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

@amir_asr , +1, I think you have been more respectful in your latest posts on this site.

I completely agree with you and appreciate that you added the emphasis:

That aside, I am NOT a scientist.

Feel free to post in some other threads here as many of us can’t even start these threads on ASR, they might be considered controversial or even heresy.

I have no control of anyone.

You control everyone at ASR and we have a consensus of members here who feel you heavily censor your site and bannish contributors on a whim.

You are obsessed with stuff that makes no audible difference.

So are you, you measure and comment on stuff that makes no audible difference all the time.

@fleschler 

@Amir Keep your fans on ASR. 

I have no control of anyone.  But if you want us to stay away from this site, then don't create a thread with such falsehoods and continue to repeat the same.  For heaven's sake, you confused me with another youtuber in your introductory post which repeats one every page of this thread.  And continue to misrepresent what we do.

Can't hear differences in cables that measure the same=something is very wrong here. 

Another falsehood.  Cables all measure differently.  I don't know about you but I don't stick a cable in my ear and listen to it.  I listen to the final output of my system.  There, measurements show the same results with different cables.  And it is this testing which I perform which damns them and other tweaks.  That the final sound waves coming out of an amp, DAC, etc. does NOT change when you apply these tweaks.

If you or someone else still finds that the they sound different, it is time to only use your ears.  Don't involve any other senses.  And repeat the test to make sure you can consistently tell these tweaks apart.  

One doesn't have to believe any online person; however, based on the enormous "subjectivist" opinions, people actually do hear differences, right or wrong, personal preferences included, regardless of measurements and decide to what sounds best to them, in a system, in a room.  Nothing you say will change that. 

That's wishful thinking on your part.  Facts are that ASR reach is twice of this site despite being much younger site.  That is not because I am more handsome than  you although I like to think I am!!! 😁 It is because people see the value we provide in cutting through personal opinion spread by company marketing and random joe online.  

I listen in the dark with all lights off when I want to immerse myself in the music, just like a movie theater.  I don't see differences in sound, I hear them.  

Not really.  You are sitting there worrying if this or that other useless tweak like a cable makes a sonic difference.  I and others on ASR do not.  We have confidence in engineering and solid research and testing of what matters in audio, and what doesn't.  Our enjoyment of music then is far greater because we are freed from the wild west of "everything matters" that you live in.

Dismissive of older equipment not measuring as well as cheap current equipment is as wrong as dismissing older recordings because they used older technology with distortions and reduced resolution, etc. of tape versus superior hi-res digital. 

What are you talking about?  I test plenty of "older" technology.  

 

You think you are superior to nearly everyone who posts on Audiogon because your opinion is based on measurements (except when you don't find a measurable difference ala cables, tweaks, etc).  The overwhelming majority do not think so.  I am just one music lover with recording/performing experience and a high end audio reproduction system.      

Oh, you are now representing this entire forum?  Really?  The segment of audiophile market you represent is tiny.  The desktop audio market dwarfs the rest of the industry like nobody's business.  You think there are millions of people who go and buy expensive audio cables???

As to your final statement, no, you are obsessed with things in audio that don't make an audible difference.  You spend energy seeking variations there instead of enjoying  your system.  

amir_asr

... I listen to every speaker, every headphone and every headphone amplifier and dac combo. That is nearly half of what I review ...

So you listen to "nearly half" of the components you "review." That’s not very impressive.

... if you are going to make outlandish claims that go against decades of audio science research and engineering, and stomp your feet ...

You seem to be the one who’s foot stomping and (as your bold face suggests) shouting, too.

As for "outlandish claims," it’s hard top your claim that you’ve "reviewed" components that you haven’t ever heard. You may be the only "reviewer" with that level of confidence. Truly odd.

@amir_asr thank you for the link. Okay one is not a level of frequency and not a confirmation. Has to be repeatable and verifiable. @crymeanaudioriver called the Dutch Boys armatures, this seems quite armature.

One person does not make a quorum. One test is not validating a trend. You did not do the test.  

