@russ69 I think you misinterpret what @amir_asr is communicating. Amir has talked about what most people like. There seems to be some merit to that. A lot of us like a good Cabernet, but some like it drier and some like it with a bit of residual sugar. If you tell me it is super dry like an Arizona desert in the summer, and Amir's test equipment says no, it is quite sweet, with a specific number that represents sweeter than 50% of all Cabernets, who is right? (The correct answer is Amir).
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?
1,312 responses
It's not me wanting anything. 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. And I say that you are also biased because you see the measurements and then listen. So both parties are biased and not just the folks here. Whether you accept this or not - that is the truth.
See this is where we differ. Our hobby is to listen with our senses and enjoy. Your hobby is to measure and enjoy. I wonder if you spend a lot of time measuring the equipment, how much you time would you enjoy listening to music. But of course, it is your choice and I respect that.
Agreed. But these measurements don't consider the tons of variables that I described in my previous posts.
I don't throw rocks and I don't want you to answer anything. Just stop telling folks that measurements tell you everything. You need to understand that humans cannot measure something that they do not know how to measure it. There are many a science mysteries that the best scientists do not know yet. If you google it, you would find tons of articles. Eventually ( maybe 1 day or 1000+ years from now) humans will evolve and research will solve these mysteries. Black holes were unheard of in 1971. Yet they were finally photographed very recently. 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. |
| Post removed |
I expect that what I see here is what many others will see while reading these sorry pages. A calm, experienced, knowledgeable, detail oriented, expert in this particular aspect of his field professional who is going up against a bunch of classroom bullies who are doing their attempted best at a character assassination.
Keeping patting yourself on the back every time you think you have a gotcha. It is pretty obvious you don't and you are either twisting Amir's words deceitfully or do not understand most of them. I think it is a combination of both. I will say this again in the hopes it sinks in. You should be ashamed of your behaviour. This may be an internet forum, but it is still real life. You are not in some video games where everything resets when you lose a life. |
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.
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. |
??? 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. |
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. |
I think the subject of audio memory is fascinating. And somewhat misunderstood. We certainly have very high bandwidth short-term memory (the type that works with fast/uninterrupted switching). We also have long term audio memory (lower bandwidth so our brains can store more of it). We have intermediate levels as well as different encoding and storage processes (I'd have to dig up relevant papers) but these two are enough for this discussion. I had an interesting experience a while back that cased me to re-assess two aspects of catechism: that amps that measure similarly well sound the same when performing within their limits; and that longer term audio memory is uninformative. I replaced one integrated amp (Krell KAV-300iL) with another (Micromega M150) when the former was damaged beyond repair. Standard suite of measurements for both with similar performance at normal listening levels, etc. Both class AB and similar output. Listening sighted and subjectively the Micromega resented different in stereo imaging (less width/depth) and bass timbre. The vendor recommended the dreaded break-in (I'm ok with that, my ear/brain needs it at least) and I'd get used to it, obviously. But I didn't. When I played new music it sounded pretty good. But when I played familiar stuff, it sounded 'wrong'. I can't tell you which was more accurate, of course that's not possible. But, based on long-term audio memory, the subjective impressions persisted over a few months of listening and my brain didn't adjust to the different sound. The old amp would work for 10-20 minutes or so before static built up and I could compare every now and then after a fashion. As the Micromega had XLR-out, I bought a secondhand power amp (Krell KAV-2250) and plugged it in. Stereo image and bass returned. So same source, same DAC/pre (the Micromega) but different power amp stage. I ran some measurements (Fuzzmeasure with mic at listening position) to see if euphonic second-harmonic distortion (or similar) was sweetening the bass. Not visible. Also ran room correction (Sonarworks) for FR and left-right imbalance. Not that either. That leaves a bunch of more esoteric stuff. The Micromega has a different power supply and likely more negative feedback. Some think the latter affects stereo imaging. On the bass side, Krell tend to go overboard on the power transformer (2KVA in the 2250). I'll speculate that the room (with some lateral/oblique mode nulls around 70-90 Hz) pushes against the speaker, and the Micromega doesn't have the current to push back as effectively. But, speculation is all. 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. According to ASR lore, this can be explained by sighted bias. I was (weirdly) biased against my new amp (I know, a bit contradictory). What I could hear, consistently over several months, was neurosis. While that logic is effectively hermetic, why not test, controlling for visual bias? Well, logistics (I'd need a comparator box to fast-switch, or a friend to slow-switch, or similar) so while I pondered the possibilities a storm took out the Micromega (lighting blew up the water main and fried everything on the ethernet network). Can't win. |
@amir_asr "Is your profile public somewhere?” I am your ASR-reader-(ex)customer, not adversary, thus sorry I don’t think you need to know details about my professional life. The question in this thread was about your professional reviewer credibility, not mine, Amir. |
@amir_asr thank you for your reply. Here is what you said: With other classes of devices, impairments get very small to non-existent. What devices specifically? I simply don’t have the time or resources for this type of testing. So measurements plus psychoacoustic analysis stand in as substitute. I take that as you basically back fit the test to get the outcome you want. Why not outsource it to a third party and not have to guesstimate it? Stuff subjectivists report are like fantasy to me. I understand that you are not able to measure your fantasies and so do you discount the subjective experience of your customers? Why are you selling audio equipment and trying to post reviews (albeit even though you state you lack the time and resources to be as thorough as possible) on a topic which you seem unable to connect with which is as subjective as a listening experience.
