Why HiFi Gear Measurements Are Misleading (yes ASR talking to you…)

@amir_asr, as an aside I will be buying a Tambaqui DAC and I have to admit it’s a comfort to see that you found it to measure well.

But if I end up not liking it, I will totally blame you for a misfire purchase.  Just kidding :)

For the record, I don’t equate the positive measurements you found to an expectation that I will enjoy its sound, in my system, in my room, with my ears, and with my brain….  How great it would be if it were that easy - I truly wish it was!

After I heard this phenomena I was interested in what I heard, and wanted to learn more.  It’s not like I took this example and published it in a scientific journal or talked to university professors.  As I mentioned I had simply googled this subject at the time.  I had found several articles and Wikipedia posts saying that this phenomena was being reported widely and that scientists had concluded that this effect was psychological.  Are these reports that I read the actual sentiment of the wider scientific consensus?  Of course not.  It was simply what was being reported widely from what I found on the internet at the time.  Fast forward years later and that all changed…

@noske , also see this paragraph, which is HIGHLY pertinent to my point with respect to HiFi:

“Even in modern times folks who reported hearing such sounds were ridiculed. It was only about 25 years ago that Keay was able to do the research and legitimize the experiences of all those generations of people. It shows there are still wonders in nature yet to be recognized and understood. We should take this experience with meteors as a reason to open our minds to what may yet be learned.”

That last line is just perfect…..

My original post wasn’t really meant to start a ASR bash thread, but I see that probably will happen anyways!  Conspiracies would be bad but hey bad stuff happens in this world.

My post was simply sharing a personal account that demonstrates, extremely well in my opinion, why I believe it’s critical to start with your senses, and only then apply science and measurements.  Which really what John Atkinson has done for all those years.

Does that present an alternate philosophy to that of ASR? Absolutely.  But wow I can’t bring myself to passionately hate on them as much as some do!

@noske here is an article that explains how researchers once thought people that heard this phenomena was “fantasy”.  It’s lower in the article.

Earth & Sky

“The dismissal of these observations by suggesting that the sound perception may be psychological through “an affrighted imagination” set back the study of the phenomenon for nearly two centuries.”

So yeah.

@noske , it’s not as if I colluded with Earth and Sky to rewrite history to prove my point in this thread. I found that 25 years ago when I experienced this phenomena that it was widely questioned and even ridiculed. I merely found an article to corroborate my experience 25 years ago. It was the very first link I clicked today that corroborated it. Sorry!

Not questioning that the science existed way before. But no one was applying it in these scenarios until a researcher, Keay, was able to record it. Remember there is a difference between scientific theory and recorded proof of the theory.

If you think that very article I found somehow is bogus, well, I’m sure you can find it corroborated elsewhere, in many, many places….

Here is one for the road, from NPR, saying Scientists doubted the accounts of those hearing meteors.  

NPR

So yeah… Sorry!

@tuberist , exactly.  To each their own.  No harm no foul.  Conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

@mastering92 , all valid points.  It’s a matter of figuring out, among all the flawed approaches to evaluating gear, which is the least flawed.  I agree the answer to that is unequivocally the use of our own senses.

To your point with blindfolds introducing a “probe effect”, I’m not sure if it’s in my head or not, but I feel like there could be a difference in sound when I put my glasses on.  What I know for certain is that transparency is increased when I look to the floor, as opposed to when looking straight forward.

I will even go so far as to say that I do agree with a lot of what @amir_asr says.  Our subjective sensory experience IS flawed.  We’d be lying to ourselves if we thought that wasn’t the case.  I’ve been caught with that, with initial impressions of a new piece sounding way better, only very quickly realizing later that it wasn’t actually THAT much better.  I also agree that blind testing is valuable, whenever possible.  Even blind testing is somewhat limited.  Just because one might not be able to discern differences in a blind test does not mean that those indiscernible differences may not add up to greater or lesser enjoyment over the long term, even if we are not directly aware of those differences.

