The forum provides information about products. We know generally what is technically state of the art for amps and dacs at the moment. You can compare performance and value of other products against that reference. What differentiates this forum is that it doesn't get involved with the totally unreliable subjective only views on product performance proclaiming big differences that just don't exist. It does show that many components technical performance is so similar that differences in sound will be difficult or impossible to detect.
This is true, but there is some irony involved with the reviews of this site, as they can have a tendency to have their own biasing influence on peoples perception of equipment. I've seen people obsessing in here about small differences in performance in converters that I am certain are not distinguishable in listening tests. This is an inversion of the traditional idea behind "objective evaluation" of audio gear.
The origins of the "subjectivist vs objectivist" debate are the result of claims by subjectivists that some, usually very expensive, piece of audio gear sounds amazing and much better than the cheaper competition. Even when measurements show their is not a significant difference, the "golden ears" audiophile will claim that there are aspects of sound reproduction (the electrical versions of the signal) that cannot be measured!
I've been humbled many times in audio, so I am wary of absolutes, but I am confident that this is nonsense.
In addition to the measurements, careful AB or ABX testing has proved that "Golden Ears" cannot distinguish the gear they showered with superlatives in sighted listening. (This then leads to the argument that the kind of sonic differences they are perceiving are not well detectable in AB/ABX type testing. This is a weird claim.)
Amazingly, this argument still rages.
The traditional objectivist view is that anything perceptible in audio reproduction is measurable. A practical corollary is that once a piece of gear reaches a certain level of performance, no audible improvements can be made. This means the consumer can shop with confidence, for an amp lets say, based on criteria like: power, price, visual appearance, features, ergonomic aspects, warranty, reputation and the like, as long as the amp is from a reputable company and performance hits a certain objective point.
On ASR the speaker reviews are in a different category than the measurements of electrical performance. The research these tests are based on are grounded in subjective preference testing of speakers. Without this foundation, the measurements have little value. It is not axiomatic that accurate reproduction of sound is always the best.
This holds because speakers are easily distinguished, even in blind tests.
The reviews of other gear on ASR have no corresponding foundation in careful evaluation in listening tests.
I think most people here would agree that the audible performance of gear that measures differently is often not perceivable in listening tests.
This puts the drive for the "best performing" amp into a weird category. It reminds me of the drive to own a fast sports car, even though the driver never has the opportunity to test the limits.
I find this to be strange, but I appreciate the impulse to find the absolute best performance.
One thing it does allow the listener is, at the least, rule out that particular piece of equipment if they are unsatisfied with the sound they are experiencing with their system.
A fascinating test would be to see at what point on the ASR master DAC list an audible difference could be detected in a reasonably well done listening test. Presumably some of the worst performing converters would be noticeable, but my guess is that it would get pretty hard even down in the 3rd section of "mediocre" devices, like the phone dongles.
, but the tables give us relevant information.
. Having detectable differences doesn't necessarily mean a difference is significant. We need to put this into context.