Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[BDWoody]

in my opinion, and it is just that, science can only go so far.

What is your background in science? If you are opining on the limits of science you must be pushing up against them.

Or, do you mean the science that you understand can only go so far? I'll buy that one.

 

[Ranster]

in my opinion, and it is just that, science can only go so far. There needs to be room for subjective evaluation as well. Science cannot explain everything. There has been equipment reviewed on this very site that was never listened to outside of what could be heard on the workbench. There have been speakers reviewed with just one speaker instead of the stereo pair, or not set up to the manufacturer‘s suggestions, simply because the measurements taken did not look good on a scope.

Audio gear is not designed or made to be listened to on a test bench. The acoustics of the room, everything from the floors to the ceiling, the shape of the room, and everything within that space all play a part in what we hear. This is why millions of dollars are spent designing concert halls for their acoustic environment. Just like the instruments our audio systems are trying to reproduce, so to our gear reads the room and responds accordingly. How can this be measured on a workbench?

I have purchased gear based on specs alone, and much of that gear was returned because within my listening space, it sounded like crap. Other times, the built quality was very poor, regardless of the price point. I know this site worships at the altar of the scientific measurement, but science alone does not and cannot explain all about what and how we hear what we do. According to many on this forum, based on science alone, my system should sound like complete shit, but the facts are just the opposite of that. My stereo rig consists of a pair of home-built Carver Ravens, Simaudio Moon 680d DAC, McIntosh C2300 preamp, Oppo UDP-203 universal player and top range Audioquest cables, including WEL interconnects and Diamond USB cables, feeding a pair of Polk Audio Legend L800’s.This setup started off with some of the components that came highly recommended on this site, but in my home and to what matters most, my ears, they failed to engage me with music in the manner the artists and performers intended. Measurements alone tend to suck the soul out of the sound. Each of the components in my rig delivers a piece of that, and combined as a whole, the illusion of a solo performance just for you is delivered every time I sit down to listen.

I have observed some talk on this forum that ASR may become the target of a lawsuit or two… I do know that at the most recent audio meet, ASR was the talk of the show among vendors and the many companies who’s gear that were at the event. I sense that some form of suit is coming. An example reason as to why would be that a certain piece of gear that receives accolades from around the world for whatever reason comes to these pages for a review, where it is summarily trashed, with testing methods that are not in any way used by the makers of said product. It goes on to be proclaimed a “headless panther”(how mature does that sound anyway). Over time the sales of that product are severely affected, dwindling to a halt. Many big companies can take a fail or two, but others are not built that way, and such damage can actually harm the business.

ASR is likely the primary reason the Bob Carver Company was forced to close their doors. The damage done to the company and to Bob‘s reputation by this site is nothing short of astonishing. Carver is not the only company harmed by the manner in which ASR conducts their reviews. I will not name any other brands that have been harmed, but there are perhaps a dozen or so looking to work together to stop what happens here. Cease and desist letters are being drawn up. Some are looking to bring slander suits, and other looking at other avenues to peruse on their own.

I like the community here and believe there is a benefit ASR and its continued existence, however, I strongly suggest that reviewing of equipment change in such a way as to allow a manufacturer to see pre-published results and address them in some manner before publication. With regards to Carver and the ubiquitous 275 fiasco, a simple phone call or two would have revealed that the new ownership was acutely aware there was an issue, that it was being addressed, and that the procedures used to test the amp were not correct to start with. While it would not have improved the results much, it would have tested a bit better, and ASR would have been informed that the fix was coming and the company actually cared about doing better going forward. This could have been highlighted within the review and much of the vitriol that followed could have been mitigated. Such a step would eliminate the potential for possible consequences that can result from a legal perspective, and in this case, could have possibly created enough good will between Carver and ASR that the company could have survived.

Another point… it is one thing to discuss a poorly reviewed piece of equipment, and entirety something else to go on a campaign of character assassination. Rules should be put in place to confine discourse to the specific piece of gear, and not pass judgments on the character of the man that built it, or the company itself. To do so is BEGGING to be sued. Remember guys, this is only a hobby. It is not something for which there is only one right way of doing things. Even brain surgeons are more flexible in their views than this place tends to be. Can we all just lighten up and enjoy the music, while helping each other, scientifically and objectively?

Agreed: and put beautifully. Thank you.

 

[Ken1951]

Just a few more new visitors trying to get their "I was banned from ASR" badges I guess...

 

[Ranster]

CERN (and science in general) are examples of precision ... precision in thinking and precision engineering. Precision engineering is based on science. It's not based on opinion and not based on emotion.

Audio is also based on science. The recording process, refined over decades by scientists and engineers, gives us recordings. Those recordings can be played back on well-engineered equipment, based on known scientific principles, and we can hear a fairly accurate re-creation of the original performance.

