Is ASR for real, or is it only for those sub $1k or even sub $2K?

As a scientist and engineer I think ASR is a welcome addition to the hobby and industry. First, it provides depth in comparison to the surface-grade preferences and coded adjectives that are the stock for subjective discussions and reviews. Second, it is important to have a comprehensive debunking forum that shows nonsense and snake oil through tests and an interrogation of the underlying arguments that justify things like power cords, conditioners, and expensive interconnects. Finally, there are deep discussions of core matters related to audibility and preferences (very much science) as illustrated by the recent discussion of preference curves for headphones arising from a Sean Olive AES paper. Many of the participants are designers, engineers, and scientists themselves so there is an inevitable depth to the discussions and reviews.

I encourage more people to use ASR as a resource to learn more about how systems are engineered, tuned, and the underlying science that backs up those methods!

Computer nerds with delusions of grandeur. Fancy themselves as having doctoratesin physiology. With no knowledge of "you don't know what you don't know." 

I don't post much - I usually lurk, but I do want say something about ASR and its members.

ASR does have some value - for many pieces of equipment, it is the only site where you can actually find objective measurements and analysis (as far as measurements).  Because most of the equipment is member submissions, you get a peak at how some of the gear from less "main stream" (as far as "high end" companies go), and sometime  they find a diamond in a pile of coal.

That being said, my problem is with BOTH Amir and the member's attitudes and hypocrisy.

They complain that "audiophiles" aren't hearing what they're hearing because of bias and expectations, yet refuse to face the fact that expectation bias swings both ways - ie. if one doesn't expect or believe to hear a difference, many times, one won't.  "Hearing" happens in the brain - not the ears.  The ears have to pick up the signal, but the brain has to analyze that signal.  If the brain has "filters" on, the analysis just doesn't happen.  How much happens in the brain can be demonstrated by another sense - sight.  All one has to do is examine why different people saw a white dress with gold trim and some saw a blue dress with black trim.  In either case, everyone's eyes was seeing the same thing, picking up the same signal - but people's brains analyzed the signal differently.

The hypocrisy of the members (including Amir) come from two angles.  For the ones with hyper-expensive systems, why?  It shouldn't sound any better than a good $1,000 system, so why are they buying such equipment.  For the ones that buy the cheaper stuff with great specs, why?  According to their ethos, audible improvement ceased many years ago, if not a decade ago, yet, every time the next greatest spec'd piece comes out, they clamor for it.

I don't think any of these complaints really work. If there is nothing present in the signal that might be the basis for a claimed experience, then the claimed experience is either random or driven by extra-stimuli factors (order effects, frequency effects, time-of-day, fatigue, intoxication, what-have-you). It's not some kind of inverted bias to simply say that it is unlikely there are auditory differences when measurements support that claim.

As for hypocrisy about audibility, some folks admit that but like exceptional engineering even knowing the gear all likely sounds the same. I can make a moral case against unnecessary spending but it would lead to a fairly sterile life.

Ultimately, though, these complaints are flawed generalizations. Many of the readers of ASR are engineers and designers who are just exercising their intellect and buy little or nothing on the big board.

Let me draw an analogy. I went from physics to running an organisation. My natural inclination was to try to quantify everything like an accountant. This approach is powerful. Yet, I soon realised it is only half the story. The soft side is just as important as the hard numbers. 

Counting is the easy bit. It gives the anally retentive a false sense of security. There is no point in nailing down details that are not relevant to the desired outcome. Measuring what is important is usually much harder if not impossible. 

I don’t deny the value of accountants. But I wouldn’t want them running the show, unless they are prepared to step outside the narrow confines of their original discipline. 

The key point here is giving more credence to quantitative data and ignoring qualitative data is short sighted and potentially disastrous. We tend to do that because it's superficially easier.