Stereophile's snide editorial on ASR and Amir

[kchap]

Are we over reacting?. I've seen worse things said in print and on a YouTube video. They rely on being subjective to maintain their position in the market and it's not going to change

 

[itz_all_about_the_music]

Are we over reacting?. I've seen worse things said in print and on a YouTube video. They rely on being subjective to maintain their position in the market and it's not going to change

Are we over reacting?

Is the Pope Catholic??

 

[Dial]

Some or Many Steve Hoffman Forums users think ASR is a religious cult as well
"ASR doesn't review equipment with human ears. They use machines."

SHF is pure shit.

 

[itz_all_about_the_music]

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I don't understand why this type of editorial ruffles so many feathers. Did you surely not expect it?

Consider this: the people criticizing the use of science don't use a privy, don't ride a horse to work, don't practice bloodletting with leeches when they get sick, and don't write with quills. IOW, they use modern science in every single facet of their daily lives, while at the same time criticizing the use of science.

It's so obviously ludicrous!

Every example of criticism of science-based sites (this one or any other one) causes inquirers using the web to redouble their efforts at searching for answers. They look at subjectivist sites, and they look at objectivist sites. Eventually, they are going to make a decision. If you really believe that tests and measurements will cut through the b.s. and give them the information and tools that they need to make decisions, then don't worry. Science and logic will prevail.

OTOH, if you believe that people can get "seduced by the Dark Side" of subjectivism, then perhaps you don't really believe in the power of science after all.

Jim

p.s. - Some posters here seem to regard others as their adversary or enemy. Let me make one thing clear: no person is our enemy. Our enemy is the lack of knowledge.

 

[Dial]

Is the Pope Catholic??

I think no.

 

[Ron Texas]

There are a lot of people who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's possible to believe anything.

 

[Tom C]

I think no.

I have at times wondered about that myself.

 

[DMill]

On Stereophile's latest Recommended Components list, the cheapest Amp they have rated " Class A" is the Marantz Model 30. They have 9 other amps that are $10K or more also listed as Class A. So when someone says ASR member don't like to listen to music, I am in complete disbelief. In fact, this site has done more for "average" person to be able to objectively make decisions about quality gear that sounds great so they CAN enjoy listening to music. There is no need to chase windmills anymore and take out a 2nd mortgage so you can afford a pair of Wilson speakers. You can get there with some ELAC dbr62s and decent sub. Now everyone can enjoy listening to great music.

 

[lc6]

Over the last month or so, I have observed a new trend in the various audio equipment review videos on YT: at the beginning, the reviewer says something along the lines of "no measurements in this video; if you came here for measurements, you should leave now." It is a clear indication of what viewers increasingly demand (and say so in the comments to those videos), no doubt thanks to the contributions from ASR, Audioholics, Erin's Audio Corner and similar sites.
A more general trend of all those videos: the reviews are very rarely negative (obviously so that manufacturers send in more equipment and buy more ads). One reviewer tried to explain this by saying that he adds value by screening away the deficient product so as not to waste viewers' time.
Which brings me to the following concept / suggestion for @amirm : since you evaluated so many pieces of equipment by now, try to see if the test results fit a normal (Gaussian) distribution (there are statistical techniques for doing so). This would have multiple benefits: confirming that the tests were properly and uniformly conducted, truly identifying the best performers (i.e. based on standard deviation, rather than eyeball-dividing the set into 4 or so roughly equal tiers), etc.

 

[kokakolia]

I don't understand why this type of editorial ruffles so many feathers. Did you surely not expect it?

Consider this: the people criticizing the use of science don't use a privy, don't ride a horse to work, don't practice bloodletting with leeches when they get sick, and don't write with quills. IOW, they use modern science in every single facet of their daily lives, while at the same time criticizing the use of science.

It's so obviously ludicrous!

Every example of criticism of science-based sites (this one or any other one) causes inquirers using the web to redouble their efforts at searching for answers. They look at subjectivist sites, and they look at objectivist sites. Eventually, they are going to make a decision. If you really believe that tests and measurements will cut through the b.s. and give them the information and tools that they need to make decisions, then don't worry. Science and logic will prevail.

OTOH, if you believe that people can get "seduced by the Dark Side" of subjectivism, then perhaps you don't really believe in the power of science after all.

Jim

This post highlights why people don't like ASR. This is very dogmatic. "The Power of Science" is a sentence devoid of critical thought. You're just trusting someone who sounds smart and not questioning the methodology behind the conclusion. One should have objectives and understand the methods to reach them. Subjectivists do that intuitively through trial and error.

Most subjectivists aren't shilling products for their gain (like journalists). Most subjectivists just make buying decisions based on personal experience (i.e. subjective listening). They don't value objective measurements highly. Heck subjectivists don't value most opinions highly, they seek indicators like "bright"/"forward"/"smooth"/"warm"/"neutral". Subjectivists see the hobby as a personal journey with pitfalls. They figure out what they don't like and go in the opposite direction.

In my experience "objectivists" are the most annoying people online because they try to force their opinions on others and prove that "A is better than B". And if you like
B over A you're judged for being "stupid" or "wrong" by the objectivists. One can only agree with an objectivist or be degraded. The same is true for religious cults.

 

[Newman]

Subjectivists do that intuitively through trial and error.

And they almost never do a valid trial. That’s the end of their process’s relevance to sound waves.

Putting it bluntly, they are conflating sound waves with fantasy, and you defend that?

 

[tomtoo]

This post highlights why people don't like ASR. This is very dogmatic. "The Power of Science" is a sentence devoid of critical thought. You're just trusting someone who sounds smart and not questioning the methodology behind the conclusion. One should have objectives and understand the methods to reach them. Subjectivists do that intuitively through trial and error.

