@crymeanaudioriver Note fellow Audiogon posters, this member signed up to annoy us on this forum, much like the lectures from Amir. He is a regular on ASR. Try to ignore him (unlike ASR where trying to ignore someone who is not a follower of all things Amir gets you defamed and booted).
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
@tonywinga My first turntable was a Dual 1209 and a 1960s tube Kenwood receiver! I was 13 years old. I had tubes with cages to protect against my young daughter (vice versa). My last 31 years, I've had a dedicated pair listening rooms with closed doors because for 24 years I have used high voltage uncaged tube amps with top caps (.6P7S - 6BG6 G Beam Tetrode power tubes). Only my wife and I turn the amps on/off and the cats who occasionally enter with us ignore the equipment (sleep in front of the speakers). @kota1 I have gone to revival movie theaters to view 30s and 40s movies from safety prints where I experienced close to what audiences saw when they were new. I have two 4K 75" Sony LCD TVs which are were top models 3 and 5 years ago and are quite nice still. Too bad I haven't combined the audio and video rooms together (I use a Yamaha CR620 receivers hooked up to a pair of MB Quart 980S and ADS L620s). Eventually, I will replace the MB Quart with Legacy Signature IIIs. |
Bizarre gasllighting again: you interpret a considered opinion to be a claim to a technical qualification?
Reading comprehension: I certainly didn’t say "just" I said "not accounting".
Moving the goalposts: material consideration and any conflict of interest arising isn’t tax law, it’s transparency (which is important to regulatory and trade practice law).
Whataboutism—"what about those other reviewers, hey?"—is a logical fallacy, obviously. ASR makes special claims to ethical behaviour, I’m recommending transparency to support those claims. Interpreting this as "an attack" is typical of the defensiveness from ASR that many here experience and commented on. As noted, the moderator who did this in the ASR thread apologised. That’s open to you here also.
I give you something, you give me something. Absolutely a material consideration. And as you describe it, now you are supporting the material consideration argument and suggesting a quid pro quo! You have no idea what you are saying, do you? 😂
|
@axo1989 , this is just one of many posts where you are trying to put forth that you have technical chops,
But by your own admission, you are just legal/regulatory, and the comment I made w.r.t. to "gift" is tax law, which does not seem to be your forte. I don't think I have seen any other reviewer clearly say whether the reviews were loan, load with discount to buy, etc. so your attack, again, is specious, and given they don't accept advertising, they are already many steps above others from an optics stand point. Still waiting on those youtube links. I already expected they did not exist or did not say what you claim, but now I am rather more sure. w.r.t the gift, arguably, the review that Amir provides, assuming the product is technically competent, is of far more value, monetarily, to the company that provides the product, so the concept of "gift" is questionable, not just from an accounting standpoint, but a logic standpoint, and even a dictionary definition standpoint.
|
Bizarre gaslighting. I’ve claimed neither.
Bizarre logic. A gift is received. Subsequent sale has no bearing at all.
Their end product is published testing, a supply of review units could certainly be considered an input. But I didn’t state that, my expertise is legal/regulatory (not accounting) and I said—correctly—material consideration. My recommendation was not that they shouldn't accept review units, but that they operate transparently—declaring gift vs loan and maintaining a register of the former. What they do is their business of course, but how I regard their unusual ethical claims is mine. So 55 steps down now, 201 to go. Don’t expect me to follow along though, your journey is your own. 😉
|
@ghasley , try another thread if the bar is closed in this thread. I like the pivot to cables and immersive audio. |
I don't know why, in this day, it is still so controversial @asctim . It should be obvious to everyone that we use multiple senses all the time. For food, both taste and smell, but we are also influences by site. The visual input you are receiving of your environment influences what you think you are hearing. If there are two sets of speakers in front of you, and one is very large, and one is small, you will assume that a deep bass note is from the large speaker. It could be from either or a sub you don't even see. We intentionally have control groups and placebos in medical research because humans are so influenced by their present environment and condition that it is the only way to collect accurate data. Audio is not any different.
|
@axo1989 , one minute you are an expert in engineering, one minute you are an expert in accounting. That is quite the skill set.