So yes, science has everything to do with audio, and audio depends on science.

The emotion comes into play with the LISTENING.

Jim

In my opinion what some call clowns and uneducated May very well be very unsociable and just downright rude and hurtful and yet unable to see it. The perfection of science has changed. What was it? The geometry was less understood in the 1966 mustang and when they came out with a new mustang with the retro looks they admitted that they changed the geometry because it wasn’t fully understood at the time as it was/is now with all the super computers of today. A mind that perceives itself to be superior has only to look that what they ate this morning still comes out as poop tonight. If science was perfect that would no longer be the case. I know ill probably get reported for this also but educated people on supposedly living on a plane of existence we mere mortals can’t fathom are more of a clown than the rest of us. And I’m not but hurt About any reviews. I don’t own carver stuff any longer.
Don’t get me Wrong I believe in all the science we have available today. Although I don’t live in an anechoic chamber I still want the equipment I buy to do what it says it will do. So I get it. I’m so dumb I can’t even spell anechoic. And if the only purpose of this site is science why are we selling stuff? Just asking. Surely this is open to…..well openness.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Just a few more new visitors trying to get their "I was banned from ASR" badges I guess...

Yup. Reminds me of Frick and Frack.

Jim

 

[Ranster]

Can human character be measured with an instrument? Yet there it is. Why such closed minds?

 

[BDWoody]

Can human character be measured with an instrument? Yet there it is. Why such closed minds?

Ummm... What?

I think it's break time.

Evidence is what is required to get through to this stubborn lot. A bunch of very earnest words won't do it.

 

[voodooless]

Why such closed minds?

or

 

[Jim Taylor]

In my opinion what some call clowns and uneducated May very well be very unsociable and just downright rude and hurtful and yet unable to see it. The perfection of science has changed. What was it? The geometry was less understood in the 1966 mustang and when they came out with a new mustang with the retro looks they admitted that they changed the geometry because it wasn’t fully understood at the time as it was/is now with all the super computers of today. A mind that perceives itself to be superior has only to look that what they ate this morning still comes out as poop tonight. If science was perfect that would no longer be the case. I know ill probably get reported for this also but educated people on supposedly living on a plane of existence we mere mortals can’t fathom are more of a clown than the rest of us. And I’m not but hurt About any reviews. I don’t own carver stuff any longer.
Don’t get me Wrong I believe in all the science we have available today. Although I don’t live in an anechoic chamber I still want the equipment I buy to do what it says it will do. So I get it. I’m so dumb I can’t even spell anechoic. And if the only purpose of this site is science why are we selling stuff? Just asking. Surely this is open to…..well openness.

A few pieces of advice:

1) Order your thoughts in a logical manner before you post.
2) Learn to use paragraphs.
3) Proofread.

You seem to regard science as your enemy. It's not. Science is not a static statement, it's an ongoing struggle to understand the universe around us. As I pointed out before, you enjoy the benefits of science and logic everyday, in all the conveniences around you. For you to downplay science because it doesn't conform to your idea of "perfect" is biting the hand that feeds you. Are you willing to abandon all the devices and processes around you, in the medical field, the feats of engineering, the host of electronic conveniences, so that you can trumpet the imperfections of "science"?

I doubt it.

You can't have it both ways. Join us in the efforts to advance the understanding and accomplishments of the human race, and let go of the doubt and negativity. Don't drag scientists through the mud who dedicated their lives (for centuries) to make our life better. They don't deserve to be regarded as fools.

Jim

 

[john2017]

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.



This is the very essence of subjectivism. It's as if you said, "I'm going to build an interplanetary rocket. I'll let measurements be a guide of sorts, but let my eyes decide the rest."

Really? I mean ... really?

Jim

interplanetary rockets…. Take a look at at impressive list of failures SpaceX has had building just that. Boeing has also lost its way building new 737’s, an aircraft they have been building for DECADES now. The fact is that science and engineering can take you so far. Human beings are not perfect, nor are the machines the build.

The very reason subjective evaluation matters in our hobby is this… none of us agrees on what makes great sound. We can all agree that we are striving to find it. As I have said before, numbers take you very close, but not all the way. Sometimes two different pieces of gear with great specs sound like crap when paired together, yet sound terrific when paired with something else. What explains this?

I want my music to be as engaging as a live performance. I have achieved this by following the science to gear that might work for that goal, then listened with my ears. Many times, the numbers did not play well together, but that is part of a journey that got me to where I am, and I am grateful for it. On that path I have met some fantastic people, made great friends, and had a good time. That is what life is all about.

 

[john2017]

What is your background in science? If you are opining on the limits of science you must be pushing up against them.

