment of music. you very well might love your topping stack and that's great. more power to you! but you also might not. and what then?
from my perspective there's no way around the fact that you have to listen to know whether something is going to work for you. this isn't an argument against measuring equipment, but it is an argument against relying on "the science" instead of your ears
Robin_L at ASR has contributed interesting knowledge concerning early recordings such as
Had a job for a year at Ray Avery's Rare Records in Glendale. (PS-I went there for LPs many times) There were lots of 78's there. The fairly large stack of Enrico Caruso 78's went for $10 a pop in 1977. I don't know if you've ever heard an acoustically recorded 78 played back on a properly functioning player of quality, but the results are uncanny. Yes, frequency response is a disaster but the sense of the musician being in the room is greater than I have heard with any other record/play system.
And Caruso was about dynamics and presence above all. It was the nature of his art, a vocal artist who could fill a large hall with sound before amplifiers.
I'd say there're no "Witches" (in the old pejorative sense, not in the more recent neopagan "Oh lookee, there's Aunt Connie with the kush!" sense) but the practice of different forms of audio magic. It's hard to assign a numeric scale of "quality" to music and the quality of its sound. The range of musical soundscapes is far too varied for that.
Mercury was the one company most famous for recording on that media, there were early Everest recordings and issues on the Command Performance label sourced from 35 mm tape as well. Apparently 35 mm tape recordings did not store as well as regular tape so that when the Mercury Living Presence series was carefully reissued on CDs, sometimes the back-up tapes---three channels on 1/2" tape---were used instead. During the late fifties/early sixties, when these sorts of recordings were being made, there was a push to make three-channel recordings and getting that format accessible to the public. RCA's three channel recordings were eventually issued as three-channel SACDs, and Mercury did the same, if I recall correctly. I remember much improved lateral stereo imaging playing the 3-channel sourced material back when I had a 5.1 system. Still have the SACDs.
Think of it---took 40 years and the development of high-resolution audio media to reproduce the sound the audio engineers were hearing back in 1960.
I note that most of the vinyl site regards it as inferior and many say it's not worth listening to.
I will also note that Ward Marston has remastered the entire Caruso catalog on 12 CDs in superb sound, so playing the original 78s is next to unnecessary (I have about 80 of his recordings on 78 and many on LP). Big as life sound in digital as well now.
@cd13 Note what @crymeanaudioriver imbecilic statement that "have heard awful classical recordings, and jazz and much big band is old and mono." Why would I or anyone else use awful classical or jazz or big band recordings to evaluate audio equipment? It is obvious that I ONLY meant high quality recorded and engineered/mastered recordings. Funny, I’d say 80% of my 500+ post 1950s jazz CDs are of high end recording and mastered qualities and maybe 20% of my classical orchestral. I have over 28,500 LPs and 7,000 CDs and recorded and mastered about 250+ classical orchestral, chamber and choral recordings, including major venues.
@prof I was only pointing out a prior Audiogon contributor who I found interesting who has been an avid ASR contributor but now is ridiculed and deemed unworthy of remaining because he said something different (which most manufacturers of quality audio equipment believe is true, and I believe true of inexpensive equipment as well). Tell me a speaker or cartridge, very mechanical devices, don’t break-in.
I like the guys that have stated that science is observation and measurement. Someday maybe we will have the tools that allow our observations to be measured in a reliable and repeatable way.
What I hear is pointless, just as what you hear is pointless. We hear what we think we hear, what we want to hear, what we need to hear"
IMO The first sentence is about personal experience . " I claim to hear no distortion in my digital setup." What does anyone gain from that? It's really pointless to anyone but me as your experience is to you. I might be glad you enjoy your setup but your impressions of what you hear doesn't impact anything useful to me as mine doesn't to you.
Second sentence is how our hearing evolved. How our ears and brain work.
So it's not anything weird or controversial as far as I'm concerned.
"My only "belief" is I don’t want to alter the signal I’m given, to me measurements will tell me more about whether that is happening than a hearing mechanism cobbled together by evolution."
"Speakers and room I can adjust to what I like..."
In a nutshell, exactly. Replay equipment needs to be sufficiently accurate to the signal it’s given, otherwise it’s likely to be adding audible distortion.
Some might even prefer that added distortion but that’s not really the point of ASR.
When those who follow such a different opposing philosophy it often seems unlikely the two opposing sides can ever be reconciled on such a divisive matter of faith.
This schism between the objectivists on one hand and the subjectivists (+ a few ’high end dealers?) on the other is probably the biggest one there is in audio.
However it’s fairly obvious which side ASR falls on, isn’t it, and that’s hardly likely to change anytime soon, is it?
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.
Interesting that you would use a colored speaker as an example, when my post focussed specifically on amplifiers. 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?