BUT.  I do believe your sensory experience, while flawed, is the best form of measurement we have and the one that ultimately matters.  The problems Amir mentions which I agree with, can be worked through, with extended listening and, as much as possible, keeping an open mind. 

As an aside.  Since @amir_asr has supported the practice and value of blind testing, why does he not do that with the gear he measures?  If it was done in a fair, controlled manner, it would be really great to see how all of those gears he trashes would fare in such a test.   It would be great to see how frequently his measurement results would be corroborated by such tests.

If I were Amir and I truly believed in my heart the value of measurements, I’d want to prove it with such tests, which Amir himself has said are useful.  It would be great to see a blind test of burnt in vs brand new gear.

That would be the ULTIMATE forum/YouTube channel.  One that specializes exclusively in controlled, double blind testing.

@joshua43214 , in my non-scientist opinion you are describing the ideal mindset of a good scientist.  Scientists are supposed to be sceptical.  But at times it’s also helpful to remain at least a little bit sceptical of scientific consensus as well, especially when new data is brought forward.

@gs5556 , lol….  Now you’ve opened Pandora’s box….

@edcyn ASR = Audio Science Review.  Led by Amir, an online reviewer who suggests that subjective sensory assessments of audio gear cannot be trusted.  Therefore, he takes a measurements first approach to assess the performance of audio gear.  He ends up shooting down some equipment that are well respected by audiophiles, but fare poorly in his measurement tests. 

To his credit, he has amassed quite a following, with many people crying “snake oil”.  His followers and other audiophiles have been at odds for quite some time now…

@fredrik222 , have you asked ASR if they agree with the link you posted?  I doubt they do!!  That’s my point.  Now that @amir_asr has joined the discussion maybe he can weigh in.  But I’m guessing he is not interested in engaging, beyond the more unfortunate topic he responded to.

I was hoping this post would encourage some interesting and somewhat philosophical discussion and debate. Not everyone will get the point I was making, or agree with it, which is totally fine. Others will.

@fredrik222 I get your logic but I don’t see how it applies in this case. Also I could be wrong but I think your last sentence may have been worded in the opposite manner than you intended - genuinely not sure here:

“doesn’t mean that there are topics where science can fully explain everything.”

Were you trying to suggest there are topics where science CAN explain everything, and therefore my argument is invalid because there are topics within HIFi that can be fully explained by science?

Again, simply attempting to figure out how your logic applies here. Not sure if I got it right.

@tonywinga I think we are saying the same thing. Use your senses, explain with science. However, I do get your point. Ultimately it’s all sensory. But, at that point we are debating semantics. Maybe “science” is the wrong word to be using above. Maybe it is better to say “Use your senses first, then measure the results to substantiate and further explore what it is your are sensing.” Which is really the entire point of my original anecdote. Like John Atkinson does. In my case researchers dismissed anecdotal accounts of people hearing meteors, which turned out to be wrong. Likewise, I feel people who exclusively measure HiFi equipment without assessing how they sound can miss out on important qualities and assessments of the gear, or come to incorrect conclusions.

Our minds can interfere with the way we subjectively perceive our senses is the point here. But my further point is that it’s the best we have to go on, and there are processes one can go through to get closer to, for lack of better words, as objective as possible subjective assessments. Not sure everyone will get what I mean but that’s the best way I can describe it.

I know I’m sort of arguing both sides a bit which maybe some people don’t get. I’m acknowledging that the ASR camp have elements to their argument that I think are correct, but that ultimately I disagree that it fully supports their overall argument that you can exclusively measure gear to see how it performs. Because as flawed as our senses are with our minds getting in the way to trick us, it is the best we have.

I know that there is a level deeper into the rabbit hole here, where one could argue, our perceptions are all that matter so why does it matter if our minds are tricking us? Valid point, but I’m referring to the instances where we listen to a new USB cable and instantly go “that’s a component level upgrade!” For a week or so, then we later realize the difference was not actually as great as we initially thought. An actual example I ran into.

