• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

A Scientific Review of AudioScienceReview

  • Thread starter Deleted member 30699
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
D

Deleted member 30699

Guest
OP clearly knows zip about research reviews and peer-reviewed journals. A review of the "concept"? Huh? And "independent" peer reviewers don't just show up and peer review things at their own behest, as others point out it is based on proven success in the field and invitation. The closest ASR would come would be something like a research institute, center, or lab review where folks come in for a few days and scrutinize it according to the strategic plan and goals of the org and benchmark it against like orgs (competition). I've done all of these and what OP has done is silly and took what 5mins? and with simple factual errors to boot. And there are some seriously accomplished people here in a lot of different fields who continue research activity.
As a peer, I guess this is your review for this thread. Feedback appreciated.
Of course scientific entities are constantly reviewed, sometimes unannounced, you would know that.
I guess it is new for forums. Any pointers on methodology?

..and with simple factual errors to boot.
Kindly point them out.

And there are some seriously accomplished people here in a lot of different fields who continue research activity.
Yes, of course. So?

This is a pretty unique place and is having some influence on others paying attention to measurements and utilizing them.
Precisely and it is a huge resource!
 

LTig

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
3,653
Likes
5,914
Location
Europe
I'd say the peer review done by members of reviews at ASR often is harder than the reviewer expected. Yet in almost all cases he got it right from the start - thinking about the 3 reviews of the Neumann KH80 to find the cause for the dip in the bass the Klippel had revealed, and which finally was proven to be correct due to low temperature. We can all learn a lot about audio following these "member peer reviews". Problematic are just those critics which are not based on science but on subjective opinions or highend audio marketing talk.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,347
Likes
135,472
Location
Seattle Area
True - the room dominates everything else (unless it is a purpose build studio and even then). So what? Give up?
Again, you didn't watch the video. I explain there that it is nonsense to say you need hundreds of Kilohertz of bandwidth so that there is no phase shift in audio band at 20 KHz where any such phase information is completely destroyed by the room. Making ultrawide amplifiers has its own cost in stability and susceptibility to interference.

But sure, if you want to give me phase accuracy and don't screw up other things that are plainly audible (such as with low order crossovers), go ahead. Just don't spin some yarn with phase as justification. And certainly don't do it with, "oh in this contrived tone sequence it matters."
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,347
Likes
135,472
Location
Seattle Area
The following is a review of AudioScienceReview (ASR) as if it were a concept submitted to a journal.
Remember, posting a bunch of opinion about stuff that rub you wrong is not peer review. It is typical complaining that we seen in Amazon reviews for products. Complaining doesn't make anything peer reviewed.

I used to have the good fortune of my team at Microsoft being on the peer review board of IEEE. They did not remotely do what you did here. Their job was not to pass judgement on the results or conclusions of any paper. They simply cared about standard protocols for writing such papers. And that you did not make simple mistakes that anyone with a college degree would know otherwise. You went on to write a bunch of things about this and that being wrong. This is not at all peer review. If you have these views, the right response is that you write your own paper and prove those points. Not couch it this way.
 

GimeDsp

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
409
Likes
341
Location
Earth
Here is my Review of Audio Science Review

1. Reviews are pretty good but pictures of food make me hungry then I enjoy music less until I eat.

2. Videos are pretty good then Amir's house with those amazing windows make me jealous, then I wish I had Revel speakers also and the Jealousy makes me enjoy my music less. I can't enjoy my music again until Amir has at least 5 bad reviews.
 
Last edited:
OP
D

Deleted member 30699

Guest

This is a great figure. I did a quick overlay of the effect of a constant delay would look like (phase = T*f*360, where T is the delay, f is the frequency, and phase is in degree).

Delay is absolute and means that music simply plays later (= irrelevant). Hence you could compensate for it and look at the reminder.
The results stay the same. As the paper says, it is worse to have a 'hacked up' phase and a smooth phase transition is better when necessary (they are in passive speaker design). Now we could discuss why a hacked-up phase response is bad but that probably goes beyond this thread.

Either way, this shows that phase can have an impact albeit small, which is irrelevant to 99% of the people.
However so is a SINAD difference of a DAC between 105dB and 120dB or the difference between a recording that goes through a true high-resolution recording+mastering chain and DC audio.

Also, I used this example because the statement was "phase does not matter" and not "phase does not matter to most people". The latter statement is correct, the former is problematic.


1630976425700.png
 
OP
D

Deleted member 30699

Guest
Remember, posting a bunch of opinion about stuff that rub you wrong is not peer review. It is typical complaining that we seen in Amazon reviews for products. Complaining doesn't make anything peer reviewed.

I used to have the good fortune of my team at Microsoft being on the peer review board of IEEE. They did not remotely do what you did here. Their job was not to pass judgement on the results or conclusions of any paper. They simply cared about standard protocols for writing such papers. And that you did not make simple mistakes that anyone with a college degree would know otherwise. You went on to write a bunch of things about this and that being wrong. This is not at all peer review. If you have these views, the right response is that you write your own paper and prove those points. Not couch it this way.