So if you want to be critical of what I say, first state my position correctly and failing that, quote me.
lol! Ok, here’s a quote from you that helps to support my original point:
Nelson Pass produces products with copious amounts of distortion. If he thinks that is pleasing, then he should develop critical listening skills so that he can hear the damage he is doing to source signal.
Now the posters are going after OldHvyMec for suggesting/stating that equipment always Breaks-in and mostly because he had the audacity to state that cable also breaks-in/burns-in.
How DARE they actually put some critical thinking to those claims and ask for evidence! Why don’t the many members there with technical knowledge and experience with electronics just flat out accept whatever OldHvyMec claims, even if it contradicts their own experience and knowledge of technical theory? Some anonymous poster making dubious technical claims ought to trump all that and they should bypass any demands for evidence out of deference to this new poster!
seems like this whole thing is really just a left-brain vs right-brain debate. anecdotally, all the best sounding systems ive heard have been put together by people who cant be bothered with such a binary view of things. instead of either/or it’s both/and
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.
I heard arguments once that IM distortion was more critical to a pleasing sound than THD, IM distortion occurs inside our heads too.
Thomas Edison used to have stage shows in the 1900's where he put his new phonograph on stage behind a thin curtain. He had a live opera singer on stage as well. He would have the audience guess if the singing was live or a recording. Sold a lot of phonographs that way.
I did not say anything about their taste in music, only related to evaluating equipment- ...... Compare to classical orchestral, jazz and big band. There is a difference in audio recordings.
I have heard awful classical recordings, and jazz and much big band is old and mono.
However, for a group that goes on and on and on about emotional engagement as the most critical aspect, you sure are pretty narrow minded where you will allow that to apply.
You are an incestuous follower of Amir. Maybe his wife or husband posting here.
And now your true character comes out as well as a reminder why I did not want to use my main profile to enter this discussion.
I’m a long time Audigon Forum member, but have been a prolix poster on ASR as well for years :-)
It’s sad to see the "welcome" you’ve been given by *some* members here.
To the rest of the crowd:
I find it ironic that a lot of the criticism is often couched in terms of Amir’s attempt to inform as being just a flexing of ego.
What I see actually happening is some here can’t get past their own ego to acknowledge that..".hey...maybe Amir DOES know more about these subjects than I do."
But the ’subjective’ paradigm allows anyone to feel they are the personal experts of a sort: "Oh, some guy with actual ’expert’ knowledge in electronics is telling me that’s not how the gear works? Well I don’t have to listen to him! You see, I have my OWN experience hearing things, so I KNOW these products work like they are promoted to work."
This is like a perfect firewall to ignoring any expert testimony or information you want to ignore. As has been seen all over this thread. This "My Ears Don’t Lie" stance produces the audio equivalent of Dunning Kruger and is hard to penetrate.
Now, I don’t see that everyone here is that intractable. But it certainly is software running through many of these attacks on Amir.
So, as an Audiogon forum member (and member of other "subjective-oriented" sites) AND a long time ASR member, I’ll give my 2 cents on the ASR forum:
1. They do not reflexively hound away anyone with different opinions. Generally, the theme there is that if you are making claims about equipment, they would like to see something beyond "I’m Sure I Heard It." So technically plausible explanations, evidence in the form of measurements to understand what’s going on, or at least if the claim is in the technically disputable realm, evidence from controlled testing (blinded) that one can reliably detect the sonic differences claimed.
Nothing wrong at all with that as the remit of that forum. If you don’t your claims being put to such scrutiny, you don’t need to visit that forum.
2. That said, the general atmosphere is fairly "open" in terms of discussions. For an "objective based" forum it’s pretty relaxed. So long as you can be civil and are willing to engage honestly instead of dismissively, you can voice any opinion. For instance, I have continually argued for why I still value subjective descriptions in audio, why I value exchanging notes with other audiophiles, why I still value some subjective reviews. There is something of an overall allergy to such stuff at ASR I will admit, which is one reason I find myself defending it. BUT...again...there hasn’t been a hint of running me off the forum. I’ve engaged in plenty of great discussions.
3. While everyone will have some biases operating, I find Amir to generally be a straight-shooter. He has given thumbs up to a number of products one might predict he’d disparage, even including recommending some tiny ridiculously expensive Wilson TuneTOT speakers - where Wilson is typically the whipping-boy of most "objectivists" because they tend to measure wonky.
4. Personally I love that there is a forum where I can get more reliable, objective information about audio products. Do I have make my own choices some rote following of whatever I read at ASR? Not at all. But it’s up to me, and I’m so glad for the information avaialble on that site. I really think ASR is one of the most important, impactful audio web sites at this time. The fact Amir INCLUDES testing of all sorts of controversial audio-tweak stuff - expensive digital cables etc - is a HUGE bonus for those who want to spend their money advisedly, rather than being at the mercy of just manufacturer claims or audiophile anecdotes.
