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?  

fleschler

@fleschler , I don’t see any reason to continue in a tit for tat with you as your posts, to me, appear to be driven more by emotion than careful consideration.

You said this,

@crymeanaudioriver You LIE just like Amir. You know very well as I clearly stated how he took a neutral statement about someone’s preferred music and pervertedly twisted it into a negative character comment which I DO NOT DO.


And you also said this:

 

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.

 

The point of your post was to complain about ASR and also to complain about ASR participants, and the only thing you mentioned about their music tastes is what I highlighted, then I see no way in which that statement could be considered neutral. To me, and likely to others, it implies that those that listen to that type of music could not possibly be critical listeners.

 

You called me a liar, however, I will point out you also said this,

It is apparent that they don’t listen to music and the music they listen to is so bereft of acoustic information that they couldn’t judge on their cheap equipment what it could sound like.

 

Do you still want to insist your comment was neutral? You also wrote this:

 

@orgillian197 Same here as I noted. Between the ASR posters preferred music choices, state of their hearing and immutable belief in cheap, good measuring equipment, our hearing is quite different.

 

 

 

@djones51 ...as a measurement guy "better sound "  is subjective and not anything I pay attention to. 

Really? You do not pursue better sound? Are you pursuing better measurements? What is your interest in audio if it's not better sound? I'm confused. 

Sound as accurate to the source file I receive as possible. Is that better or worse? No idea. I want the signal that leaves the amp to be as close to the signal that enters the streamer as possible.

Really?

Yes really. These folks believe that we only hear what we want to hear. Hearing does not matter. The truth lies in the measurements. That's the ideology and belief system. I learned this a while ago.

 

@teo_audio ,

Science says that 'observation is king', where engineering says 'the laws of physics are king'. One can move us forward, one can make things in this world. Maybe one has no importance that is greater than the other, they both being parts of the modern structure of life, if you will.

I may not know everything about audio, but I know a lot about science in general and how it works. I also have pretty good reading comprehension and I am not prone to letting my emotions cloud my judgment or interpretations.

Amir has stated, many times, and effectively for those that either understand what he is saying or care to understand what he is saying, that "observation is king". You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, or a filibuster as @ghasley described it.

The difference is Amir is using the scientific definition of observation, where you, on the basis of writing a very long post that I assume is to refute Amir, are not using the scientific definition of observation though you believe you are. I changed X to Y and it sounded better is not scientific observation. I expect more often than not, when someone changes from X to Y expecting an improvement that they hear an improvement. That is called correlation, but is the causation because Y sounds better, or is the causation the psychology of the purchase?  When scientists observe cause and effect, the most critical thing they do is isolate for the variable they are intending to measure.  When Amir talks about listening, he does the same.  That is scientific observation.  In my former field, which you can perhaps guess by reading my posts, scientific observation was king even though you would be inundated on a daily basis with personal observations.