Great discussion!

@fredrik222 , I get your logic but I still fail to see how it invalidates my point, in any way.  I think it comes down to the fact that maybe there is a belief, which I disagree with, that science has fully explained all aspects of audio but not astronomy.  I don’t believe that is accurate.  I also think that if you believe that, it’s essentially the same degree of closed mindedness that the researchers who didn’t believe that people were hearing meteors exhibited.  There is so much in audio that we cannot explain with measurements.  Yet.

@fredrik222, that path unfortunately won’t resolve our friendly debate. Because, I can name any or all of the subjects that ASR followers and other audiophiles disagree with, which don’t have foundations in science. There are theories why burn-in is a thing, but no one has definitively proven it or there wouldn’t be a debate.  And many other examples.  To which some may say, well, burn in is not a thing.  But then we just arrive back to my meteor analogy, which continues to apply just fine!

Yeah but those plenty of explanations of burn-in are theories. Not proof. If it were proven, ASR followers would easily subscribe to the published proof, and would not have any issue in admitting that burn-in is a thing. They have suggested, strongly (please correct me if I am wrong on this but I believe this is their position) that burn-in is a figment of the listener’s imagination, that it is the listener than changes their mind as they adapt to the sound, not the gear. This precise example is just like researchers were asserting that the sizzling sounds of meteors are in the observer’s minds, until the "proof" later indicated otherwise.

@fredrik222 , I think the logic of your argument is absolutely sound. Where I totally lose you, completely, is the notion that everything about commercial audio gear is 100% understood and therefore science can explain everything. Believing that we know everything about a topic like audio gear, in scientific and measurable terms, is what I can’t get behind. I get that you feel that this position is closed-minded, but it is thoroughly debatable as to who is closed minded in this scenario :).

There was a time when one popular theory was that human ears were not good enough to perceive the levels of jitter that exist in audio gear. I don’t even think ASR would support that belief at this point, and I think we are past that. As you stated, things evolve and so does our knowledge.

Evan @noske was taking the position that no scientist should ever take the position of believing they know everything to the extent that in their minds, it is “case closed”. Which is what your argument seems to imply - we know everything about commercial electronics so there is no need to believe we hear something that cannot be explained. Who is closed minded?

Would love for Amir to join in but totally understand and respect why he wouldn’t, considering the unnecessary nastiness going around!

We should strive to keep the discussion and debate positive and constructive.  We are discussing a subject we all care about whatever side of the fence we are on.  

This is awesome….  I love it :)

I feel our knowledge of chairs may yet evolve.  Only recently we’ve started focusing on that fact that sitting for too long causes issues, with many employers encouraging the use of standing desks. So @fredrik222 , again, I get the logic of your argument, but I guess I just don’t agree with it, because I think we still have a lot to learn about how commercial electronics impacts our senses.

If anything this whole story validates the usefulness of plausible hypothesis and then measurements to verify perceptions that are surprising and unexpected.

The debate is about people's unverified hypotheses about why they're perceiving those differences. 

+1 @asctim , I think you hit the nail on the head.  It’s also about keeping an open mind.

@noske , interesting interview, thank you for sharing!

@bruce19 , no one ever said meteors travel at the speed of light!  All your answers to your questions are in the Earth & Sky link I pasted above in this thread.

Cheers

@bruce19 look again and read carefully; no one suggested the meteors are traveling at the speed of light.  Is it the meteors that are travelling at the speed of light, or the radiation that is travelling that fast?  What would make more sense to you?  Hmmm.