@cleeds 

Amir & Co. believe audio equipment can be evaluated without listening, so sometimes they don't bother to listen at all - blind or otherwise.

Those who clamor most loudly for blind testing rarely undertake such evaluations themselves.

As I just post, there are plenty of blind tests performed at ASR.  And tons and tons of listening tests by me.  I listen to every speaker, every headphone and every headphone amplifier and dac combo.  That is nearly half of what I review.  A count that dwarfs what everyone else does considering that I review about 250 to 300 products a year.

Really, if you are a fan of blind tests, then you should perform them and do so properly.  If you are not, then don't complain about how much we do it.  After all, you are not supposed to care.

Note that I am not demanding anyone go and perform blind tests.  They are time consuming.  But if you are going to make outlandish claims that go against decades of audio science research and engineering, and stomp  your feet that people believe you, then please, do the testing with your ears only.  Do not involve your other senses.  I don't know why this is such a hard concept for some of you to accept.

 

 

 

@jerryg123 

@crymeanaudioriver and yet ASR is not doing any blind tests.

There are very frequent blind tests posted by members.  Here is a very recent one: 

His conclusion: "TLDR; NO DIFFERENCE could be reliably discerned via blind abx testing between the Hegel h390 internal DAC and the Chord Hugo TT2 under close listening in my listening room."

The problem with you all's claims about ASR seems to be that you still don't know what we do there.    

juanmanuelfangioii

It is odd how the forks at ASR ... clamor for blind test yet none are done at ASR.

Amir & Co. believe audio equipment can be evaluated without listening, so sometimes they don't bother to listen at all - blind or otherwise.

Those who clamor most loudly for blind testing rarely undertake such evaluations themselves.

It is odd how the forks at ASR and Amir's Army of Flying Monkeys clamor for blind test yet none are done at ASR.

These flying monkey's also call Amir a scientist because he has a oscilloscope, voltmeter and REW. I own a chainsaw doesn't make me a lumberjack. 

@cd318

Dare I suggest it’s a simple matter of vested financial interests?

The subjectivists approach actively encourages consumers to spend, spend, spend ever increasingly large amounts of money on equipment and cabling.

Most of them usually include an ad hoc performance league masquerading as a buyer’s guide that always correlates with increasing prices.

Which reminds me of Robert Harley’s contention, not just recently but also from some years ago, that audio components follow his own law of increasing/accelerating marginal returns (as opposed to decreasing).

So, if you spend another 10%, you will be gifted with something that is more than 10% better in every respect (appreciating that this has nothing to do with the level of expenditure, rather, a comparison between two levels).

Here is the thing. A while ago I was looking around for a new DAC. I listened to about 8 and in no case was the cost of the DAC mentioned. I just sat in a chair and listened to the same music. One that I disregarded very quickly was the Topping.

This isn't a blind test. Not knowing prices isn't the same as not knowing which DAC you're listening to. Who controlled the payback? Third party who level marched ? These are some of the  reasons  I suspect your anecdote was dismissed on ASR . 

Kota 1,Thanks for that youtube link.This is another one which discusses  similar issues in a very moderate and balanced way.

 

If you stream most of your music like I do the DAC isn’t the issue, it is getting a pristine a stream as possible. The streaming services are the bottleneck IMO.

Find ways to upgrade your network, your ethernet, reduce the noise and jitter coming from your streamer, etc. Upgrade your content with hirez downloads, vinyl if that is your thing, etc.

 

Chinese dacs:

 

Alright - comparing the 8 I listened to the Topping was unlistenable for me with Callas' Casta Diva compared to the other 7. Happy now?. How can I imagine differences when I did not even know what the fricken Dac was? It was the last on the list by far. I have noticed that ESS Sabre chips are not to my liking.

Your post is nonsensical. I heard 8 Dacs. 1 sounded shrill in the MR, 7 did not. 2 others did not appeal. I quite liked 5.How cn you say I am wrong when I compared 8?

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm pointing out you COULD be wrong.  Because people can imagine differences that aren't there.

You aren't Superman.

