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

@fleschler

 

OldHvyMec at ASR makes cogent and experienced statements concerning "ALL things BREAK-IN." He has the reputation to make that assertion, especially in relation to cables/wires and equipment of all types (including audio).

HarmonicTHD member asserts "Cables are not mechanics. There is no wear, nor Burn-In, nor Break-In."

Then JSmith and Axo1989 talk about pancakes, off-topic and irrelevant.

This is a typical ASR dialogue.

Another poster introduced the pancakes, Reference to “moist” and “warm” is banter about descriptive terminology. Not irrelevant at all (I mentioned the ASR thread about “warm” in a post in this thread). That thread is about this thread, not about cables. You can join dots, surely?

@kota1 said:

” Did you join this forum simply to keep spamming this thread with your propaganda? I don’t think you are attracting any new members, from these posts of yours. “

 

Quite! + 1

 

@tsushima1 I get that he is attempting to defend his brand and of course, he has stated he is not running a charity either. He can bully members of ASR into buying name badges. He can bully manufacturers into hiring him as a "consultant" after attacking them on his site. But in the process of trying to defend his brand here he is using the same bullying tactics he uses at ASR. I think the end result is he is tarnishing his brand.

@amir_asr , no one here wants you to lose your income from selling name badges at ASR by jumping the shark. Why not use that passion for IT and objective data into something other than spamming us? Why not try engaging in some audio related threads other than this one. Participate, we won’t attack you if you are friendly, just try to remember, no one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.

@laoman , assume I know nothing about wine and explain to me, in as much detail as necessary, why my analogy shows I know nothing about wine.

 

@kota1 , are you working from the perspective that if you tell a lie enough times it will become true?  Amir has been considerably more professional than those attacking him here.

 

@fleschler, I learned something about CDs today when I tried to find your posts on ASR. Unlike a record where the grooves may not be concentric with the center hole, the CD manufacturing process ensures the tight alignment of the hole and the grooves. While learning, I also saw someone note that if we can read CDs at 30-40x reliably, that reading at 1x is trivial. I also learned that even early CD players had data buffers, which in retrospect is obvious, but I never gave it much thought. What am I getting at?  The informed reaction to a device that shaves the outside of a CD should be skepticism. It would be very easy to test whether it makes a difference. I expect Amir's equipment would do this easily. 

 

@whipsaw , I agree and do not agree with some of your statement. I do agree that many users on ASR appear to equate perfect measurements with idealized sound for an individual. I do agree that is a flawed position. I do not know how strongly Amir believes in that position and I will not put words in his mouth as others are doing. I do know from reading these pages that Amir's comments have centered on whether audio products do what they say they do, including whether they do or can sound different from another product. Amir is stating based on his measurements that many products must sound the same or that they do not do what they claim. I think that is the more contentious issue. The issue of accuracy and preference is peripheral to the discussion.

@kota1 Leave Amir alone LOL. He doesn't have to conform to you. His forum. His rules. Amir has many followers. Amir and his followers are not speaking kindly of us (specifically us two). 

There are so many kinder and more open-minded Hi-Fi reviewers who lean heavily measurements. I find that their reviews are better written than Amir's. More words. Complete sentences. Fewer syntax/grammar errors. If ASR was in for the money, they would write more qualitative reviews. It's just absurd to mention the money. I think that Amir is doing a labor of love and that he's genuinely trying to cut through the BS perpetuated by marketing. 

As a reader you can just take what you want from ASR. It's all free. You don't necessarily have to agree. That's my conclusion. 

@kokakolia  "

I am the same way. The sound which pleases me comes from a single fullrange driver mounted on a transmission line and powered by a tube amplifier. That's what I like. I listen to a lot of chill music and vocals are the most important quality for me..."   

We have a passion for the art of recorded music reproduction. We are feeling the emotional connection as we glance at a masters painting. Amir is analyzing the paint pigment and is missing the bigger picture. This hobby is big enough to let everybody join and share their experience. There is no need to exclude other opinions nor any reason to provide measurements to back that opinion up. I guess the thing that bugs me is some think I need to provide documentation of my opinions. I most certainly do not need to prove anything to others. The sound that comes out of my system is the only proof I need. 

I think @amir_asr ​​​​@crymeanaudioriver should get tossed. Pure spam.

Toss this @axo1989 too!

