Amir of ASR admitted 1 cable sounded better than the other. NOT CLICKBAIT


There is a recent thread inquiring about the Puritan PSM156, and someone lead to another product the Niagara 1200. Long story short. I come across a review of Amir admitting the "Generic" cable sound better than the Audioquest chain. 

If 1 cable can sound better than another, and Amir has admitted to it. Is there really anything left to discuss except that we have been right all along? 

 

Proof: Go to the "Listening Test" of the review.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audioquest-niagara-1200-review-power-conditioner-surge-protector.25443/

samureyex

Not sure why anyone, other than ASR groupies, care what Amir thinks.  He is not an audiophile.  He simply tests the electronics performance and then conjectures about what should sound better.  Being an audiophile is about listening to your components and configurations.  I am an an electrical engineer.  We develope some of the finest and most sophisticated electronics in the world.  By specs it should sound amazing,   I must say, when it blows up, it sound pretty darn good:-)

@jaulbrich 

Exactly. This hobby is first, foremost and always about enjoyment of music. There's zero joy in ASR and the bitter cranks that infest that site. While they wallow in statistics, we're loving art.

SO eff'ing what. I really couldn't care less what amir or what anyone thinks. My Ears my Cash.

I love a well engineered piece of equipment...and knowing it's well engineered (including how it measures) undoubtedly influences how it sounds to me - my overall listening experience is my ultimate arbiter of the worth of a component (as I hope yours is for you).
If, on the other hand, someone LOVES the look of glowing tubes, despite any sonic distortions they may introduce, their listening will in similar fashion be influenced positively by that visual variable and the delight it provides them.
The neuroSCIENCE of it - neuro-aesthetics - currently indicates that how we hear and enjoy sound is influenced by visual and cognitive predispositions. All the discrete neural circuits serving one sense modality have both excitatory and inhibitory connections to the circuits of the all the other modalities.
What's interesting to me is why one person weighs the engineering/measurements more heavily than say the visual or haptic aesthetics of a piece...this is clearly a subjective preference, and so while an objectivist, I must admit and allow the subjectivity of which my love of objectivity is framed. Many in ASR are incapable of this meta- kind of view, of understanding that their devoted adherence to measurements are determined by their subjective brains. Which, alas, is not very scientific. 

@phillyb You made a lot of great points and I agree with the majority of them. However, your biggest point that highlighted in bold, sounds great on paper but problematic in practicality. 

"The best sound investment is in your room acoustics and making your room audio-only with a proper speaker setup. "

What's wrong with this?

1) Well, most of us can only modify a room to a certain degree, usually a rug, some wall treatments here and there. We cannot go full-on audio treatment mode in a room for many reasons. 

2) Even having a lot of treatments is problematic in itself, it is something not easily gotten right. 

3) It suggests that we should focus mainly on the room and mostly negate other aspects. Head-fi is primarily headphones, no room treatments, and they still care significantly about their cables. It's true. 

 

Btw, if anyone can teach me how to properly quote a post, that would be highly appreciated.