Turns out, the sound was caused by radiation emitted by the meteors, traveling at the speed of light

@amir_asr , thank you for sharing your perspectives. I have an education in computer engineering. But being an audiophile, I just don’t agree with the position that the science and measurements can totally explain our perceptions. I have a fundamental belief that science cannot explain all of the dimensions that impact our subjective interpretation of physical sound waves. Why? You have suggested folks get upset when ASR rejects a component that they subjectively praise. I think you are correct in many, many cases. It’s why people get so fired up about ASR. In my case I don’t care if ASR rejects a component that I subjectively enjoy - that doesn’t bother me in the slightest because if I enjoy it that’s all that matters to me. So why do I follow my subjective judgement over science? I simply don’t believe that science can FULLY explain, at our present level of understanding, how sound waves are subjectively interpreted by humans. Why do I believe this? My own blind testing experiments, over decades, that offer results that are not explainable. Differences in power cords, the effect of burn-in, vibration control products etc. Sure there are theories why these things make a difference even when blind testing, even with generalized theories that are proven, but to my knowledge none are proven in the specific application of HiFi audio.

My engineering buddies think I’m absolutely nuts when I say music servers and USB cables make a difference in audio, but, with their knowledge, I can’t blame them at all for coming to those conclusions, as I have the same knowledge. But the difference is, they’ve not had the blind subjective test experiences that I’ve had, which leads me to question whether science really knows everything about the manner in which humans subjectively perceive sound waves.

Without going into details that may be taboo on this board, I don’t consider myself to be a particularly spiritual person, despite the objective evidence that our universe could be part of some grand design. But if I had some sort of personal subjective experience that clarified a particular spiritual path for me, I could see myself heading down that path. But nothing remotely close to this has happened. But in the world of audio, it has! That’s why I feel we need to go beyond the science!

What we perceive through our senses is not at all a “fantasy world” as you have suggested. That “fantasy world” is actually all that we have.  Sure, measurements can tell us what is happening in the world.  But no measurement, as of yet, can explain how we perceive it.

@prof , like Amir’s points, you make rational points as well.  But really what we are debating is, which approach is more flawed - our senses because our biases get in the way, or measurements because while they reflect “reality”, they do not reflect on how we perceive a component’s physical performance.  For me, I believe the latter is far more flawed.  It doesn’t mean that the flaws you are pointing out in subject assessments are not valid - they totally are!  But IMO it’s the best we have, barring the day we can figure out  measure human perception of physical stimuli.  Once we can do that, we are into Bladerunner territory!

@amir_asr , thanks for responding with a constructive perspective. It would be nice if all debates on the internet were this friendly and constructive, but it is what it is, as they say. Another way of saying it isn’t what it should be.

The problem with your argument is, I agree with everything you have said. I’ve many times been tricked by my own mind, only to realize later that my initial findings were flawed. But over time, and not a heck of a lot of time, say 2-3 weeks of “living with” a component, I find that I can arrive at a more stable and true subjective assessment of a component. One that personally, I find goes beyond what the measurements can tell us.

I don’t feel the need to win arguments, and I am comfortable with alternate perspectives coexisting with my own. I believe Audio Science Review is great for checking out how gear physically performs, but my own perspective is that too much emphasis is attributed to these measurements in terms of how much we can expect to subjectively enjoy a particular component. I think this is the fundamental point where our perspectives diverge.

I believe that other factors come into play as well. One particular example that seemed to rub some the wrong way is ASR’s review of the Mustec MA005, where ASR reported poor performance. I also see forum posts from some folks who report that the Musetec bests the more expensive Mola Mola Tambaqui which performed well in ASR’s measurements. Including one guy who sold his Tambaqui after he heard the Mustec. However, in each of these posts from people who prefer the Mustec, I’ve noticed they are feeding the DAC with an inexpensive Roon Rock NUC or a Mac Mini. I do wonder if the tables would be turned if feeding the DAC’s with a higher end streamer like the Grimm MU1. In other words, I wonder if the Tambaqui in these cases is simply exposing the flaws of the source more easily than the Musetec, or in other cases, the Holo May (which some say bests the Tambaqui) which yes, shows that it rolls off the upper frequencies more sharply that the Tambaqui. All this to say, that sometimes, maybe a lesser performing component may sound better given lesser surrounding components in one’s system. Which again, judging a piece by measurements would never provide any useful context in these situations.