|
I used to know guys that could identify cars by their sound. They were into street racing and knew all the angles but certain makes had certain sound characteristics that couldn't be masked by any mods. Same goes for reviewers way back in the early days of CD players. A few with the "golden ears" could walk right into a listening session and state which DAC chip was being used without looking at it. It was more primitive back then so the field of DAC chips was quite narrow but they could "hear" the chip and it's attendant sound characteristics. All the best, |
@tonywinga +1 "This comment by Amir regarding speaker upgrades: As to his upgrades making sense, they do most of the time from technical point of view. But not remotely on cost basis. He also detests EQ which can do the same thing for free.” -there is a pulse speaker response test available to prove Amir is wrong +1 "He is in over his head”- yep |
Yes, Bose. Dr. Bose's graduate thesis was blind testing and removing frequencies his subjects didn't hear were missing. |
I'll try to summarize- let's say an aviation enthusiast follows airplanes and can identify various aircraft by their sound. According to Amir, that is not possible. The person is deluding themselves because 1) A person cannot hear the minute differences in sound that the various types of aircraft make and 2) A person cannot remember the sounds various types of aircraft make. He shows dubious charts taken out of context to further his argument but if you go back and read through his responses he contradicts himself several times. For example, he says listening to the equipment he tests is not necessary but later he states that he does listening tests- on certain items. Now he says listening tests are ineffective. This is all bad science. No wonder it gets us all in aflutter. This comment by Amir regarding speaker upgrades: As to his upgrades making sense, they do most of the time from technical point of view. But not remotely on cost basis. He also detests EQ which can do the same thing for free. This statement reveals a lot- him saying that EQ can replace putting better components in a speaker (btw- in an earlier post he criticized a manufacturer for using cheap parts in their DAC but cheap parts in a speaker makes no difference apperently) shows that Amir does not understand Audio nor can he hear music the way we do. He cannot hear what we hear and that infuriates him. So he starts measuring gear to prove we cannot hear it either. He is in over his head. Owning a pile of test equipment is not a credential. To clarify- credentials are records of higher level education, certified training in a specific skill, published technical documents such as peer reviewed papers or text books, product designer/developer or maybe even just a good friend who can vouch for you. People here have asked that question repeatedly but he has not yet answered- other than to say he has lots of test equipment. I apologize in advance if I sound too harsh. I'm tired of being told that I am deluding myself by being in this hobby. It has given me much pleasure over these past 45 years.
|
@ghasley if he was a cordial guest he could host this discussion on his own site and reciprocate. He had to come here where we actually are cordial because if you go to his site.... |
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. |
@kota1 et al
Come on guys, you either place validity in the way Amir does things or you don't. (I happen to believe he is being as scientific about the process as he can. Me? I don't care how my 211 tube amp measures, I like it.) I also season my food to how I like it even if Emeril Lagase says I shouldn't.