If ASR / Amir were to start selling the devices, than you could claim it was a gift. The same would be true if the devices started being used as entertainment devices within his home and others. It is almost a given the suppliers are providing these units as non-commercial samples for evaluation, not intended for resales. Companies provide samples for evaluation to other companies all the time. The company sending marked as an expense, the receiving company does not mark as a gift. As ASR sells nothing, markets nothing, it would be a hard stretch to consider the units sent as "input" to their end product. It could even be argued that what Amir is doing is a "stress" test and hence the units are unusable after. My style is not aggressive, it is accurate. If someone is making claims that are false, or not supported by available information, then I am raising that as an issue. If someone is doing that with the goal of discrediting another individual, then they should not expect soft treatment. Would you prefer I used the wording potentially libelous?
|
@fleschler, you and I have similar experiences. I had an uncle into hifi in the 60s and 70s that caught my attention. He had a Dual turntable and a Pioneer receiver. Then I got myself a Kenwood receiver in the mid 70s just before my sophomore year. I bought more upscale Kenwood gear once graduating college but my hifi experience began when I went to a co worker's house in 1988 and heard his highly modified Quad ESLs driven by a Quicksilver Amp, modified ARC SP-8 preamp and a Sota Star with the ET-II tonearm on a Billybags stand. It was the most magical musical moment of my life. Since then I have always had an ARC tube preamp but I shied away from tube amps. First, having two little boys back then I was afraid for their lives and now that they are grown and gone I often think of getting some tube amps if not for the recurring costs. Any tube amp with output greater than 100 W/ch gets expensive to re-tube, it seems. It's not that I can't afford it. It's my mid-western upbringing I would say, because no one else I grew up with would ever spend a fortune on stereo gear like I have done. That night alone with Suzanne Vega and those Quad ESL's infected me badly. You should post some pics of your system. Would love to see it. I've gone from Planars through the 90s to Thiels to Wilson speakers. I built a dedicated room in the early 90s for the Planars but then moved from that house. That was the best sound I had until now with the Wilsons. I had double walls, sound treatment in the corners and dedicated power. I did the ceiling in 1/2" drywall with thick, rough paint for diffusion. Now I have that sound with the addition of much more powerful and clear bass. |
Yup, I've experienced my sighted impressions "dissolving away." It's both a humbling and amazing experience. I've done it both with cables and testing a burned in amp against an identical model that hadn't been burned in. I can't express how obvious the difference in sound quality seemed to me during the sighted listening, so having the effect completely vanish just because I couldn't see which device I was listening to was like experiencing magic. In the end it taught me how malleable my perception of sound quality is to both conscious and unconscious expectations. My ear transduces the sound and then my brain interprets the resulting signal in the light of other sensory information. |
@fleschler you said: the total immersive experience With the setup you have you certainly don't need to change anything. It might be interesting to discuss another way to get this "immersive" experience (especially if you like movies from the 30's, 40's, or today) Please stop my my thread on atmos if you want to discuss more. Thanks
|
As noted, I heard (until Covid), 1000s of live performances from my 100s of recordings, performances to season opera tickets (400-500 live opera alone). I seek to reproduce the most realistic sound of those venues and my large music collection. I've only encountered the total immersive experience with Von Schweikert Ultra 9 and 11 speakers in $1+ million system at two shows. I've heard some rather good systems but none that "do it all" and sound like the mic feed (VS claims it's their reverse mic feed design of the speaker). My own main system does get close recorded small combo jazz right where the instruments sound live, like they are in my room playing. Cymbals could be a little bigger but the drums are real sounding (my speakers are rolled off in the highs with a soft dome lower and ribbon upper tweeters). My friend's YG Sonja 2.3s sound great but not as realistic, as in the room musicians performing, rather his system sets back musicians a distance. Pleasant but not realistic. It's taken me a lifetime to get sound where I'm at now and the piece de resistance would be a high end full range speaker that does it all. It is common now for full range speakers to have a narrow footprint for most homes and your set up requires it. Black and white film on a screen often exhibits a shimmering effect which is captivating. We watch many 30's and 40's films and great movies can be mesmerizing with that effect. It's not 3D and it's not color but what a great experience. |
I’ve always been fascinated by the difference between live and reproduced sound. I don’t pretend that my system (or any system) could reproduce all the recorded (acoustic) music as it sounded in front of the microphones (and that isn’t even the goal in most cases for recordings). But I do find it fascinating noticing to what degree reproduced sound can get closer to the real thing or not. It was actually discovering that a good system could reproduce *some* characteristics I love about live sound that got me in to hi-fi. So I’m constantly checking the difference. For instance I live right near a very popular urban street surrounded by parks and live performances are a constant - small bands on street corners, in parks, in bars etc. So if I come upon, say, a quartet playing jazz, I will close my eyes and take note, asking myself "what does this sound like? What distinguishes it from reproduced sound?" One of the main things that stick out to me are an effortless clarity, a timbral richness, dynamic life, but especially the sheer size of the sound. A sax or trombone sounds far bigger and richer, with very dense acoustic power. It makes most reproduced versions seem more like miniaturized, spectral toys that I can wave my hands through. And drums always strike me for having a different balance than in reproduced sound. With closed eyes everything sounds BIG or life-sized, the kick drum is big, the snare is big, the cymbals sound BIG. There is no "pear shape" effect, like the cymbals being squeezed through tiny tweeters. So it always impresses me whenever I hear a speaker that seems to portray instruments with more realistic size, weight and density, especially in the upper frequencies which is even more rare. I don’t for a minute mean to suggest the Devore speakers produce drums or anything else with absolute realism. Only that to my ears, in some parameters, they are going a little further in that direction than many speakers I’ve heard. I don’t demand that my system fool me I’m hearing real sounds. But when it’s a natural sounding recording of acoustic instruments, if a speaker is doing at least some of the things I like about real instruments, it can make "slipping in to the illusion" pleasurable and easier. I approach it like watching a movie. A movie is never going to look totally real (and often shouldn’t), it’s a 2D screen, contrast etc is never fully lifelike. But the reason many productions go to great lengths to "get things right" (sets, clothes, script that are plausible) is that it makes it easier to slip in to the illusion of the story. "Believable" being the goal, which acknowledges the user is willfully entering the illusion, not an impossible goal of "Absolute Realism." One would expect that reproducing a full symphony orchestra via a pair of average sized floor standing speakers is a pipe dream, and of course it is in any Absolute sense. Yet, I’ve tweaked my system to the degree that I find it tonally convincing, and spatially prodigious, and when I play a good orchestral piece, if I meet the illusion 1/2 way, and just imagine I’m listening to an orchestra from seats further away, then the size seems "right" and life-sized, and the sensation of peering through a hall listening to a real orchestra can be quite thrilling.
|
@crymeanaudioriver I thought I was replying to @cd318 so my mistake. I’m not so interested in your aggressive communication style so don’t expect an extended discussion. I’ve given you enough to go on, you can figure out what material interest means and how it may apply in this context perhaps, if you are sufficiently curious. The number and scope of gifts to ASR certainly crosses the usual thresholds for declaration in the regulatory sector that I have experience in. It may or may not give rise to bias, the question discussed in the thread I referred to was transparency. ASR is an informal non-profit public interest advocacy group, so may have no specific legal responsibility (US jurisdiction is not my specialty in any case) but claims somewhat unique circumstances and should follow through (in my view) as a precaution and a matter of ethics. Deflecting via some whataboutism makes no difference to these issues. |
That’s an evocative description. Amusing too (given the topic of this thread) that I get a good idea of what you mean even though you are using descriptive verbal language. I enjoy my speakers and somewhat like your JAs admire their definition and clarity along with the way they present the holographic stereo image. But they do the thing you describe as pear shaped (that’s derogatory in Australian vernacular :-) Perhaps because I often listen to electronic and other synthetic/assembled music the apparent size of cymbals (for example) didn't occur to me up to now. That certain speakers do it differently is pretty interesting though. |
Yes, the Harbeths still haunt me with how well they did voices (I had the Super HL5plus for a while and have heard the whole line).
I didn’t choose the Devores but ended up with Joseph Audio Perspectives instead. I liked the sound of both but the JA speakers fit my room better - they have to flank the sides of a big projection screen and the wider Devores would cause more problems. Plus I usually listen closer than 8 feet and the Devores need at least that IMO to sound right in terms of coherence and tone. Impressions of the Devore O-series speakers can be all over the map because they are pretty finicky to set up, and finicky about listening distance, toe in etc. They can sound bland or too aggressive if done wrong. Get them right, and they do a superb balance between exciting and smooth.
I still haven’t heard a speaker that did those sounds as convincingly as the Devores. That sense of a bongo skin being hit "right there," not as a recording but real, and with weight and palpability. My Joseph speakers are more refined and pure sounding, more free of grain, so the rendering of things like cymbals and bells is exquisitely pure and gorgeous. However, the Joseph speakers are like the vast majority of speakers I’ve heard: there is a certain pear shape to the size of the sound. Instruments with bass and lower midrange frequencies sound rich and dense and amazingly large. But as you go up to the higher frequencies things sound tinier and tinier, so now drum cymbals sound very clear and clean, but fairly weightless and much smaller than the real thing. Again this isn’t just a Joseph Audio thing: it’s what I hear with virtually all conventional speakers - as if all those instruments in the treble are being squeezed through those tiny tweeters making for a miniaturized presence. I found the Devor O/96 does better than most speakers in maintaining a sense of thickness, heft and size from the bottom to the top frequencies, so even drum cymbals and bells seem to have more life-sized weight and presence. That’s one thing that blew me away listening to the drum solo track I often use as a test. The MBL omni speakers (which I’ve owned) also can have a similar quality - drum cymbals sound more like the large resonating discs they are rather than the small bits of bright spots lighting up in a soundstage of most speakers.
IMO. :-)
|
I am well aware @russ69 , hence why I found it specious that @axo1989 raised this issue w.r.t. ASR, considering, as many have noted, most of the items that ASR reviews that comes from manufacturers, are lower in cost. Amir appears to already own some high end components, so I am not sure what benefit he is getting from owning 20, <$1,000 DACs? |
Your deflection and lack of recognition of sites that both have paid advertising and receive gifts is noted @axo1989 , but it does not change the outcome. I will continue to wait for those youtube links. |
@4afsanakhan , I don't know your budget or your room. I like 10 inch subs for music and movies but maybe you need bigger. As for value Klipsch is often deeply discounted and has over 1700 5 star ratings on Amazon:
|
@kota1 , thanks much for the advice on a pair os subs rather than a single sub. Yes, I think that is my next objective. My challenge is finding subs with excellent quality at a decent price. I am somewhat limited financially at present. The idea of a pair of big JL Audio subs - as much as I would like it - is out of the question. I am so glad you recommended your thread on Atmos multi-channel. I will read through it with great interest. If the stars align, I just might move toward building a multi-channel music and cinema system. |
@4afsanakhan , first if you get subs get a pair. As for multichannel audio I personally prefer it and still listen to stereo. See my thread here on atmos music if you want to discuss more. |
Friend, you should know by now, the YouTube is chock full of individuals who don’t have a clue. They draw people in with a catch. This guy’s audience is likely young millennials who couldn’t hope to afford ‘high-end’ gear. They love to hear that it generally all sounds the same. To be truthful, many of us audiophiles do become terribly biased too. We make differences huge, when they are not - which definitely hurts credibility. Just because a component, say a DAC, costs 20k, the likelihood that it sounds infinitely better, commensurate with the huge price delta, is small. I know a guy who insists that his Vizio soundbar system which sits in a small garage space sounds about as good as a high-end system. Of course he is wrong 😑 BUT, you know what, his soundbar system sounds VERY good lol! There are a few reasonsfor this; First he listens with the sound waves flowing outside, meaning a lot less resonances screwing up the sound. Second, a sub. If anything, his system has reinforced my belief that i would see huge improvements in my system with a sub. The lower frequencies add so much presence and density to the music. Third, he supplements with rear surround speakers. Sure, I know what you will say, but my believe is that the best sound systems of the future will be multi-channel and not two-channel. I think most of us know this, its just the daunting task of affording a multi-channel system of Magicos for example, requiring multiples of amps, cables etc. to say nothing of the challenges setting it all up in a living environment. |
