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?