5. That said, I still value places like the Audiogon forum where I can indulge in exchanging notes on the subjective nature of the hobby - describing "what THIS product sounds like." I personally scale my confidence levels in these descriptions to the plausibility of the claims (e.g.if an Agon member describes his audition of two different speakers, I’m all ears. If he describes the difference his new $1,000 USB cable made...not so much).
6. Along the lines above: the very nature of the ASR site encourages a trend-line towards rating certain types of products higher than others, and lauding products that are aligning with similar technical goals - for instance speakers that align more with the Toole/Olive/Harman Kardon research, amps that measure super low SINAD/distortion etc. This is TOTALLY understandable. However, it also means that many there are not interested in some of the gear I’m interested in. So I still get value out of sites like Audiogon where I can exchange notes with people interested in gear that wouldn’t really be on ASR’s radar or focus.
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.
ASR Geert posted that Audiogon has removed it’s own postings. No, I removed my own and reposted them because I was being too angry (going down to their level).
Now the posters are going after OldHvyMec for suggesting/stating that equipment always Breaks-in and mostly because he had the audacity to state that cable also breaks-in/burns-in. Some say he should leave and go to wire testing forums.
267 ASR posts in rebuttal with more now coming against Audiogon forum and it's moderator.
The liar statement refers to AMIR's specific perversion of my neutral statements concerning types of listener's music on THIS FORUM.
As to the ASR, why don't you post the entire idiotic and stupid comments made the entire 1 or 2 hours I posted, beginning with my benign neutral statements, then becoming more insistent that these ASR posters refused to hear anything they didn't measure or use alternative (better source) material for evaluating equipment. I did not say anything about their taste in music, only related to evaluating equipment-hip-hop, reggae, ska, punk, alternative rock, trash metal, industrial, 90s techno, progressive techno, dnb, narco corridos, cumbia are generally bereft of many elements of audio. Compare to classical orchestral, jazz and big band. There is a difference in audio recordings. Why not use all of them? I suggested jazz-which was immediately shot down. There is nothing wrong with listening to alternative/modern music (except gangsta rap which wants police dead and women raped).
You are an incestuous follower of Amir. Maybe his wife or husband posting here.
@tsushima1The emotionally driven childish writings of far too many people in these 750+ posts is more than enough evidence to justify my decision. If it was just me I probably would not care at this point, but this will be yet another lesson on dealing with people for my grandson.
What are you going on about convictions? Convictions are whether I think we should be properly funding health care so that everyone can have some acceptable level of basic care. This is not a discussion about convictions. This is a combination of acting like adults, and the validity of personal observation. It is not even about whether good measurements mean good sound. That is a lie that some keep repeating for reasons I can only assume are nefarious.
@djones51: nothing to do with religion or atheism. I could have framed it as "the underlying thesis" rather than "ideology and belief system" to make it atheist.
Do you agree with that statement?
--------
Hearing does not matter, as we only hear what we want to hear
------
Yes or no?
In fact here is the exact wording of the guy who actually invented this whole movement: "What I hear is pointless, just as what you hear is pointless. We hear what we think we hear, what we want to hear, what we need to hear"
As an atheist I don't really agree with this in audio anymore than religion. My only "belief" is I don't want to alter the signal I'm given, to me measurements will tell me more about whether that is happening than a hearing mechanism cobbled together by evolution. Speakers and room I can adjust to what I like though I have found I prefer a nice flat FR on and off axis and my personal listening curve applied. Is that "better sound" ??? To subjective to apply to anyone but me.
Well, that explains a lot. I think I get it now. They are in search of the perfect measurement at bargain basement prices. That's why my opinion carries no weight, they are not seeking better sound, the foundation of being an audiophile. Thanks that really sorts it out for me and why I found their viewpoints so perplexing.
I really do not understand why members are even bothering giving @crymeanaudioriverany oxygen at all.
In other words, why would anyone be remotely interested in the machinations of someone who does not have the courage of his own convictions to post his outpourings under his established membership account, contriving to set up a sock puppet account out of fear of loosing monies peddling used HiFi to AGon forum members.
Science says that 'observation is king', where engineering says 'the laws of physics are king'. One can move us forward, one can make things in this world. Maybe one has no importance that is greater than the other, they both being parts of the modern structure of life, if you will.
I may not know everything about audio, but I know a lot about science in general and how it works. I also have pretty good reading comprehension and I am not prone to letting my emotions cloud my judgment or interpretations.
Amir has stated, many times, and effectively for those that either understand what he is saying or care to understand what he is saying, that "observation is king". You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, or a filibuster as @ghasleydescribed it.