Do you have ANY idea why blind and double-blind testing is used in scientific studies?

Are you aware AT ALL of the fallibility of human perception?  There's only a billion studies showing this.

This thread like every such thread just shows this inherent personal dogmatism.

People in the "If I hear it it's real" camp simply can not admit they could be wrong. Don't even seem to realize it's a possibility.  It's fairly astonishing to ignore that much about the human condition.

 

@fleschler 

Yet again...your replies are just exemplifying all my arguments for me.

Every reply is based on your own infallible hearing.  No other evidence need apply. 

And if for instance I didn't hear a difference between some tweak or cable where you thought you heard a difference, it could never be that I'm hearing what is real and you are wrong.  It must always be you are right.   And since you leave no way at all of adjudicating such questions, or learning if you are wrong, the only retort you leave yourself is to Lord it over anyone who disagrees  - as you are claiming...with zero evidence... to have superior hearing capabilities to me.

Let's see, how plausible is this brag?

Well, I've been an audiophile obsessed with sound for most of my 58 years.  Been a musician too.  I've been obsessed with live vs reproduced sound for so long I've done recordings and comparisons of live vs reproduced.  I have been so obsessed with sound that it became my livelihood - I work in pro sound post production doing sound for film and TV.  I am typically balancing and mixing the audio of up to 60 tracks at a time. I am manipulating sound all day long down to the finest nuance, literally matching the "air tone" of different rooms.  I guarantee you would not be able to pick out many of the things I can pick out in tracks.

I've heard countless super high end systems. I've been an audio reviewer, and have had friends in the industry for decades, still hearing lots of the best of the best stuff. (My friend's system is currently cabled up with about $50,000...just for the cabling!).  My reviewer friends call me to listen because they trust my ears to hear things they will miss.  Etc etc.

But...nope...you have somehow diagnosed that I must have cloth ears compared to your "capabilities."

Well, anyone can claim "capabilities."  I can claim to hear angels singing in the background on Kind Of Blue.  Oh, you can't hear them?  Poor you...you must lack my "capabilities."  I can say that stuff all I want to puff myself up and lord it over you.  Except you'd immediately recognize I haven't given an ounce of evidence for my brag.  So we'd be even ;-)

I've actually been willing to truly put my ears to the test - to see when I can hear differences WITHOUT the knowledge of what I'm hearing.  Apparently this is experience you lack.   And so long as you continue to lack this experience of really putting your claims to a test where you might fail,   then I'm sorry, the claims fail to impress.

 

 

Your post is nonsensical. I heard 8 Dacs. 1 sounded shrill in the MR, 7 did not. 2 others did not appeal. I quite liked 5.How cn you say I am wrong when I compared 8?

 

@prof I don’t really find it hard to acknowledge when someone has expertise that I lack. Well, I believe I have that expertise in listening that you may lack. Other posters find some of your statements so unusual that they cannot respond. I’m sorry that you lack my capabilities after 50+ years hearing high end audio to denote something that is superior from that which is inferior, and I don’t mean on a subtle basis. Dramatic to me is much more than most high end reviewers commonly allocate to something new in the marketplace to sell. I’ve been fooled by subtle differences and mostly avoided costly purchasing errors. I don’t need test measurements to prove my listening results when a DRAMATIC (and positive) change is heard. However, to justify my own results, I have two golden ear friends and other friends and family to listen and approve or disapprove the change. When it is a subtle change, I can get a mixed review, sometimes it’s worse. When it is a dramatic improvement, I only receive accolades. Since I moved into my custom listening room, accolades are the typical reaction-listeners don’t want to leave. Who leaves the last spoonful of gelato in the can without finishing?

 

@laoman

I don’t know if you are stupid, are being deliberately obtuse, or cannot comprehend written English.

Do you think insults are really necessary?

Is it possible you maybe didn’t understand the point of what I wrote, rather then me being an idiot?

I wrote that I had no idea of the cost of or the Dac to which I was listening. I discarded those I disliked and purchased the best sounding Dac in the price range I could afford.