Their theme song!

 

@crymeanaudioriver Your statement concerning Amir’s TESTING of the CD trimmer is IRRELEVANT to my statement made of MY EXPERIENCE using it. The hatred and condescension in the replies to my experience was 100% uncalled for.

I am not upset with Amir’s testing although I disagree with it’s relevance over listening in different rooms with different systems (most often published and on-line reviewers indicate the equipment and multiple choices to test by ear, the equipment such as multiple amplifiers to match with speakers or multiple speakers to match with an amp, etc).

I am extremely upset with character assassination, defamation, perverted twisting of neutral statements/personal experiences which degrade the person stating them and the statement. That’s what he has now done on Audiogon.

As to your 100% certainty that all pressed CDs sound alike is up for discussion, not 100% certain. My friends in the manufacturing/stamping of CDs note the variation, somewhat like the variation in pressing of vinyl. My friends and I note that some variation in pressed CDs occur despite the manufacture in the SAME facility. Using the same digital information at different manufacturing plants can result in greater variation (I have 2 complete sets of the Mercury Living Presence classical CD reissues and it is very obvious about 15 of the early pressings sound very different). My friends and I have maybe a dozen copies of Kids Songs for Grown-Ups that there are variations in sound, relating to dynamics and tonal balance.

Now you can call that nonsense but here at Audiogon we can freely discuss our experiences, despite some test measurements that could maintain that there are no measurable differences.

As to reading CDs, I have tried numerous three beam laser transports using computer drives and find them inferior to old, single beam, single pass reading transports. I use one and so do my friends. I have heard some very expensive modern transports that sound great but at great cost. I haven’t heard all of them obviously. However, I use an extremely upgraded Arcam Delta 250 transport (15+ caps, resistors, 10 regulators) which uses the Philips CDM 9 laser system. On this site, we have had multiple forums on transports. My alternative choices to hear are the Jays Audio and Proceed transports. I tried the PS Audio, which I liked in concept but disliked in the resulting sound, possibly due to poor implementation such as cheap computer drive and/or parts. The same with Emotiva. They make well constructed, inexpensive, often good design quality CD players but use computer grade parts rather than audio grade parts. Again, just because computer grade parts measure great does not mean they sound great. I have had extensive experience with Marantz CD players new and old. In the past 12 years, they tend to have a less resolving and warmer tonal balance which is pleasant but inadequate for me (or my friends who also tried them). The 35 year old Kyocera 310 and 410 units, especially with upgraded power caps, sound more open and musically satisfying. They have ceramic vibration elements and a sapphire spindle using a single pass drive. I have four friends who use that as their main CD player and I use one in my secondary system.

@russ69 .. "I guess the thing that bugs me is some think I need to provide documentation of my opinions. I most certainly do not need to prove anything to others. The sound that comes out of my system is the only proof I need."

 

If you enjoy a particular type of sound - then that’s what you hear and like. 👍

Most of the musical sounding components I prefer, don’t measure perfectly.

 

 

 

@decooney "Most of the musical sounding components I prefer, don’t measure perfectly."

That is the whole point of this forum. The measurement guys are convinced, that better measurements equal better sound. Except better measurements just equal better measurements. Their favorite dig is: "Enjoy your distortion". Well, I do, thank you very much. 

@fleschler ,

It should not take more than a few minutes of reading the ASR site to understand that reporting listening experiences goes over like a lead ballon unless you have approached that listening experience in a somewhat scientific fashion. Where the product should naturally be met with skepticism, I would expect that goes double. It is right in the name. Audio Science Review. I believe you believe there was an audible difference. Audio Science Review does not work that way. My belief, your belief? It means nothing there. You have very strong opinions obviously about CD players. They will not take your strong opinions as anything other than opinions. However, if you were to ship Amir two CD players, especially a modified and unmodified version, he probably would, purely out of interest, test the two of them and provide a detailed report on whether there is any difference in the performance and yes, he would make conclusions on whether those differences, if any, are audible. If you set out to do a scientifically valid listening test of these two units, or something close, I am sure Amir, would help you with that process. I would still expect some skepticism of the results, that is normal for any scientific pursuit.

 

Anywhere where personal beliefs and experience are put up against science, there is conflict. Religion and science, diet and science, cures for sickness and science, the shape of the earth and science.