Most subjectivists aren't shilling products for their gain (like journalists). Most subjectivists just make buying decisions based on personal experience (i.e. subjective listening). They don't value objective measurements highly. Heck subjectivists don't value most opinions highly, they seek indicators like "bright"/"forward"/"smooth"/"warm"/"neutral". Subjectivists see the hobby as a personal journey with pitfalls. They figure out what they don't like and go in the opposite direction.

In my experience "objectivists" are the most annoying people online because they try to force their opinions on others and prove that "A is better than B". And if you like
B over A you're judged for being "stupid" or "wrong" by the objectivists. One can only agree with an objectivist or be degraded. The same is true for religious cults.

Thats BS. If someon enjoys his music with 5dB,q2 up at 8khz. Thats absolutly ok for me, his enjoyment. But when he starts too argue, that this is the best way couse he feels so subjectivly, than he has a problem with objectivists.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

This post highlights why people don't like ASR. This is very dogmatic. "The Power of Science" is a sentence devoid of critical thought. You're just trusting someone who sounds smart and not questioning the methodology behind the conclusion. One should have objectives and understand the methods to reach them. Subjectivists do that intuitively through trial and error.

Most subjectivists aren't shilling products for their gain (like journalists). Most subjectivists just make buying decisions based on personal experience (i.e. subjective listening). They don't value objective measurements highly. Heck subjectivists don't value most opinions highly, they seek indicators like "bright"/"forward"/"smooth"/"warm"/"neutral". Subjectivists see the hobby as a personal journey with pitfalls. They figure out what they don't like and go in the opposite direction.

In my experience "objectivists" are the most annoying people online because they try to force their opinions on others and prove that "A is better than B". And if you like
B over A you're judged for being "stupid" or "wrong" by the objectivists. One can only agree with an objectivist or be degraded. The same is true for religious cults.

This post is a perfect example of how severely the principles of science and logic can be misunderstood ..... and misrepresented. Jim

 

[kokakolia]

And they almost never do a valid trial. That’s the end of their process’s relevance to sound waves.

Putting it bluntly, they are conflating sound waves with fantasy, and you defend that?

You sound like a priest! A priest would say that a life isn't worth pursuing without religion.

No trial is invalid. Saying that one trial is more valid than another is dogmatic.

The goal here is personal musical enjoyment.

Some people reach that goal with fantasy, others use "science".

Some people fail that goal with fantasy, others fail that goal with "science".

Building a Hi-Fi system is a personal journey with pitfalls. If you're happy with your system you should be proud. Don't let people convince you otherwise (on both sides of the fence, due to "scientific" dogma or brand snobbery).

 

[Newman]

Don’t be ridiculous. A trial for the purpose of determining the subjective qualities of sound waves, that fails to distinguish sound waves from non-sonic factors, is invalid for its stated purpose.

End of. No priest required. Think, man!

 

[kokakolia]

Thats BS. If someon enjoys his music with 5dB,q2 up at 8khz. Thats absolutly ok for me, his enjoyment. But when he starts too argue, that this is the best way couse he feels so subjectivly, than he has a problem with objectivists.

Not a problem with objectivists necessarily, unless objectivists mock the guy who "enjoys his music with 5dB,q2 up at 8khz". Most subjectivists will just shrug it off and think "I like what I like, you do you".

 

[Gorgonzola]

Thoughts after Munich

I'm writing this column on the long flight back to New York City following High End Munich, the big hi-fi show that in regular times takes place each May. Because these are not regular times, this was the first Munich show since 2019. This show was smaller than other recent Munich shows: COVID...

www.stereophile.com

I am pretty sure this is a direct comment on the ASR community.

Considering where it's coming from, I think Austin's article is quite temperate. I'm sorry if some folks here at ASR are at once, (a) owning the label, "simple-minded objectivists", while at the same time, (b) are offended by it. Too close to the mark maybe?

I rather like the remark Austin attributes to Putzeys, "We don't so much hear distortion levels as distortion mechanisms. You need to understand the mechanism before you can design a test that will quantify it sensibly." I strongly believe in the usefulness of measurement, (though I'm just listener, not an engineer or scientist). But I'm a good enough supporter of the true scientific method to believe the "science" never has all the answers but should be constantly evolving.

I'm not confident the current science has given audio engineering has all the answers (though it's on the way). Much less am I sure that current science has all the answers in case of psycho-acoustics. In short, are we sufficiently measuring all the right device attributes? Is psycho-acoustic testing really driving out what people actual hear in real-world listening? Do we ultimately know which measurements are most useful for determining what listeners most value in SQ.

It's hubristic to assume we have it all right right now. Unhappily the likes of Jim Austin and I come away feeling that this hubris is too common in some circles.

 

[Sokel]

There are people in the hobby who only measure (like me since yesterday who I installed Multitone ) as there are people who listen to the same 10 reference songs all the time,for decades.
Both sad.
It all comes down to acceptance by (any) community,proud of ownership (either measurements or price) and strong intention of defending your view.
Simple really.

 

[Katji]

This post is a perfect example of how severely the principles of science and logic can be misunderstood. Jim

You sound like a priest! A priest would say that a life isn't worth pursuing without religion.

No trial is invalid. Saying that one trial is more valid than another is dogmatic.

The goal here is personal musical enjoyment.

Some people reach that goal with fantasy, others use "science".

Some people fail that goal with fantasy, others fail that goal with "science".

Building a Hi-Fi system is a personal journey with pitfalls. If you're happy with your system you should be proud. Don't let people convince you otherwise (on both sides of the fence, due to "scientific" dogma or brand snobbery).

You obviously have no understanding of religion either.