Science is always self-correcting. Just look at the things that have been accepted as true, only to be rejected later. It was only recently that we are questioning the general advice that a moderate amount of red wine is actually good for you, to name one example. The meteor analogy is one example of many. But the analogy also points out that we may not be measuring the right things to explain our perception of physical sound waves. I think this is actually the larger point, as science can only measure what we know. Based on my own subjective experiences in this hobby, which admittedly is flawed due to being subjective, I have experienced enough to personally believe that there is far more to learn about how we perceive sound waves, and about how we measure to accurately predict what we will perceive.

If I suddenly saw a ghostly apparition appear (for the record I’ve not seen one), and I wasn’t on any mind altering substances or expecting any sort of psychosis at the time, I’d probably form the belief that ghosts were possibly real, even if science had any proven it. In HiFi, I HAVE experienced the unexplained, albeit subjectively, but this is enough for me to form an opinion that maybe measurements are not sufficient to explain what we are experiencing.

Whether or not we agree entirely with @amir_asr ’s perspectives (I do not, although I understand the rationale and logic), he is taking the time to present those perspectives and back them up, on a forum that is not very friendly to his perspective.  I didn’t expect Amir to engage in this discussion, in a community that rejects his perspectives with a degree of hostility, so I commend him for presenting his views in this environment!

I for one am reading his links, even if I still don’t agree fully.  But becoming educated on other’s perspectives never hurts.  In some cases I can even be convinced to change my perspective.  But I don’t think that will happen in this case - after all, remember, for 25 odd years scientific researchers assumed that reports of audible meteors were figments of the observer’s imagination!

Just to give one recent example to relate to my prior post: Last year I bought a second USB cable (Audioquest Diamond) while I had the original for a few years. The new one sounded inferior. To the degree that I wondered if there was a design change or changes to production. But after a few hundred hours, I could no longer tell them apart. Yet existence of burn-in is endlessly debated.

Another recent example is what I found with length of USB cables, where a Nordost Valhalla 2 2m cable sounded superior to the equivalent 1m cable. Intuitively I would have expected the 1m cable to sound better, as I had not at that time read the theories, to my knowledge unproven, that USB cables should be longer than 1.5m to accommodate “reflections”.

And I don’t know if this one is proven or if people just have theories grounded in science, but the whole anti-vibration/isolation tweaks that really do make a surprising difference. I introduced a friend who is newly into HiFi to Herbie’s Tenderfeet, and he promptly cut up some yoga mats to replicate the benefits himself. He tells me it worked! It’s easy to identify whether the feet were added or removed, at the transition points.

I wonder, would @amir_asr be able to measure the differences I’m hearing, in each of these example cases? Not a rhetorical question; I’m genuinely curious. If the answer is no however, I think the assumption might be that it’s all in my mind. Just like what the researchers said about those hearing meteors, 25 years ago, because they were not measuring the right things or applying the right science to explain our perceptions.

@thespeakerdude , the cable changed not me. How do I know? Because I had a control (the original cable).

And actually the >1.5m is the guidance for USB according to some - pretty easy to google. Even Mark Coles of Sablon confirmed to me that he’s heard that as well (he said he hadn’t heard that for AES/ SPDIF). But as I mentioned I don’t believe this is “scientifically proven” anywhere. As a side note I repeated this finding with a .7m Audioquest Diamond USB cable that sounded very compressed and closed in compared to the equivalent 1.5m Diamond. I even preferred a generic USB cable to the .7m version of the Diamond.

Not that vendors are to be believed, but Nordost has minimum cable lengths listed on their FAQs and suggest >1.5m for all digital cables. I wouldn’t have put much stock in this if I hadn’t FIRST encountered this in my own trials, without having any expectation at all being ignorant of the guidance at the time.

These and the other HiFi phenomena in I referenced are differences I know beyond any doubt (to myself, not for others of course!) that I hear.  My mind intuitively expected the shorter USB cable to sound better, and I found the opposite to be true.  
 

