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

@markwd 

They are using cod psychology to rubbish the experiences of others, which are just as valid as their narrow numbers obsessed world view.

@newton_john +1

I'm a retired scientist(polymer chemist) and large-data analyst. I spent my career  creating and/or analyzing data to yield multivariate models that would adequately describe real world observations.  I've visited ASR only for an amount of time to figure out what they are doing.  

I don't want to live in that world, never have. 

markwd

... If there is nothing present in the signal that might be the basis for a claimed experience, then the claimed experience is ...

You reveal your bias by characterizing the experience of others as a "claimed experience." You're discounting the evidence before you've examined it.

It's not some kind of inverted bias to simply say that it is unlikely there are auditory differences when measurements support that claim.

No, it's not "inverted bias" - it's absolute bias pure and simple. Direct experience is a key part of the scientific method, yet you dismiss the empirical evidence as merely a "claim" because it doesn't dovetail with your belief system. So you're a measurementalist, not a scientist.

@cleeds 

Not at all!

There is no bias in describing someone’s claims as exactly that, claims, other than a bias towards clarity in description. Nothing has been discounted.

Of course direct experience is part of science that is examined with lenses like measurement. In audio science, for instance, preference curves for headphones were developed by asking people what they prefer (their claims about quality).

See, this is why ASR is so valuable. It provides depth that helps overcome these broad generalizations and false dichotomies!