Or, do you mean the science that you understand can only go so far? I'll buy that one.

No training in science as it were, but I do have a pretty good understanding of a couple areas. One of those is in the discipline of flight and aviation. I spent 6 years of my life with F4 Phantoms and F/A-18 Hornets. I have seen massive fails and awesome successes. I was talking about vectored thrust as a means of controlling an aircraft in flight ten years before it began to be developed, and called stupid for even thinking about it by some of the very engineers that made it happen. I knew the Space Shuttle Challenger was going to catastrophically explode two weeks prior to launch, and also knew the cause of failure at that time. Human arrogance and error can be so predictable.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Human arrogance and error can be so predictable.

It's possible that some people view your posts here in the same light.

As for not agreeing on what makes the best sound ... men can't agree on what sort of woman is the most beautiful, either. Yet each generation somehow manages to reproduce. Sometimes we simply can't see the forest for the trees.

Jim

 

[ahofer]

in my opinion, and it is just that, science can only go so far. There needs to be room for subjective evaluation as well. Science cannot explain everything. There has been equipment reviewed on this very site that was never listened to outside of what could be heard on the workbench. There have been speakers reviewed with just one speaker instead of the stereo pair, or not set up to the manufacturer‘s suggestions, simply because the measurements taken did not look good on a scope.

Audio gear is not designed or made to be listened to on a test bench. The acoustics of the room, everything from the floors to the ceiling, the shape of the room, and everything within that space all play a part in what we hear. This is why millions of dollars are spent designing concert halls for their acoustic environment. Just like the instruments our audio systems are trying to reproduce, so to our gear reads the room and responds accordingly. How can this be measured on a workbench?

I have purchased gear based on specs alone, and much of that gear was returned because within my listening space, it sounded like crap. Other times, the built quality was very poor, regardless of the price point. I know this site worships at the altar of the scientific measurement, but science alone does not and cannot explain all about what and how we hear what we do. According to many on this forum, based on science alone, my system should sound like complete shit, but the facts are just the opposite of that. My stereo rig consists of a pair of home-built Carver Ravens, Simaudio Moon 680d DAC, McIntosh C2300 preamp, Oppo UDP-203 universal player and top range Audioquest cables, including WEL interconnects and Diamond USB cables, feeding a pair of Polk Audio Legend L800’s.This setup started off with some of the components that came highly recommended on this site, but in my home and to what matters most, my ears, they failed to engage me with music in the manner the artists and performers intended. Measurements alone tend to suck the soul out of the sound. Each of the components in my rig delivers a piece of that, and combined as a whole, the illusion of a solo performance just for you is delivered every time I sit down to listen.

I have observed some talk on this forum that ASR may become the target of a lawsuit or two… I do know that at the most recent audio meet, ASR was the talk of the show among vendors and the many companies who’s gear that were at the event. I sense that some form of suit is coming. An example reason as to why would be that a certain piece of gear that receives accolades from around the world for whatever reason comes to these pages for a review, where it is summarily trashed, with testing methods that are not in any way used by the makers of said product. It goes on to be proclaimed a “headless panther”(how mature does that sound anyway). Over time the sales of that product are severely affected, dwindling to a halt. Many big companies can take a fail or two, but others are not built that way, and such damage can actually harm the business.

ASR is likely the primary reason the Bob Carver Company was forced to close their doors. The damage done to the company and to Bob‘s reputation by this site is nothing short of astonishing. Carver is not the only company harmed by the manner in which ASR conducts their reviews. I will not name any other brands that have been harmed, but there are perhaps a dozen or so looking to work together to stop what happens here. Cease and desist letters are being drawn up. Some are looking to bring slander suits, and other looking at other avenues to peruse on their own.

I like the community here and believe there is a benefit ASR and its continued existence, however, I strongly suggest that reviewing of equipment change in such a way as to allow a manufacturer to see pre-published results and address them in some manner before publication. With regards to Carver and the ubiquitous 275 fiasco, a simple phone call or two would have revealed that the new ownership was acutely aware there was an issue, that it was being addressed, and that the procedures used to test the amp were not correct to start with. While it would not have improved the results much, it would have tested a bit better, and ASR would have been informed that the fix was coming and the company actually cared about doing better going forward. This could have been highlighted within the review and much of the vitriol that followed could have been mitigated. Such a step would eliminate the potential for possible consequences that can result from a legal perspective, and in this case, could have possibly created enough good will between Carver and ASR that the company could have survived.