I know the argument remains unresolved - are these things in my mind, or is it that science has not yet figured out how to measure certain things that we perceive in audio?  It’s not really an argument that can be conclusively won in either direction in discussion.  After all, how can one prove the existence of something we don’t yet know?  But I think it’s a good discussion.

@amir_asr , I thought you had given up on the discussion and I would not at all have blamed you if you had! Thank you for responding. Below are three examples where I experienced subjective differences in sound and I genuinely wonder if you would be able to measure the differences I was perceiving. If your conclusion is that no, these perceptions are due to mental bias, that will not offend me one bit. I will disagree with you if that is the case, but I won’t be offended or defensive! I would also ask, how can you be sure you are measuring the right things, the right way, to explain the differences I am perceiving? That question IS rhetorical, as I would argue that no one can answer that question conclusively.  I don’t expect to convince you and I don’t expect to be convinced, but I’m interested in a constructive dialogue simply to explore perspectives differing from my own.

Just to give one recent example to relate to my prior post: Last year I bought a second USB cable (Audioquest Diamond) while I had the original for a few years. The new one sounded inferior. To the degree that I wondered if there was a design change or changes to production. But after a few hundred hours, I could no longer tell them apart. Yet existence of burn-in is endlessly debated.

Another recent example is what I found with length of USB cables, where a Nordost Valhalla 2 2m cable sounded superior to the equivalent 1m cable. Intuitively I would have expected the 1m cable to sound better, as I had not at that time read the theories, to my knowledge unproven, that USB cables should be longer than 1.5m to accommodate “reflections”.

And I don’t know if this one is proven or if people just have theories grounded in science, but the whole anti-vibration/isolation tweaks that really do make a surprising difference. I introduced a friend who is newly into HiFi to Herbie’s Tenderfeet, and he promptly cut up some yoga mats to replicate the benefits himself. He tells me it worked! It’s easy to identify whether the feet were added or removed, at the transition points.

I wonder, would @amir_asr be able to measure the differences I’m hearing, in each of these example cases? Not a rhetorical question; I’m genuinely curious. If the answer is no however, I think the assumption might be that it’s all in my mind. Just like what the researchers said about those hearing meteors, 25 years ago, because they were not measuring the right things or applying the right science to explain our perceptions.

I should also mention I had the exact same experience as with thenNordost USB example, testing a .7m Audioquest Diamond against a 1.5m version of the same cable.

@amir_asr , I get your point.  I’ve done many blind tests in the past but unfortunately I didn’t feel the need to conduct them in these instances when I had the relevant gear.  I now wish I had!

I know this is not a “control”, but as I mentioned in the USB cable example, I would have expected, intuitively, for the shorter cable to sound better than the longer cable.  That was my bias going in.  I was surprised to find the opposite.  
 

I know, not a controlled test!  But I think it’s still relevant.

“Why bother measuring things if it doesnt equate with sound quality?”

@kenjit , out of interest I guess? It’s interesting to consider how a component performs, physically, in the real world, independently from human perception which is more important, IMO.

Not sure if I may have overstated my position earlier but I may have. I can admit I believe measured performance has an impact on how I perceive sound quantity. But my main point is I don’t believe it’s a guarantee of how I will perceive sound quality, because I don’t believe we have measurements that comprehensively predict this.  Amir takes the position that yes, we DO have all of those measurements.  And my question is, how can we know that when we don’t know what we don’t know?  My question is ridiculous on its own, as some have pointed out.  I wouldn’t go around questioning everything we know on that basis.  But my own subjective experiences in HiFi have given me enough of a glimpse to firmly believe that there is more that we don’t know.  That we don’t know how to accurately predict how we will each, individually respond to a component with a particular set of measured performance metrics.

To use the car analogy from above, horsepower and torque are valuable measurements but don’t guarantee one will enjoy driving the car.