This was not intended as a insult, quite the opposite actually.
ASR already matters - for users that cannot get some data otherwise but also for companies/engineers - but mostly for PR reasons.
It would be great if it could matter beyond that. Anyhow, your game.

Regarding errors, please feel free to point them out.
 

HiFidFan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
665
Likes
763
Location
U.S.A

Putter

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
365
Likes
535
Location
Albany, NY USA
This was not intended as a insult, quite the opposite actually.
ASR already matters - for users that cannot get some data otherwise but also for companies/engineers - but mostly for PR reasons.
It would be great if it could matter beyond that. Anyhow, your game.

Regarding errors, please feel free to point them out.

While I really hate to continue the thread, you still haven't established your qualifications to conduct a 'peer review'. It's certainly fine to criticize Amir's methods, but you can't hide behind a scientific facade without indicating you have the proper training to do so.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 30699

Guest
Again, you didn't watch the video. I explain there that it is nonsense to say you need hundreds of Kilohertz of bandwidth so that there is no phase shift in audio band at 20 KHz where any such phase information is completely destroyed by the room.
There is a difference between is something can be sensed by humans and whether it matters with the latter being subjective.
As far as I am concerned, it does not matter but it can be sensed.
So in my books, PSaudio is at least trying to do something better. For context, I would still not buy their products, too much audiophilia.

Re room: yes but then we need to stop caring about other things as well, like most DAC reviews.

Making ultrawide amplifiers has its own cost in stability and susceptibility to interference.
Not really. It is more expensive but not a stability issue since todays electronics could easily handle it. Interference at these frequencies would deserve its own discussion.

But sure, if you want to give me phase accuracy and don't screw up other things that are plainly audible (such as with low order crossovers), go ahead. Just don't spin some yarn with phase as justification. And certainly don't do it with, "oh in this contrived tone sequence it matters."
I could not have said it better.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,347
Likes
135,472
Location
Seattle Area
This was not intended as a insult, quite the opposite actually.
ASR already matters - for users that cannot get some data otherwise but also for companies/engineers - but mostly for PR reasons.
It would be great if it could matter beyond that. Anyhow, your game.
I thought this was a "scientific endeavor,' not a game! ;)

Really, to confuse what I do in reviews as scientific work requires huge overreach and no understanding of what scientific process is about. I measure and test equipment. That is precisely what the work is. Measuring and testing.

Regarding errors, please feel free to point them out.
I have already. A ton of them. All I see is your opinion that differs.

Anyway, I hope you understand how inappropriate your spin was in creating this thread. Next time be upfront about your beef, create focused threads or use existing ones for these purposes.
 

GimeDsp

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
409
Likes
341
Location
Earth
While I really hate to continue the thread, you still haven't established your qualifications to conduct a 'peer review'. It's certainly fine to criticize Amir's methods, but you can't hide behind a scientific facade without indicating you have the proper training to do so.
Please recognize the trolling.

Bad Emotiva review......then this thread.....
 

ebslo

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
175
Likes
228
There are a few ways how phase shift can be noticed, it usually involves multitone waveforms that are partially phase shifted (again phase shift and delay/anticipation per frequency is equivalent). These topics are still "differential" as in reference to somewhere in the waveform, which is kind of the point.
That's not "differential", that's just "phase"; it has no meaning without a reference.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 30699

Guest
I thought this was a "scientific endeavor,' not a game! ;)

Really, to confuse what I do in reviews as scientific work requires huge overreach and no understanding of what scientific process is about. I measure and test equipment. That is precisely what the work is. Measuring and testing.
My point is: it could be a scientific endeavor. Even if you wish to limit it to measuring and testing, it could have the weight of a de-facto certification agency... no joke, no game.

I have already. A ton of them. All I see is your opinion that differs.

Anyway, I hope you understand how inappropriate your spin was in creating this thread. Next time be upfront about your beef, create focused threads or use existing ones for these purposes.
Point taken. Feel free to delete this thread.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 30699

Guest
That's not "differential", that's just "phase"; it has no meaning without a reference.
In most measurements, the DAC output is used as the reference phase. Amp/speaker may introduce a phase and/or time delay (there is a linear relation between them).
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,347
Likes
135,472
Location
Seattle Area
My point is: it could be a scientific endeavor.
No it can't. And it isn't. By your notion every company's test/QA groups are performing "scientific" fact where their work is engineering test/verification. If each company provided proper specification, I could pack my bags and go tend to my other hobbies instead of doing this. Since they don't, then I am stuck testing their products to see if they are designed right or not. Nothing is aimed in the testing to discover new science or even research for the same.

We do have other threads where we discuss audio science/engineering but even there, we are not creating such. We are reviewing what is there.

Even if you wish to limit it to measuring and testing, it could have the weight of a de-facto certification agency... no joke, no game.
This comment is even worse. Certification? Noting in my bones or charter represents such a goal. My job is to get broad coverage of thousands of audio products so that if you want to buy something, you are not doing it blind. I have honed in on a set of measurements and evaluations that do this. You think there is a vacuum in certifying audio products for free, go do it. Don't elevate my work to what it is not, and then complain with poor reasoning what is wrong with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom