The Audio Science Review (ASR) approach to reviewing wines.

Another ASR hating thread. One need not say that listening does not matter in order to see the value in measurements.

Are there ASR folks who think that only measurements matter? Sure. But that does not mean that the measurements done cannot be helpful at all. (I mean, I’m not a fanatic about my weight on a scale, but it helps to know when I’ve gained 10 pounds.)

I honestly don’t understand why ASR is like Voldemort to some folks here.

+1 @prof  Well said, well explained, well justified. 

As for the amplifiers that I’ve owned or borrowed and enjoyed the most, none really offered what anyone would refer to as spectacular measurements.

"Measurements" is too crude a word. @prof was pointing at this issue and this comment ignores it.

Some measurements are, say, 2nd harmonic distortions -- those may upset some at ASR, but the rest of us understand that those measurements are NOT aligned with "bad sound" as some of us experience that. (Others here do NOT like that 2nd harmonic. So, this varies.)

But other measurements are of a kind that correlates to what we would ALL agree are responsible for a bad-sounding product. Some of us here applaud ASR and others for measuring things which DO correlate with "bad sound."

As @prof put it:

It’s like so many audiophiles imagined that measurements are just plucked out of the air for no reason at all. The whole point of measurements is that they have been correlated to how things sound. That’s the point of measurements! And scientific study has shown that certain measurements correlate to what most people will rate as higher quality.

Of course, there are issues with how ASR folks do things, as @analog_aficionado points out:

Objective measurements are great tools insofar as the results are understood and interpreted properly. This is where the current debate seems to run into trouble. Take SINAD (aka THD+N) for example. There seems to be a monomaniacal over-emphasis on this metric as an end-all-be-all measurement which somehow dominates the subjective performance of a piece of equipment over most other aspects of performance....I would even argue that THD in the context of electronics is increasingly irrelevant, given how low distortion is in most modern designs. Turn to another famous objectivist like Ethan Winer, and you’ll find excellent demonstrations of the audibility of THD.

So why chase after 0.0002% THD in a DAC or amplifier? I’ve built, lived with and loved tube amplifiers with rather embarrassing distortion figures compared to the modern benchmark....So measurements have their sensible limits as well. It does no good to go overboard with a single specification.

It’s a complex debate. My main issue is how people simplify the issues too much. Maybe people like to remain vague on what a "measurement" is because they like to "take a stand" against so-called "objectivists" or "measurementalists." But that is not playing fair with language and the result is to perpetuate misunderstanding.

Finally, I am certain that @audio_aficinado nails it with this comment:

But I do know this: a ruler (even a really really awesome one) is just not good enough. The human perception of sound is not well understood and even less well quantified, and there are many aspects of objective technical performance of audio equipment that we already know something about which are being overlooked.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to this for me:

Objective audio measurements must by definition be subservient to the Subjective outcome. If not, then we aren’t talking about hi-fi anymore.

I had a long and bitter debate with Ethan Winer about this. My position is that there may be things heard which cannot be measured because the brain and perception are way WAY beyond our understanding at this point in our scientific understanding. His reply to that was, essentially, "No, it’s just placebo effect and subjective bias." (In other words, y’all are just in denial.) He could be right about that claim, but he has no basis for making it, and we’re just back in the realm of rhetoric, not argument.

ASRs whole approach of anything that measures bad sounds bad, and the inability to describe how things sound or what people prefer sometimes - is a nonstarter for me. It all comes back to what people hear and what they enjoy most, and no metric tells us this very well.

Agreed. The point is not that "we should adopt the ASR Method." but rather we should avoid a false dilemma fallacy. Which both sides commit.

Measurements have their place. The measurements aren’t the problem with ASR. the problem is the mob of people that pounce anyone that says "hey this is better even though it measures poorer"....The sad thing is, the "happy panther" scale always rewards the highest measuring equipment because of the horde of stat hunters that are ready to say it’s better without hearing any of it.

My point is that people just being "against ASR and FOR listening" are throwing out some valuable data. I already made this point at length so I’m going to stop after this.

I'll add one more point -- people who focus on "how gear sounds rather than measures" frequently do not mention the rather complex effects of (a) other gear, (b) the recording, (c) the ROOM, and (d) their methods for listening. There is a very bad pseudo-science air in these conversations where it is supposed that the writer is conveying something that others would experience, but without any of the critical variables to help others know whether the claim would be something they can experience. How often do we hear "these speakers sound bright" and then we ask for a photo and find out they are listening with a bank of windows or a tile floor? It's this kind of thing that drives people to measurements even though those can be misleading or besides the point, too, but in a different way.

This post gets at a real value for both A'gon and ASR -- objectivity:

Unlike other reviewer outlets, ASR isn't heavily supported by advertising like most of the audio print media. They have posted unfavorable reviews of generally successful if not popular products and have given good reviews for little known and inexpensive new products.

Avoiding marketing and forum hype is a good thing. ASR does it their way. Some do it on A'gon with their own experiences or counterarguments.

These two posts get at a problem with over-enthusiasm about "measurement" and the religious fervor of some at ASR:

I'm unhappy that they are most likely steering newer audiophiles down the measurement rabbit hole, when they don't even have a clue yet what type of speakers and equipment they personally enjoy. 

The decades of going into audio stores in my region and listening to a wide array of systems is something I cherish to this day. Going to listen to other peoples systems, all great learning experiences.

Both comments point to the fact that an overweening reliance on measurement tends to keep people from experience as critical to learning to listen. Trusting one's ability to take time to listen, notice, feel, and connect with music is the key to good audio, and when rankings and measurements displace that, we bind ourselves to a technocracy that shoves experience (and value) aside. This doesn't mean that measurement cannot help experience, only that it needs to be watched as carefully as an open flame.