Yes. I know.

The point was that you wrote that the folks on ASR said you were "wrong" about the shrillness of the DAC, but that you wouldn’t countenance this because "You heard what you heard."

The point was...it really is possible the DAC really wasn’t producing any shrillness and that you were imagining it (a bias listening effect). It is actually possible the ASR guys were right. It’s possible that JUST LIKE MY EXAMPLE WITH MY SERVER, where I felt like I was hearing brightness/brittleness in the highs, but I was imagining it, you too may have been imagining it.

Blind testing can be one way to remove variables, like our biases.

It could also possibly be that you were NOT imagining the difference. But given the state of the art in DACs, and Topping’s reputation for well designed DACs, it should raise some red flags if someone says "this sounded shrill." I personally would, as in the case of my music server, want to rule out imagination first.

Because we really, really can imagine these things easily. And no it doesn’t matter whether you like the most expensive DAC or the least expensive. Our bias works simply by listening for differences (and even when we aren’t deliberately listening for differences).

This, yet again, goes to show how hard it is to discuss these things with someone who has never actually put their ears and biases to the test in blind testing. It’s humbling...and educational...but some will refuse to even consider the idea.

It's sort of like having had hearing tests performed by audiologists that show you can't hear over 20kHz, and coming back to a group of people who absolutely insist they can hear up to 30 kHz, but never put that to an actual test in an audiogram (audiograms are a form of blind testing), and dismiss the expertise of audiologists or anyone who has actually taken the test.   Sometimes you don't know what you don't know....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@laoman

@prof:
" ’If I hear it, I am not wrong. No way! And you can’t bring ANY of your arguments or evidence that will change my mind!"

Here is the thing. A while ago I was looking around for a new DAC. I listened to about 8 and in no case was the cost of the DAC mentioned. I just sat in a chair and listened to the same music. One that I disregarded very quickly was the Topping. The mid range is shrill and fatiguing. When I mentioned this on ASR I was told I was wrong and thrown out. I heard what I heard.

 

So you and others continue to demonstrate that my anaylsis is correct.

"You heard what you heard" and nobody can tell you otherwise. As opposed to at ASR people can actually correct their impressions through additional evidence. They are open to being wrong.

I’ll contrast your experience with my own regarding "I heard what I heard."

In the 90’s some folks were sure all properly functioning DACs/CD Players sounded the same. I understood the basis for this, but at the time I had a Meridian CDP, a Sony CDP and another DAC. They all sounded subtly but distinctly different to me. However, I knew I could be fooling myself so I had my engineer father-in-law help me do blind tests (with the levels matched using a voltmeter at the speaker terminals, to ensure precise volume matching). Results: I easily and reliably was able to detect which player I was hearing, even when I couldn’t see which one was playing. I even repeated the results in another blind test later on.

So blind tests do not always equal "No Sonic Differences." They can uncover real sonic differences.

Another example: I moved from an Apple based streaming server system to a Raspberry Pi/Logitech streamer. When I did I was surprised to find the sound a bit more bright and brittle with the Pi system. This bothered me because I wasn’t expecting any sonic difference, and yet there it was, play to hear!

Before I got more frustrated I thought I’d better check and a friend helped me blind test between the two servers. Well...what do you know? Once I didn’t know which was playing there was NO difference to the sound whatsoever that I could reliably detect. Not a bit of added brittleness or brightness to distinguish one from the other. I tried and tried. Nothing.

So, that was good enough for me. No sonic differences were really there. And sure enough, once I’d done this test I never heard a difference between them again. My system sounded like it always had.

 

Sometimes we are hearing accurately. Sometimes we are mistaken.

I find these to be very useful lessons in what it feels like to imagine differences. Sound perception really does change with our attention, our mood etc. And then we attribute this to an objective component, rather than our subjective interpretation.

As I mentioned earlier, it’s too bad more audiophiles haven’t had this experience. It would make these conversations much less adversarial. But most just can’t accept the idea that if they REALLY feel like they heard something that they could actually be mistaken.  (Plus, then you wouldn't get to Lord it over others, like "objectivists" by rejecting any expertise on the grounds "your expertise doesn't count in the face of My Personal Experience!")

I suppose part if it feels like a house of cards to some: "Wait, my senses are reliable to get me through the day, all day long, and now you are trying to tell me they aren’t reliable? That can’t make sense!"

Well, yes, they aren’t of course totally unreliable. Our senses are generally reliable. But we are also prone to error as well. See: optical illusions and countless other instances. Nobody needs to "science the sh*t" out of everything they do. But if we really want to get at the truth of some things, then we should be ready to admit that our human fallibility is one of the factors we have to control for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No religion, you just have to believe in a higher power than yourself...maybe like Amir? 

I don't take everything Amir writes as gospel.  I've had various disagreements with him on his forum.   So I think critically about what I'm reading, and whether the arguments follow from the data.

On the other hand, I'm quite aware he knows FAR more than I do technically, and has tons of expertise in areas that I sorely lack.

I don't really find it hard to acknowledge when someone has expertise that I lack.

My ego can take it.

How about you?

 

 

 

@prof:
" ’If I hear it, I am not wrong. No way! And you can’t bring ANY of your arguments or evidence that will change my mind!"

Here is the thing. A while ago I was looking around for a new DAC. I listened to about 8 and in no case was the cost of the DAC mentioned. I just sat in a chair and listened to the same music. One that I disregarded very quickly was the Topping. The mid range is shrill and fatiguing. When I mentioned this on ASR I was told I was wrong and thrown out. I heard what I heard.

I could not afford the DAC I liked best by quite a long way and ended up buying one that sounded/sounds excellent to me. Interestingly that DAC measures well in the minion’s list, but that had no bearing on my purchase. I also like others that did not measure well, and do have a fondness for the scorned R2R Dacs. Again I hear what I hear and am not about to spend money buying something because someone tells me it measures well. Plus I want something that lasts and is not going to break like the Topping because of poor quality control. (Funny that minion leader NEVER addressed that point!)

Interestingly, yesterday on FB one poster, (likely an escapee from ASR), posted that Amps that measure the same sound the same and that those with exceptional measurements are by far the best. There is one amp about which ASR members are wetting themselves at the moment as the best measuring Amp of all time. Yes it is ok. No I would not buy it as I find it boring. If your argument now is that I clearly like distortion, I have listened to the Mola Mola suite and think they are great. The same goes for the Kii3s and the D&Ds with their inbuilt amps and Dacs. They do sound excellent. Seriously? What a pile of horse manure

On another note, I do follow Erin’s page as well as a few others that rely quite a lot on measurements. None are as dogmatic as ASR and none of their followers as arrogant, rude and objectionable as Amir and many of the ASR minions.

It’s like a formula to making one’s own human centipede.

Human equivalent of malware. Here is the full list (maybe I am missing a few):

 

crymeanaudioriver

 

theaudiomaniac 

 

theaudioamp

 

deludedaudiophile

 

thynamesinnervoice

 

cindyment

 

snratio

 

yesiamjohn

 

sugabooger

 

dletch2

 

audio2design

 

dannad

 

roberttdid 

 

roberttcan 

 

heaudio123

 

audiozenology

 

atdavid

He has been here for a while. 19 different usernames.

I learned that @crymeanaudioriver is full of the crapola!

One thing I have learned in just a few short days

@crymeanaudioriver 

 

Timothy 4:4: Topping is bollocks!

That went right over someone's head. 

 

Sometimes, one needs a point of reference to understand something.

All the best,
Nonoise

Minus the religious proselytizing of AA.  For some I suppose it could be a similar detox from being marinated in audiophile myths ;-) 

No religion, you just have to believe in a higher power than yourself...maybe like Amir? 

@prof 

 

I wonder if the people at ASR could pick out the difference between a dac with a signal to noise ratio of 90db vs one with with 110db in a blind test? Probably not.

@fleschler 

 

You've avoided answering the question, and missed the point.