Amir has been cordial, even with all the chirping. Let it go...be nice, visit his site or don't...why does it matter so deeply? |
What? I said controlled listening tests, which by definition are subjective, are the gold standard. It seems you are not familiar with the terminology here. It is sighted, ad-hoc testing that produces highly unreliable conclusions. Just close your eyes, follow the protocol in the video I described and you get to proper audio truth about your gear. Otherwise, what you are saying is a mix of your state of mind and gear. |
You are arguing against the very nature of how your perception works. You have already stated that you consider subjective experience is a fantasy. Is there something you are not perceiving yourself possibly? I am just telling you that your ability to detect differences goes down. If you want to ignore that, then fine. I am just telling you that your ability to convince me you are legit is going down. Posting links to third party research is legit like the AES white paper, all good. Posting links to your home movies might be entertaining (for you at least) but that isn’t considered legit third party research.
|
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? |
Sorry, no. The myth is that there is time limit to blind testing. Or that you are forced to use supplied music. The AES paper I referred you to allowed audiophiles to take a distortion box home, connect it to their system and spend as much time on it as they wanted, and play whatever wanted. They failed such a test compared to another group that performed fast AB switching. As to always getting null results, that is also completely wrong. I have passed and documented very challenging blind ABX tests. I am able to do that by being a trained critical listener and using very fast switching. If switching is slowed, I fail to test many if not all of them. I suggest reading ITU recommendation (standard) BS111.6 on how to detect small impairments: RECOMMENDATION ITU-R BS.1116-1* "Since long- and medium-term aural memory is unreliable, the test procedure should rely exclusively on short-term memory. This is best done if a near-instantaneous switching (see Note 1) method is used in conjunction with a triple You are arguing against the very nature of how your perception works. Not only experts in audio will disagree with you, so will those in the medical community who research the same. No way your brain has the capacity to remember every bit of fidelity in music you listen to hours and days later. It is impossible. But again, nothing in the protocol requires you to listen for longer if you so wish. I am just telling you that your ability to detect differences goes down. If you want to ignore that, then fine. Just make sure the test only involves your ears, and not the rest of your senses.\ Here is a video I produced on that:
|
Yes to all except that measurement is balanced which is using ($30) Mogami Gold XLR cables. No filters. No cages. No nothing. Just a superbly engineered audio device being measured by state of the art audio measurement gear. They way you are stating that tells me you don't have any experience measuring such audio gear or with this instrument as that kind of performance is routine for devices I test. |
By background is linked to in my signature on ASR. Here it is: You can also look at my linkedin profile: Amir Majidimehr - Founder - Audio Science Review | LinkedIn I am not a lab technician if that is what you are asking. Is your profile public somewhere? |
Good deal. But are we done with your conspiracy theory of me chasing money? If not, please state your remaining objection so I can address it. And yes, it is absolutely important to me that my ethics are not questions in that manner. |
@fleschler +1 on putting ASR reviews “under review”! :-) |
@amir_asr do I get it right what you say: -130dB using Amazon RCA basic cables in not shielded chamber? Without power filters or RFI noise control etc? |
Good deal. Please list the audio measurement gear you use and some of the data produced by it. And once there, please explain why you measure at all as some folks here seem to not like them at all. |
@amir_asr "I have reviewed 1,300 products” in not authorized/certified LAB? WOW what is your background, engineering degree etc? |
Too ancient? What is not too ancient if you don't mind listing? For now, my AP has a noise floor that is low enough to produce signal to noise ratio as high as 130 dB:
*Best case* dynamic range of our hearing system is 115 dB (limited by max SPL and noise level of the auditory system). With 130 dB like above, we have ample headroom. Transients are trivial to measure and I show them all the time to satisfy people even though they have so little meaning as far as fidelity. As to "high volume manufacturing," that is not my job. It is manufacturer's job. BTW, such testing usually uses (an obsolete) audio analyzer with "go/no go." Precision is not required there although would be appreciated if it existed. My job is to determine performance of an audio device. Not its reliability. No reviewer can give you that data. The fact that you think my equipment is "obsolete" to do that and that I am supposed to do such testing makes my head spin! |
@cd318 , I honestly appreciate the comment. Perhaps some who are reading this mess will take it to heart. Quite evident, many will not. Some will even resort to inventing a fantasy life in order to feel superior though I cannot fathom what end goal they have in mind? Everyone seems to feel they have to be in a "camp" these days, even if it is not in their best interests, or anyone else’s for that matter. We used to hold everyone to account, now people just pick a side and turn off part of their brain. |
Well that was anti-climatic! :) FYI I own high-end cables like Transparent Audio, Audioquest, etc. that when needed, I use. Usually to deter excuses like you made above. But no, my measurement gear didn’t come with such cables, nor is there a single recommendation to use such. Do you have any data that measurements are impacted by the things you mention? Or is it just gut anxiety? |