Not sure you know how the industry works, but there are many perks, depending on who you are. Firstly, equipment might be "on loan" with no set date of return or there may be a heavily discounted accommodation price if you wish to keep the item you tested. It is also known that the distributor/manufacturer might "wine and dine" a reviewer when delivering a piece of gear. And last but not least, a reviewer might be flown to the factory, for a tour and several day accommodations and meals. These are normal sales perks in some industries and certainly true in audio. |
I know, I am digging a hole here, but what would be wrong with a general standard at least to start with when it comes to audio, no matter the component? I wince to bring up 'Consumer Reports' Way back then, because they did not seem to have a clue early in the game of audio. They were even more carefree than Stereo Review in some of their opinions as to what made a good deal. In fact, just about everybody lied about the products that they sold. If there were a starting line so to speak for expectations of any piece of equipment, beyond the promise that it won't catch fire, then maybe products could fall into categories/expectation for the dollar. Wow, this hole will get deeper the more I think about this. Goodbye. |
So you are saying Stereophile receives gifts @axo1989 ? Virtually every review site seems to get them. Unless he is selling them on Ebay or similar, calling it a gift is really an extreme stretch in an attempt to discredit.
I think you should post links to these supposed Youtube videos as the only one I could find was a "coached" video, 4 years old, when he was getting a new model of analyzer. You really are stretching to discredit.
Formal training? I did a lot of medical research. Formal training on equipment? I expect it is no different from the Audio Precision. An afternoon or maybe a day with the vendor. This is not something you go to school for. Life saving hospital equipment was a different matter, but equipment used in research? Just another sloppy attempt to discredit.
|
I'm not trying to discount anybody's work or opinion. I'm just relating my experience. ASR doesn't really spend much time testing quality high-power amps or gear priced, let me be kind here, above the most modest level, just a few pieces. I like the measurements provided by ASR, but not much gear that I am interested in appears on ASR, so it's not particularly useful to me. |
ASR receives review samples which are not returned, meaning they are gifts. Amir posted photograph/s and acknowledged same in a discussion thread recently. I was unaware of the scope of that consideration, and said so. In the same thread ’master contributor’ @restorer-john recommended that a register be maintained for transparency, and that statements of interest posted with reviews be more specific/informative. For example ’supplied by manufacturer’ is often noted, but ’gift’ is not. Amir did some handwaving, but didn’t address the substantive issues ... @restorer-john was attacked by a moderator, and the usual ’out-of-line’ bluster was dished out (the moderator later apologised, which was novel).
We all pick up skills using tools in our vocations. Formal training is another thing. You’ve no doubt seen (or should see) the amusing YT videos featuring beginner Amir asking AP personnel newbie questions, and their commendably polite responses (yes, after his time at MS). Close relationship? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. But you’re on step 50 it seems, 206 to go ... |
I expect I travel in a much wider circle than you do. You may note my sideline in my first post and I don’t go chasing cheap. With my newfound knowledge: Magnepan Tympani - Not hard to drive, though tube amps would struggle and older SS gear may. 901 - Does not tax a good modern receiver. Perhaps when they first came out it was an issue. ASR does not test 1970s SS gear. IRS - Challenging in its time, but ASR does test amplifiers down to 2 ohms now, and that would be sufficient for the IRS Plumbing the depths of what are at this point ancient speakers while not recognizing what tests are done does not prove your point. It reinforces my point that the goal here seems to be to find the one obscure situation where ASR measurements may not be correct, and attempt to use that as an excuse to discard all the work they do. Maybe that fools some people.