 

I am extremely upset with character assassination, defamation, perverted twisting of neutral statements/personal experiences which degrade the person stating them and the statement. That’s what he has now done on Audiogon.

 

The last many pages of this thread have been a full on attempted character assassination of Amir, complete with defamation, libel, degrading statements, and twisted words. If his ire is up, I am not at all surprised. You are going to consider anyone who questions your relating of personal experiences are derogatory. I don’t see people in the science side of audio ever not questioning the validity of personal experience reports. It is no different in other scientific pursuits like health and medicine. Like health and medicine, when enough personal experience reports correlate, someone normally does a study under controlled conditions, the results are published, and the most often case is no correlation is found. Sometimes there is. I don’t perceive audio is any different.

 

@russ69 ,

There is no need to exclude other opinions nor any reason to provide measurements to back that opinion up. I guess the thing that bugs me is some think I need to provide documentation of my opinions. I most certainly do not need to prove anything to others.

 

Amir has been quite clear. If you want to participate on his forum, then you do need to provide documentation, and preferably measurements. Is not this whole topic because some do not accept that?

  

    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.

@amir_asr

actually amir, in general, re the flow and motion of the physiology and the psychology...it is the other way around.

Discovery, over time. New things heard, in time. New understandings found, in time. New ways of thinking, in time. Revelation and realization, over time.

I'd say you are right, and that, IMO is true. but that is, generally, the lesser partner to things than new revelations are. Both in life and in audio.

 If I had to out my finger on it, I'd say that your statement, contains the core of my main beef.

The linear mind. the engineering mind. the limited casting of an intellect. the safety net that people desire. The insanity of negative proofing in engineering, which originates in the aspects of mind that follow religion.

Which is originating in the part of the mind that has limited knowledge in things (slower cognition) and wants to keep the body safe and alive. Religion did not go anywhere, it became things like Dawkins (and a thousand others), and negative proofing in wanna-be science, or 'scientism'. Dogma posing as science. We call that engineering, literally. Seriously, on all fronts... and literally, by design.

Let me explain.

This was a known to be a thing, a huge central thing in fixation of the body/mind, in humans, overall. This was not the renaissance part of humanity, no, not at all. just the opposite, in fact.

In the mid-early 1700's, in Bavaria, some intellectual groups debated finding a way to make the world a better place. Secularism, as tied to the renaissance, was an established thing. The emergence of formal science, as forwarded by the given multi-faceted renaissance peoples, of the time. In this case, in Bavaria.
the idea they came up with is..that..if we have this large group of people, the masses overall, ie 70-80% of the people, who are prone to this religious belief thingiemabob, this follow and be in the crowd/herd/middle..this projection of safeing the self -by belief, as the given matter is complex intellectually....well..lets see if we can employ it. literally. Let's see if we can do something with the mundane and common aspect of people's propensity for living in dogma.

So, these renaissance people in Bavaria, came up with the rote learning/teaching method, for sciences, in some critical ways. In this.. if they could fill out the ranks of 'capable' people, then they could build an army to help build out the world with all this new science stuff.

These renaissance bavarians strated these schools of teaching rote information, and not dealing with solely searching out the heady renaissance people, alone. the uber thinkers where not the point, here. since dogmatic learning is the norm in humans, this seemed to be the way to go. They called it the Barvarian school of thought, re teaching methodology.
 

Books of facts to learn, books of tables, etc. Rote Teaching methodology was born in formal form.

They created a thing we eventually called engineering.

Engineering is all about facts, all about data, all about working with dogmatic data and has NOTHING to do with exploration and critical thinking. Let me stress that. Nothing to do with critical thinking, beyond following the data like it is a law, or a religion, with punishment if you do things wrong, and not according to the book. If it is not in the book, then it is not real. Just like religion, just like the dogmatic mind that has to fit into the society and crowd, just like the wiring of the mind of the masses of the peoples of the world. How that basic hard wiring of the mind comes into shape as rote learning, like a child copies the motions and expression of the adult. Zero critical thinking going on. Monkey see, monkey do.

The peak of that hard human fundamental... is the idea behind engineering. Where proper theories are called laws. Laws are for punishing people who go against the norm or religion. Laws are not for science but they ARE for groups of humans, or societies, or culture - or religion. the laws of physics is a literal, purposeful misinterpretation of theories of science. theories. no laws.