Sure, I don't have them all memorized but here are a few: Genelec (top manufacturer of studio monitors):
"Company was kind enough to review and approve the measurements you are about to see." Neumann (another top studio monitor manufacture): "You expect the company to deliver, and deliver it does! Other than a minor dip around 50 to 60 Hz, frequency response is flat and extends to both ends of audible spectrum. We exchanged measurements and company's on-axis response has a smaller dip to the tune of 0.8 dB. This has been a continuing theme with Neumann speaker bass response. Either they are wrong a bit here, or Klippel NFS is. No way to adjudicate. Doesn't matter anyway as your room will wildly modify that region so what the speaker outputs is pretty secondary other than amount of SPL it produces." Denon: "Note: Denon engineering was kind enough to review these measurements and confirm that they match their expectations." Trinnov (highest end manufacturer of AV processors): "The measurements you are about to see were reviewed by the company and were agreed upon as being representative. " Again, there is a lot more than this. I have reviewed 1,300 products in the last four years. If there were issues with my measurements, there would be riots in streets from manufactures. You don't see that. Instead you see companies like Schiit throwing out their obsolete audio measurement machine, buying the same unit I have, and a year later produce far more performant products. Indeed, they send me samples to test and now publish their own measurements. |
No Faraday cage. Those are used for EMC testing. None of you use your stereo gear inside such a cage so I don't see why I should test them that way. Cabling for XLR is Mogami Gold. For RCA, I use Amazon Basics. No power conditioning is used or needed. I have tested a ton of these and either do nothing, or impair performance. I do have a LAB AC generator that I use for special testing. Ditto for DC lab generator." Thanks Amir for response! I can ignore your test results now! |
@amir_asr "Measurements I perform are routinely replicated by manufacturers and other third-parties” - please provide proof to your statement. Amir, your equipment and tests are “too ancient” and missing novel micro-dynamics, transient, noise and more important performance metrics High volume manufacturing data is missing in your tests as well. I would recommend you to put disclaimer on your test results “test results are based on my personal skills and knowledge” to avoid legal issues. disclosure: I am experienced analog circuit design engineer, currently working at major US corporation |
@amir_asr , I appreciate that you came to this thread and approached it with civility and respect and even an attempt to deliver, at times, an even handed education. I will caution you, though, I can see the frustration seeping into your posts, and I expect the urge to "lash out" gets stronger every time you return. If it is any consolation, you are not the first to go through this, or the probably even the 100th, and you will not be the last. I see it at least monthly, maybe more. Stay focused. This is but a small part of the audio world declining in influence. The only thing most of the participants in this thread are influencing is the marketing that targets them.
That was quite brilliant. |
You say that but you don't follow that advice, do you? Some of you know that I am the founder of a company (Madrona Digital) that does custom integration of electronics into very high end homes. One day a local distributor called us for a meeting. He said that we should source flat screen TVs from them. I asked them how their prices were compared to big box stores. He said, "if they have a sale, then our cost to you will be higher!' I asked him how we were going to do that? He said, "you can match their prices and then make money on selling them cables and extended warranty!!!" With cables having as much as 70% gross margin, you can see why he said that. Do you listen to this? No. You happily go and pay thousands of dollars for non-performant gear that only enriches the manufacturer at your expense. You believe what they say on their website. You believe random youtuber getting eval gear and gushing over said cable. And oh, the more expensive that cable, the better it must be. Never mind that the more expensive, the more it enriches the manufacture. So no, you don't believe in that. You are using it as a cheap talking point without foundation to boot. To repeat, all the information on ASR forum is available to everyone for free. No content is behind paywall or delayed for paying members to read first. Large number of ASR members read the forum without any contribution. And are not looked down upon whatsoever. I am fortunate enough to be independent and don't rely on ASR to make money. If it were different, I would turn on ads and allow sponsorships as all other sites do. Am I here to solve world hunger? No. I have my interested in what I like to do and test. It just happens that this interest aligns with the needs of many audiophiles. They appreciate the uncluttered site that is not running banners everywhere you look. Or my youtube channel where there is zero begging for subscription, likes, etc. And has no monetization even though I am fully qualified by Google to do so. If this is not for you, then that is that. But stick to facts and don't make proclamations that are simply not true.
Ooops ...Sorry ... Hit a nerve there huh...? BTW... my 2 chanel system consists of amplifier, pre-amplifier and phono pre-amplifier that are custom built KITS...SUT is custom built from various parts... tone arm is hand made in England. TT is vintage, with updated internal parts. Speakers are used, with updated OEM parts and upgrades from the designer. Yeah the Marketing Boggie Man really got me.... you really Nailed it. |
@crymeanaudioriver let the record show that never once have i referred to myself as an intellectual 😂 |