The difference is Amir is using the scientific definition of observation, where you, on the basis of writing a very long post that I assume is to refute Amir, are not using the scientific definition of observation though you believe you are. I changed X to Y and it sounded better is not scientific observation. I expect more often than not, when someone changes from X to Y expecting an improvement that they hear an improvement. That is called correlation, but is the causation because Y sounds better, or is the causation the psychology of the purchase? When scientists observe cause and effect, the most critical thing they do is isolate for the variable they are intending to measure. When Amir talks about listening, he does the same. That is scientific observation. In my former field, which you can perhaps guess by reading my posts, scientific observation was king even though you would be inundated on a daily basis with personal observations.
Yes really. These folks believe that we only hear what we want to hear. Hearing does not matter. The truth lies in the measurements. That's the ideology and belief system. I learned this a while ago.
Sound as accurate to the source file I receive as possible. Is that better or worse? No idea. I want the signal that leaves the amp to be as close to the signal that enters the streamer as possible.
@fleschler, I don’t see any reason to continue in a tit for tat with you as your posts, to me, appear to be driven more by emotion than careful consideration.
You said this,
@crymeanaudioriver You LIE just like Amir. You know very well as I clearly stated how he took a neutral statement about someone’s preferred music and pervertedly twisted it into a negative character comment which I DO NOT DO.
And you also said this:
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.
The point of your post was to complain about ASR and also to complain about ASR participants, and the only thing you mentioned about their music tastes is what I highlighted, then I see no way in which that statement could be considered neutral. To me, and likely to others, it implies that those that listen to that type of music could not possibly be critical listeners.
You called me a liar, however, I will point out you also said this,
It is apparent that they don’t listen to music and the music they listen to is so bereft of acoustic information that they couldn’t judge on their cheap equipment what it could sound like.
Do you still want to insist your comment was neutral? You also wrote this:
@orgillian197Same here as I noted. Between the ASR posters preferred music choices, state of their hearing and immutable belief in cheap, good measuring equipment, our hearing is quite different.
The contention is if you take a " less expensive " component with better measurements can you differentiate it from a more expensive boutique component with worse measurements or an SS one from tube using controlled testing.
I included it because the argument of "better sound" seems to boil down to how can you say your cheap Class D amp that measures great "sound better" than my expensive Class A that doesn't measure as well? ASR's answer is you have no idea which "sounds better" or can you even make a distinction without controlled testing. It isn't about "sounds great" that's a throw away description.
"The contention is if you take a " less expensive " component with better measurements can you differentiate it from a more expensive boutique component with worse measurements or an SS one from tube using controlled testing."
I exclude pricing completely, it has nothing to do with sound quality. Why include it? It's just somebodies' opinion of a components worth. It's an opinion of value, not science. It has nothing to do with the sound I hear coming from the product. Pricing is a subject for Comsumer Reports, not equipment reviews. It certainly is not part of "Audio Science". Subjective reviews are the place to include value judgements. We all like a product that returns good value, but the "science" of audio quality should be devoid of any reference to price.
ASR should rename themselves AMR (for Audio Measurement Review) and leave it at that. Hiding behind the escutcheon of "science" and using it as a bulwark to promote their agenda while possibly hawking gear or reassuring others that they need not spend their hard earned cash on better sounding gear is getting old as it's now been made clear.
@teo_audio Oh, very good lecture. I will use this in a Toastmaster's meeting if that's okay with you. In my religion, we debate everything in life and in many families children question everything. Maybe that's why so many of my kinsmen are wildly out of proportion to are small population, Nobel laureates, scientists and inventors.
The measurement guys are convinced, that better measurements equal better sound.
This is the problem with a lot of posters on this forum as the above is a mischaracterization. Most everything I read on ASR that deals with electronics, leave speakers aside for the moment, is not that better measurements equal better sound but better engineered components with improved noise and distortion measurements. The contention is if you take a " less expensive " component with better measurements can you differentiate it from a more expensive boutique component with worse measurements or an SS one from tube using controlled testing. Their argument isn't better measurements give better sound but it's highly unlikely people could tell the difference when bias is accounted for, so for those so inclined save money with electronics and concentrate on speakers and DSP or room treatments to achieve your desired sound signature.
For speakers, research has shown most people prefer a flat FR when measured in an anechoic chamber and wide dispersion. The reasoning I believe is a speaker with a flat FR anechoicly is much easier to get it to work well in a lot of different rooms. Doesn't mean everyone wants that.
This better measurements = better sound is in this threads title but it certainly isn't the takeaway I've gotten from reading a lot of threads on ASR.
@crymeanaudioriver You LIE just like Amir. You know very well as I clearly stated how he took a neutral statement about someone's preferred music and pervertedly twisted it into a negative character comment which I DO NOT DO. I was NOT commenting on ASR's preference on NOT permitting, untested/unscientific backing for an experience. I WAS CLEARLY stating that contorting and twisting statements to say the opposite and character assassination are defaming.
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.