People can imagine "dramatic" differences.  They really, really can. 

Like I said, if we really want to get at what is true, it doesn't matter how much conviction someone has in their belief or claim; what matters is the plausibility and the evidence for that claim.

And as I've pointed out: the approach at ASR is acknowledging one can be wrong in what we believe or seem to perceive, and offers ways of learning one is wrong, and helping to settle questions in dispute - through evidence.

 

Whereas you keep repeating versions where you simply assume your perception is reliable, as you have done again, which is begging exactly the question at hand.

And you don't offer a method for how anyone could show you are in error.

So far, your position still seems to be a form of dogmatism - "Some differences that I hear are OBVIOUS and that's that!  Nothing can show I'm wrong!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@prof 

Ha!  Minus the religious proselytizing of AA.  For some I suppose it could be a similar detox from being marinated in audiophile myths ;-) 

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room forum is now dumber for having listened to it. You have sunk to the pits of irrelevance, and may God have mercy on your soul.

@crymeanaudioriver

Congrats!  Your $800 is in the mail  ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think you understand. Dramatic differences should be heard by most listeners. Subtle differences are more nuanced and may require some musical and or audio (learned) abilities beyond what most people can easily detect or appreciate.   If you think that dramatic differences cannot be heard, that's your opinion and certainly not the majority of Audiogon members.  

I will take unlikely for $800, @prof

 

Well, since I’ve been asking this question - "by your method how can these matters of fact be settled?" - of "pure subjectivists/golden ears" for years and no one has ever answered...you’ve made a pretty safe bet.

Would like to learn I’m wrong this time, though.

Can you see now where the actual close-mindedness resides?

 

I will take unlikely for $800, @prof 

The greatest invention ever. Flawless engineering and execution form concept, design and going to market. 

 

So are you insinuating that Amir is a scientist?

Arrogant troll. 

I had to research the Hedy Lamarr story. That is a huge leap from the website whose text you plagiarized.  Jumping between radio frequencies to prevent jamming is not "scientific genius". It was both a simple solution to a problem and it was already done manually in the early days of radio when two people communicating would decide together to change channels to avoid interference. It took me a total of 5 minutes to find this out. To think that event was necessary to have WiFi, GPS and Bluetooth is a gross reach, but you didn't write those words, so I will only partially hold you to them. She also did not do this on her own, but with someone skilled in the art.

Winchell I know well. He both had medical training and he did not develop it on his own, he developed it with a medical doctor. There is that whole building on prior knowledge. This was purely a mechanical device, a pump to replicate the operation of the heart. He never built one that went in a person, nor could it do anything but pump.

 

Perhaps this is the issue. You don't fundamentally understand science. Neither of the two developments you mentioned are scientific discoveries. The first is a relatively simple engineering idea, a practical solutions to problem, and if Hedy Lamarr had not been involved, it would be a non event, like the other 10's of thousands of practical ideas that people come up with every year. It is akin to intermittent wipers. I don't think we would consider that a scientific advancement would we? Winchell built a pump to replicate the pumping functions of the human heart. Not a scientific discovery, but an engineering development. He was not the first to think of this idea, and it is not clear that he even advanced the overall development. This is a medical view of the development timeline of artificial hearts:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358116/

 

The largest portion of intelligence is genetic. Book learning and experience does not make you smart, it makes you skilled. At the highest levels of "smart", recent research indicates you can only train for minimal increases in intelligence.

 

 

So, it's a seven-step program like Alcoholics Anonymous? 

 

Ha!  Minus the religious proselytizing of AA.  For some I suppose it could be a similar detox from being marinated in audiophile myths ;-) 

 

If you are of the "ASR" state of mind, you start of by immediately acknowledging our fallibility... 

So, it's a seven-step program like Alcoholics Anonymous? 

Complete rubbish from an arrogant condescending troll. 

Those scientific geniuses and certainly all the ones from the last 50 years, all had one thing in common. Before they had their defining moment of genius, they already had a very strong theoretical background in their field of study/work. My plumber is not going to get lucky and perfect cold fusion, and my dentist is not going to cure cancer

@fleschler

 

You can’t change our minds refers to people hearing differences.