Another point… it is one thing to discuss a poorly reviewed piece of equipment, and entirety something else to go on a campaign of character assassination. Rules should be put in place to confine discourse to the specific piece of gear, and not pass judgments on the character of the man that built it, or the company itself. To do so is BEGGING to be sued. Remember guys, this is only a hobby. It is not something for which there is only one right way of doing things. Even brain surgeons are more flexible in their views than this place tends to be. Can we all just lighten up and enjoy the music, while helping each other, scientifically and objectively?

Goodness, you really haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about. The business about lawsuits is just dishonest. Direct to ignore for you.

 

[NTK]

No training in science as it were, but I do have a pretty good understanding of a couple areas. One of those is in the discipline of flight and aviation. I spent 6 years of my life with F4 Phantoms and F/A-18 Hornets. I have seen massive fails and awesome successes. I was talking about vectored thrust as a means of controlling an aircraft in flight ten years before it began to be developed, and that Challenger was going to catastrophically explode two weeks prior to launch, and also knew the cause of failure at that time. Human arrogance and error can be so predictable.

You definitely have demonstrated your lack of training in science and engineering. Do you know the technology required for thrust vectoring? Coming up with a vectoring variable geometry exhaust nozzle that can withstand the heat and stress from full afterburning and function reliably is such a piece of cake

 

[Blumlein 88]

No training in science as it were, but I do have a pretty good understanding of a couple areas. One of those is in the discipline of flight and aviation. I spent 6 years of my life with F4 Phantoms and F/A-18 Hornets. I have seen massive fails and awesome successes. I was talking about vectored thrust as a means of controlling an aircraft in flight ten years before it began to be developed, and called stupid for even thinking about it by some of the very engineers that made it happen. I knew the Space Shuttle Challenger was going to catastrophically explode two weeks prior to launch, and also knew the cause of failure at that time. Human arrogance and error can be so predictable.

What a bunch of hooey (scientific term). Thrust vectoring was considered before you were in an aircraft. As for the Space Shuttle, you could know 2 weeks prior that low temps combined with the o-ring material would be the reason for the explosion? Pretty darn impressive considering weather forecasting couldn't have reliably predicted temps for the flight that early back then or now. I too have witnessed massive fails in engineering. You know what? Everyone of them was because of a poor decision by the engineer, or by the user of the device(s) not by a problem with the science under-pinning the designs. Just like in the Space Shuttle explosion.

 

[john2017]

You definitely have demonstrated your lack of training in science and engineering. Do you know the technology required for thrust vectoring? Coming up with a vectoring variable geometry exhaust nozzle that can withstand the heat and stress from full afterburning and function reliably is such a piece of cake

What does an afterburner have to do with it? Vectoring thrust can be done on engines without AB modules. Reverse thrusters are a different tech, but similar in principle and have been around a very long time. I think they call it augmented control on the stealth jets, but it is utilized in the F22 Raptor and F35 to great effect.

 

[voodooless]

You know what? Everyone of them was because of a poor decision by the engineer, or by the user of the device(s) not by a problem with the science under-pinning the designs. Just like in the Space Shuttle explosion.

Oh come on, even a monkey on an eternal typewriter could come up with a better design… eventually. No science needed

 

[ahofer]

As for the Space Shuttle, you could know 2 weeks prior that low temps combined with the o-ring material would be the reason for the explosion? Pretty darn impressive considering weather forecasting couldn't have reliably predicted temps for the flight that early back then or now.

As an aside, ever see Professor Tufte's comments on Challenger? He blames it partly on poor data visualization and bullet/text slides.

https://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-challenger-1997.pdf

Edward Tufte forum: PowerPoint Does Rocket Science--and Better Techniques for Technical Reports

 

[DonR]

I, once again, thank the mods for this thread. "Got to keep the loonies on the path"

 

[john2017]

What a bunch of hooey (scientific term). Thrust vectoring was considered before you were in an aircraft. As for the Space Shuttle, you could know 2 weeks prior that low temps combined with the o-ring material would be the reason for the explosion? Pretty darn impressive considering weather forecasting couldn't have reliably predicted temps for the flight that early back then or now. I too have witnessed massive fails in engineering. You know what? Everyone of them was because of a poor decision by the engineer, or by the user of the device(s) not by a problem with the science under-pinning the designs. Just like in the Space Shuttle explosion.

The launch of Challenger had already been delayed a couple times in January for extreme cold, and a couple technical issues. Two weeks out, it was subjected to temps that were even colder out on the pad. I was in boot camp at the time and told some platoon-mates that the shuttle would explode if they tried to launch in such weather due to parts of the SRB’s not being able to withstand freezing temperatures.

The only TV I saw in boot camp came when our SDI wheeled one out so we could watch it explode repeatedly and hear Reagan’s speech later that day. I spend what seemed like hours in ’the pit” because those recruits had to shout out about me knowing two weeks earlier.