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

@knownothing Science is about looking at data and making the best possible inference with the least ad hoc assumption (Parsimony, Mach's Principle of Economy, Ockham's Razor). It needs not to be predictive or testing as is shown in e.g. medical diagnostics using adductive inference (see Josephson & Josephson, 1996: Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology). Popperian hypothetico-deductivism is not the only scientific inference. In fact, it is rather limiting, one could even say boring, as it is not ampliative. Popperian approach cannot find anything new, it can only reject something that is already there. I find and describe new species and that is certainly science and definitely not Popperian.

Amir's approach is certainly more scientific than TAS or SPh etc., which is nothing but fanciful storytelling.

I have watched quite a few of Amir's videos, and have also corresponded with him briefly over email. He is a no-nonsense scientist, like myself. One should not mistake clear articulated words as a sign of arrogance. I find him actually quite deferential.

@samureyex Re cables, the biggest difference should be from bargain basement to something better. I have tried that with speaker cables and interconnects, and have not found any difference between a Cardas 101 AWG 14 cable and a PearlAcoustics AWG 5-6 cable. Hooked up at same time on A-B speaker outs, so could switch in an instant. Same with interconnects. Re system, see my virtual system. Based on my personal listening experience, I cannot hear any difference between any cable I ever tried. This fits well with Amir's measurements, as well as Gene with Audioholics for that matter. 

Amir is a modern day Julian Hirsch. Neither did anything to advance the state of the art in audio.

@billsame +1

Love the wine analogy!  I have often said that good HiFi is like good wine – you pay more for what you don’t get.  Nasty sounding distortions and nasty tastes.

The biggest differences are that wine comparison thrives on blind tasting, there is a defined point-scoring system, but there is also no objective standard (comparison with live performance).

Both ‘hobbies’ have had technological breakthroughs like SS.  Stainless steel for wine, solid state for sound.  I would argue wine also has a digital transformation, in the Stelvin cap which converted porous ‘analog’ cork stoppers into binary on-off bottle tops.

Science and technology underpin each!

Australia started with cuttings transported on the First Fleet and established its first wine college in 1897.  Where I live in Canberra there are over 140 vineyards and 40 wineries.  Many are run by scientists including Nobel prize winning physicist Brian Smidt, who now heads our leading university.  Many others are chemists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) which invented WiFi using its expertise in fast Fourier transforms from radio astronomy.

The Canberra District does not even get a mention amongst the 60 designated wine growing regions Australian wine - Wikipedia and we locals hope to keep the secret.

Australia’s top drop is around $1,000 a bottle and we get peeved when others, flaunting their affluence, mix it with coke.  When it won a prestigious French competition, it was disqualified because it was so good, it just had to be French (in the minds of the judges).  In my opinion, the least good Aussie wines come in half way up the French scale.

While audiophiles debate the effects of room shape, wine sensations are dramatically changed by the shape of the glassware!  Try it!

Australia’s top drop is around $1,000 a bottle and we get peeved when others, flaunting their affluence, mix it with coke.  When it won a prestigious French competition, it was disqualified because it was so good, it just had to be French (in the minds of the judges). 

@richardbrand that's a cute story. Are you making that up? 🤔