Yes, that’s precisely what I thought you meant, and that is my point.

This is the dogmatism buried in to the pure subjective mode of vetting audio gear.

If you are of the "ASR" state of mind, you start of by immediately acknowledging our fallibility. You may perceive that the music signal is audibly changing between, say, two different USB cables.

 

But you will understand "I could be wrong. I’m fallible." So it STARTS with acknowledging I Could Be Wrong, and then appeals to ways in which you can find out you are wrong: For example if someone measures the signals from both USB cables and they are precisely the same. This is some evidence the signal was likely not changing at all. But if you want even further confirmation that the measurements aren’t missing something, you can do a blind test where you are truly relying on what you can hear (and not + what you can see). If you can’t detect any sonic difference, then you have a good basis for learning "Hey, looks like I was wrong in thinking one USB was altering the signal vs the other."

Similarly, if you are SKEPTICAL that, say, Amplifier A will sound audibly different from amplifier B, then you have ways of changing your mind there too. If someone presents measurable evidence that Amplifier A has distortion levels in the audible range and B doesn’t, then you have some evidence for changing your mind. And, again, blind tests in which the difference is reliably identified adds more evidence.

So from the ASR point of view, one always starts with some humility WITH REGARD to the confidence we have in our own judgements of perception, acknowledging from the outset we could be in error. AND it provides ways of "Learning I was wrong, through evidence."

Anyone taking the ASR approach is in principle open to being wrong; they just ask for good evidence. In other words "Here is what I believe, but I could be wrong, and HERE is how you can show that I’m wrong."

But what you have just re-iterated states the problem with pure subjectivity perfectly. Your stance seems to be ’If I hear it, I am not wrong. No way! And you can’t bring ANY of your arguments or evidence that will change my mind!"

Can you see now where the actual close-mindedness resides?

That approach is unfalsifiable. If "My Own Perception Is Reliable" is the ultimate litmus test, then even when someone else uses precisely the same method to "disprove" your belief - he listens to the same set up and declares ’There is no sonic difference," you can always say ’Well, the only shows your hearing is not as perceptive as mine, because I Know What I Hear And You Can’t Show I’m Wrong!"

Can you tell me in a case where you are "sure" you are hearing sonic differences, how...using your method of relying on sighted perception!... someone could show that you’re in error, so you’d change your mind?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@crymeanaudioriver Well that was stupid! How many actors have great inventions? Paul WInchell, Hedy Lamarr come to mind? No. Winchell became the first person to build and patent a mechanical artificial heart, implantable in the chest .Hedy Lamarr was an Austrian-American actress and inventor who pioneered the technology that would one day form the basis for today’s WiFi, GPS, and Bluetooth communication systems.

I am not a genius, but I am very smart from book learning and experience. Touche your greatness!

Great quote-Every scientific genius in history was been subjected to viscous derision by the scientific dogmatists of their generation who were often laughably wrong in retrospect.

That is it though. They were scientific geniuses. You are not. Neither are all the detractors of science writing here on this topic, nor the cable vendors, nor the amp designers, nor designers of probably any of the audio equipment we buy. Those scientific geniuses and certainly all the ones from the last 50 years, all had one thing in common. Before they had their defining moment of genius, they already had a very strong theoretical background in their field of study/work. My plumber is not going to get lucky and perfect cold fusion, and my dentist is not going to cure cancer. Those advances do not happen in isolation, they happen because those geniuses studied the work of those who came before them, and to study that requires the knowledge and language to understand that prior effort. Ergo, it will be the user base of ASR who makes advances in audio, not the ones here.

@cd318 What have I repeated infinitum. I at least want manufacturers to post test measurements of their own rather than puffery or minimal specifications. Furthermore, high end cable and nearly all tweak manufacturers have no specs. That’s why I opened another forum.