|
| Post removed |
You travel in different circles than I did/do. Yes, they sell more cheap bookshelf speakers than large difficult to drive loudspeakers but that doesn't mean the hard to drive loudspeakers are an anomaly. Back in the late 60s there were not many high-power amps for home audio. Let's start with the Bose 901s series I. They sucked the few 200 wpc amps dry. So much so that Bose built the 1801 amp to solve the issue. After the Infinity Servo Static system and the SS1A was being developed (a difficult electrostatic load), Infinity developed the Quantum line reference line of loudspeakers. They were amp killers and started the development of many new high-power amps as did the Magnepan Tympani Loudspeaker. Amps like the Ampzilla, BGW, Phase Linear 700/400, and others. Later the Infinity Reference Standard 2.5s/4.5s, RS1Bs, Monitor IIAs, stacked Advents. You might say the Magnepans are not hard to drive but a pair of 3.7s driven at volume can stress most amps. Probably not as many hard to drive speakers by pure numbers today due to the requirements of multi-channel and low power AVRs but there are still many out there in the high-end world. |
When I was in my teens to early 30s, I relied upon audio dealers in purchasing equipment. There were virtually no boutique cabling companies Some major brands started by the end of 1970s. I was not content with the sound of my system and kept changing speakers and amps. By 1998, I was financially capable to invest in higher end equipment and cabling. I did spend money on a modded SME IV/VPI 19 in 1989 and in the 90s on Audio Research SP 14 & Classic 60 amp. I had read audio magazines since the early 70s. I found so many reviews just wrong in the mainstream mags. Tons of feedback on the "new" solid state gear sounded bad compared to the 50’s and 60’s tube gear. High school friends wanted to show off their 125 watt or 200 watt Pioneer receivers with JBL and Cerwin Vega speakers and I wanted to run from the sound. I purchased Yamaha lower powered gear which I thought was more musical sounding. I didn’t get into tube gear until law school and never looked back. |
ASR as audioholics anonymous? It probably is (with all that likeness implies). Although I do wish damaged abstainers like our crying friend would stop at 12 steps instead of going for 256. |
Yes a lot of current is needed and a lot of power for higher SPL's, as the scintilla is only 85db at 1ohm, it's a little less sensitive at the 4ohm setting at 79db. They made two versions one that could be set to 4ohm or 1ohm and a version that was only 1ohm, the 1ohm version is more preferred. There are a few people on the diy forum that are direct driving them with multiple amplifiers and active crossover, I don't know if any production amps can direct drive the midrange ribbons as they are .14ohm, but a few guys over there have built amps that can direct drive them without using a resistor or a transformer, supposed to sound better direct driven. |
I have similar impressions also. As I've worked in bureaucracy, I'm somewhat familiar the stratagems of the managerialist (now they are my clients rather than my superiors or colleagues, which is an easier relationship). ASR is clearly Amir's retirement hobby. Much is made of expertise and non-commercial status, but he is a self-taught user of his measuring tools and receives material consideration from a number of manufacturers of devices he reviews, so neither claim is entirely solid. |
@russ69 Maybe 85%-90% sounds right. There are many lower efficiency, low impedance, high phase angle speakers but so many more are easy to drive (horn loaded, Tannoy's, etc.) with only one set of difficult parameters (e.g. Harbeth's-low efficiency, nominal easy impedances, my Legacys with high efficiency, lower impedances). The Apogees and MBL speakers are anomalies whereas common Maggies just need power).
Reading far more knowledgeable people on this topic, my 99.99% is much closer to the truth than 85% - 90%. I don't think it is a good idea to attempt to speak knowledgeably on a topic one is significantly deficient in. One of the forums topics I read commented that there are almost no speakers that dip below 2 ohms impedance. The Scintilla and one other as noticeable exceptions. That is only 2 out of 10's of thousands of speakers. They did not seem overly concerned with phase angle either, noting only that it would come with a loss of potential volume. I understand the math presented, though I may miss a nuance here and there. |
Is this not the same condition with photographs, or movies, or food, or wine. One can emphasize a particular quality, and by emphasizing that quality, or flavor, the person experiencing it will have a heightened experience which will be perceived as superior. A complex and well balanced oak taste to a wine can hide the fact that it is lacking complexity of other flavors. If you like oak, which many do, you may be enamored and not catch what is missing. Obviously good tasters will catch that, there are far more tasters and reviewers than there are good tasters and reviewers.
|