I’m in favour of JA’s approach to measurements in Stereophile, where subjective listening is the focus. But it’s fantastic that the measurements are there just to see if SOME correlation with the subjective experience can be gleaned. Why? I find it interesting.

People are perfectly free to disagree with me!  It does not bother me one bit that ASR exists and I’m happy if they keep banging the objectivity drum.  Some say it unfairly harms certain brands but the subjective review sites can balance this.  Makes our hobby all the more vibrant, provided we can keep the personal attacks out of the equation.

@kenjit , fair point. But I don’t think we can treat all subjective experiences equally. We can be more certain of some subjective experiences than others. If I were to see a person in front of me I wouldn’t question if that person was there (an extreme example). In my example above, there is little chance I was imagining the longer USB cable sounding better than the shorter one when I was biased to thinking the opposite. 25 years ago, I also knew that when I heard the meteors sizzling, I knew that I really heard them. Even though when I immediately checked the internet, all researchers had said this was in my head. I’ve learned when to trust my senses. And also, just as importantly, when not to!

“He starts with a long description about a meteor event 25 years ago showing science can be wrong. So? Have doctors been wrong in the past too? Does that mean never to trust science or doctors again?”

@tcotruvo , that wasn’t the point of my anecdote, to say science was wrong. In fact, science was not wrong in this case - nothing about science was incorrect! Rather, the opinions of researchers were wrong, in terms of explaining a specific phenomenon that people were reporting. If people reported a bunch of UFO sightings and researchers didn’t believe them, that would not be an example of science being wrong. My point is that I have also encountered subjective experiences in HiFi that personally, for me alone, make me believe that things I perceive may not be in the realm of what is typically or currently measured when assessing HiFi gear. Just as with the case where I heard the meteors. It does not invalidate or make the measurements of HiFi equipment incorrect. This is a highly personal perspective that need not be adopted by anyone really, for all I care.

I’m not trying to change yours or anyone’s mind. I’m not even trying to claim that I’m right. Rather, I’m just sharing my perspective!  Amir, yourself and others are of course free to share yours.

I don’t agree with the tone of the discussion from both camps with personal judgments being hurled, and demands that one side is ultimately right and that the other side should switch their position. I think we should strive to accept that other perspectives exist and be okay with that, while being curious to understand how others arrive at their perspectives.

Getting off my high-horse now….

@kota1, @amir_asr , there is an opportunity here. What about conducting a blind test by a panel, with oversight by representatives of both camps (preferably the cooler heads), and conduct a series of tests? The tests could include they typical controversial subjects:

• Generic power cords vs extreme premium power cords
• Comparison of burned—in gear vs new gear (separate tests for cables, amps, DACs, etc)
• Test of vibration control vs no vibration control
• Test of generic USB cable to extreme premium USB cable
• Measurements of all of the above tests and corresponding analysis

How cool would that be. With the proper controls in place, with the proper panel to ensure equal representation of predispositions and biases, and with the proper governance, if these tests were done and published, this would be referenced for many, many years to come. It would be referenced by all review sites and pro review publications alike - for many years. It would finally advance decades of debate and inform our knowledge in a particular direction. The goal would need to be focused on advancing our knowledge rather than trying to be right.

@amir_asr: people would have a huge respect for you if you pulled off such an ambitious endeavour. Think about reaching out to subjective pro reviewers to cooperate on conducting this series of tests. You need to have others on the governance panel or people will simply claim you designed it seeking a particular result to serve your interests. The results could be highly disruptive in terms of how we think of HiFi.

I know Amir you might argue, been there, done that. Tests done decades ago, etc. just did a blind test last Saturday, etc. But not in such an open way, with community involvement.

A lot of your naysayers would have to shut their mouths if you put your money where your mouth is and led such a community-led endeavour. And just maybe, you might learn something too.

I for one would be so excited if someone took a challenge like this on - it would demonstrate true leadership in the world of HiFi IF done correctly with community engagement.

The gauntlet has been thrown down!