Another thing, since when is older, used equipment to be dismissed in place of new equipment? For those who want great sound without breaking the bank, I strongly suggest good to high quality used equipment instead. This goes for amps, pre-amps, phono stages, SUTs, speakers and cabling. Why pay top dollar (or even bottom dollar) when there are ample alternatives. I made this point yesterday. No comments about it.

@prof You’re doing it again, twisting my words. Most music listeners (many friends who perform music as well) don’t care about measurements or audiophile equipment. If they like what they hear they will buy it. (Often, if they like what they see, buttons or nice finish, they may prefer that). You can’t change our minds refers to people hearing differences. We are not deluding ourselves although many audiophiles do have problems hearing and/or do not have sufficiently trained to hear or understand what differences there are to be heard. Dramatic differences can be heard by (nearly) everyone. Subtle differences are of course more difficult for most people. My golden ear friends are better than I am in ascertaining subtle differences but after 50+ years of listening to so many systems and making recordings, I am quite good at detecting and comprehending differences.  Dramatic differences are like hearing Disney Hall versus Dorothy Chandler or Wilson versus Magnapan speakers.  How about Bose versus Magicos?   That's how dramatic a digital cable change can be.  Amir hasn't heard it.  Sad!

@kota1 Loved your link. Great quote-Every scientific genius in history was been subjected to viscous derision by the scientific dogmatists of their generation who were often laughably wrong in retrospect. History is filled with examples and this debate of break-in/burn-in is no different.

@prof

"...that comes across as a dogmatic statement "You Can’t Change Our Minds!" Do you really want to seem that inflexible? Isn’t being open minded a two way street? It often seems that people using a purely subjective ("Golden Ear") paradigm will castigate the "objectivist" for not being open to their claims, but will remain stubbornly opposed to being open to the objectivist side."

 

That’s just it, some people are more than ready to accept opinions ahead of scientific evidence. To them it doesn’t seem to matter whose subjective opinion it is, or whether there are even conflicting subjective opinions, only the ones that they want to read or hear.

 

You could call it an entirely subjective confirmation bias.

 

This subjectivist v objectivist debate is one of the oldest in audio but when did it all begin?

 

Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of audio journalism could help here? Was it something to do with Gordon J Holt and Harry Pearson, the 2 big names of US journalism that I’ve heard of?

 

I’ve read that in the early days UK reviews were mainly focused around measurements. At some point, like much else, the American influence crossed the Atlantic and the UK magazines quicky followed suit in promoting increasingly subjective reviews.

A situation that has persisted for decades and is only now being challenged by sites such as ASR, Erin’s Music Corner, Archimago’s Musings, Audioholics etc.

The likes of Ethan Winter and late great Peter Aczel made a concerted effort to restore the balance back towards an objective approach but their efforts met with considerable resistance, derision and even personal attacks.

 

Doesn’t this sound a little familiar now?

 

Why is this the case?
Dare I suggest it’s a simple matter of vested financial interests?

 

The subjectivists approach actively encourages consumers to spend, spend, spend ever increasingly large amounts of money on equipment and cabling.

Most of them usually include an ad hoc performance league masquerading as a buyer’s guide that always correlates with increasing prices.

Spend, spend, spend!

This buyers is regularly updated with ’new and better’ products as they become available for purchase and quite callously renders yesteryear’s highly rated products as ’old news’.

Everyone from the manufacturers, the dealers, and the journalists seems to be happy with this state of affairs. Few dare to challenge this unwritten dictat.

 

Why bite the hand that feeds you?

 

Everyone, that is, apart from a growing number of consumers who are beginning to ask a few questions and demand a little more proof of these claims.

And this is where the main issue seems to lie.

An increasing demand for evidence based reviews and recommendations will inevitably threaten the livelihood of some of those with vested financial interests.

Some will no doubt adapt and adopt a more science based approach but others will be prepared to fight to the death rather than renounce their views.

Especially when it means a loss of earnings and income.

History has many examples of folks willing to die for their beliefs, usually political or religious, rather than renounce them. However, the pursuit of money is another powerful driving force that also seems to be incredibly difficult to renounce.

Such are the ways of mankind.