Science does not exist,  at all, in the realm of negative proofing. But engineering is required to have negative proofing and laws, so people who are rote learners and engineers, can build things even if they don't really know creative renaissance scientific endeavor, at all.

Engineering is not science. Specifically, it is not science. It is religion, purposely framed and built. And it purposely exists in the realm of negative proofing so it can fit larger number of minds that exist out there, and help make all those dogmatic human minds ot there more fruitful and useful to themselves and all of us.

This is what the renaissance minds of the early 1720's to 1750's of Bavaria began to sculpt into shape. It is why the engineering schools or technical schools of Germany remain as the finest polytechnic institutes in the world today.

So, when ASR and the people in it, begin to EXPLORE and proffer things, to try to proof them out they are REQUIRED to turn all scientific 'laws' on their heads and RETURN THEM to their core and proper origin, which is as theories.

As theories are what scientists use, what science uses. Science and physics have NO laws, only theories, as theories can change or be modified and that is how humanity moves forward.

Engineers are purposely allowed to think of physics as laws, as that is all that this given mindset and mental frame can handle. It's how it works. It is allowed as it may come naturally to that person in engineering schools. if it (the given teaching) has to do with renaissance theorizing.. this would cause confusion in such minds.. and less people graduate and less people help the world be a better place.

But make no mistake, the dogmatic mind of most people was leveraged here, big time.

It's so bad that even physicists refer to it as the laws of physics, when hey know better and where taught better if they can bother to recall what they were TAUGHT.

What I mean here, is that I went to the local university and asked the heads of all the departments in physics. They each said that none of them ever teach that physics has laws, in permanence. but, it is referred to as laws as that is 'the norm'.

That human norm of dogmatic minds, it's impossible to escape, even our minds go there and cannot escape it -is the point. Or minds always fall back into expression via the colored glasses vehicle called homo sapiens.

 

So, when you sit here, and negative proof in that little bit I quoted, THAT is a huge error on the fundamental level and it CANNOT stand, period. Engineering and scientism/dogmatism cannot ever be allowed to speak for exploration in science.

Scientists are required to slap that down, if it tries to arise. Where engineering gets too big for it's britches.

Most won't as the masses can be dangerous, or manipulated, even. Just like happens with religion, politics and other ares of human life.

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.

all that be as it may, dogmatism, scientism, laws of physics, and engineering have to be slapped down, when they try and make life circular and limited in it's future endeavors.

@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.  

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. 

@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.

Toastmasters? Perhaps a template for a filibuster.

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. 

The jig is up.

All the best,
Nonoise

"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.  

OK, I was just trying to explain my take on it. 

The measurement guys are convinced, that better measurements equal better sound

This is wrong, as a measurement guy "better sound "  is subjective and not anything I pay attention to. 

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. 

@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:

 

@orgillian197 Same 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.

 

 

 

@djones51 ...as a measurement guy "better sound "  is subjective and not anything I pay attention to. 

Really? You do not pursue better sound? Are you pursuing better measurements? What is your interest in audio if it's not better sound? I'm confused. 

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.

Really?

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.

 

@teo_audio ,

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 @ghasley described 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.

 

I really do not understand why members are even bothering giving @crymeanaudioriver any 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.

@thyname Yes really....

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. 

That's the ideology and belief system.

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. 

@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"

@tsushima1  The 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.

 

@crymeanaudioriver Of course you took my ASR statements out of context.  

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.

@nonoise Brilliant-Audio Measurement Review

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.  

@whipsaw 

@amir_asr

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.

 

 

First, welcome to Audiogon Amir!

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.

 

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.  

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

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!

 

How dare they!  So mean and irrational of them!

 

"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"

The way I read it, I don't see anything objectionable about that statement. You could substitute "hear" with "see" and it still resonates.

@djones51 Thank you

@amir_asr

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.

@fleschler

I’m sure that I’m not the only one here who feels your frustration but that’s a little disappointing.

What need is there for this kind of bad blood letting here?

 

@djones51

"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?

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. 

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. 

@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.

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.  

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

@juanmanuelfangioii 

I think @amir_asr ​​​​@crymeanaudioriver should get tossed. Pure spam.

Toss this @axo1989 too!

I’d be interested to know what I’ve posted here that you are objecting to, specifically.