The Audio Science Review Manifesto???

[Ceburaska]

Alternatively, my pithy manifesto would read
This is a site about measuring audio equipment. So don’t ask “yes, but how does it sound”, because there are many much better funded sites that can give you a subjective, never to be repeated, answer to that question. Understand that here is a site that can answer the question “what are the measurements, and do they match those presented by the manufacturer (if any)?”. If you’re not interested in answering that question, then so long and farewell!

 

[VintageFlanker]

In the comments for the first Ciúnas Audio ISO DAC semi-review, @AndrovichIV and @LTig suggested having a FAQ or introduction to address common anti-measurement sentiments that people bring up. Since I am a professional technical writer and quite a fan of ASR, I thought I would try my hand at it. I came up with the following first draft, which can of course be expanded or revised ad nauseum.

Note that I have included this in spoiler tags to make it entirely clear that it does not officially represent Audio Science Review in any way.

Spoiler: Read it!

Hello! Welcome to Audio Science Review. This site is intended as a place to discuss audio under the umbrella of scientific rigour through measurement of equipment. As an introduction for new users, we have created this outline to help you understand the philosophy at the heart of the ASR community. If it does not align with your views, that is entirely fair; you are free to challenge it. Just know that the principles outlined here are precisely what set ASR apart from many other audio websites. Arguments against judging audio equipment by measurement have been advanced for a century, and more than ever in the last few decades. In general, users come here because they have grown weary of this debate.

The basic philosophy of ASR is as follows:

• High quality consumer audio equipment must have high fidelity. Once a recording is published, the transmission medium (radio waves, record grooves, digital files) and devices it passes through (DACs, amplifiers, cables, speakers) should change it as little as possible so that you can hear what the artist intended. If a device does not change the sound passing through it (except the change it is supposed to make, such as amplification), the device is called audibly transparent.
• Because audio passes through several devices before getting to your ears, inaudible effects can compound into something audible. For this reason, it is best to have equipment that is better than audibly transparent.
• The only way to determine if audio equipment is audibly transparent is to take measurements. You must do this using equipment with better characteristics than the equipment you are trying to measure. With modern devices of passable quality, the human auditory system rarely qualifies.
• Because people change across listening sessions, and even moment to moment, they are unreliable in identifying subtle differences in audio equipment.
• If you know what equipment is being used in a listening test, your brain will fill in what you expect to hear. If you don’t know what is being used, your brain will just guess. If somebody tells you that an expensive device sounds better than a cheap one, the person probably really did hear an improvement in quality. Put both devices behind a curtain however, and the story might be very different. Because of this, repeated double-blinded tests are the only human experiments that matter (unless the difference reported is truly obvious, such as blatant distortion).

The above does not take into account personal taste. You buy audio equipment so you can enjoy music, movies, etcetera; not to get pretty graphs on an audio analyzer. In your personal audio chain, some coloration of sound might be desirable. For example, you might prefer to boost the bass, or the mids. You might even enjoy introducing distortion that the artists did not intend. If you want a sound system that is not audibly transparent, it is far better to color your audio using EQ or effects that you control than to buy components with coloration permanently baked into their design. Then you can adjust or defeat the coloration based on the needs of a specific recording, or changes in your tastes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this document. We hope that it has been edifying.

I welcome any and all feedback (including "this is a bad idea, why did you bring this up").

Big fan.

The number of members increasing over and over, many people seem to have no idea where they just landed.

 

[MediumRare]

Alternatively, my pithy manifesto would read
This is a site about measuring audio equipment. So don’t ask “yes, but how does it sound”, because there are many much better funded sites that can give you a subjective, never to be repeated, answer to that question. Understand that here is a site that can answer the question “what are the measurements, and do they match those presented by the manufacturer (if any)?”. If you’re not interested in answering that question, then so long and farewell!

With all respect, I think ASR is ALL ABOUT how equipment sounds. The listening is the only reason most of us are interested in audio.

The key is that ASR differentiates between A) measurements that actually affect sounds, and on the other hand, B) perceived differences from unscientific efforts at listening that may or may not detect differences that don't actually exist when measured.

 

[Thomas savage]

The only thing that distinguishes this place from some others places is a ambition to relate shared knowns and debate with valued reasoning and recognised empirical data. We don't require everyone to think the same or hold the same opinions on audio. That would be dull.

Rather than non communicable subjective impressions that ultimately are entirely self indulgent and self serving .

Some value the approach, some don't.

 

[RickSanchez]

In my view, a true FAQ for addressing all of the possible arguments lodged against measurement-driven audio is a second step, more like what Hipper is saying. I will look at distilling what is there further, but I am concerned that reducing too much will lead to something that comes across as dogmatic rather than methodical.

I like the idea of a two-part approach:
1) A brief "manifesto" or statement of core principles of the ASR site. (Which is the draft you've put together.)
2) A more extensive FAQ that addresses frequent comments seen on the sight. The list from @BDWoody is a good place to start. I'd also add "My wife/girlfriend was in the other room and even she could hear a difference ..."

Overall, great idea and thanks for putting the effort into this.

 

[oldsysop]

Q/A.

-Is MQA good?
-Only if your name is Amir.

 

[nintendoeats]

I have read through all of your comments. I will look at constructing a FAQ companion (submissions of common bad arguments are welcome).

I see the preservation of artist intent as being very important. If the reader asks "why do I care about audible transparency", the response "because it's just better" doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. That said, this doesn't seem to be a universal feeling so I am prepared to rework those sentences.

 

[LTig]

In the comments for the first Ciúnas Audio ISO DAC semi-review, @AndrovichIV and @LTig suggested having a FAQ or introduction to address common anti-measurement sentiments that people bring up. Since I am a professional technical writer and quite a fan of ASR, I thought I would try my hand at it. I came up with the following first draft, which can of course be expanded or revised ad nauseum.

Great idea, and nicely written, as far as I can tell - not being a native english speaker.

• High quality consumer audio equipment must have high fidelity. Once a recording is published, the transmission medium (radio waves, record grooves, digital files) and devices it passes through (DACs, amplifiers, cables, speakers) should change it as little as possible so that you can hear what the artist intended. If a device does not change the sound passing through it (except the change it is supposed to make, such as amplification), the device is called audibly transparent.

I struggle a bit with audibly transparent. A device which does not change the sound (at all) is transparent. It's just that such devices don't exist, they all change the sound a bit. For me audibly transparent means that the changes are below the limits of the human hearing sense.

• The only way to determine if audio equipment is audibly transparent is to take measurements. You must do this using equipment with better characteristics than the equipment you are trying to measure. With modern devices of passable quality, the human auditory system rarely qualifies.

To determine if a unit is audibly transparent could also be done by DBTs. It's just much more time consuming because it had to be done with many people to find the golden ears which determine the limits of the human hearing sense.

I think it should be made more clear that the limits of the human hearing sense are very well known, and only based on those limits can we rely on measurements and determine audible transparency.

 

[nintendoeats]

I struggle a bit with audibly transparent. A device which does not change the sound (at all) is transparent. It's just that such devices don't exist, they all change the sound a bit. For me audibly transparent means that the changes are below the limits of the human hearing sense.

Yes, that detail got lost somewhere. It shall be resolved.

To determine if a unit is audibly transparent could also be done by DBTs. It's just much more time consuming because it had to be done with many people to find the golden ears which determine the limits of the human hearing sense.

I think it should be made more clear that the limits of the human hearing sense are very well known, and only based on those limits can we rely on measurements and determine audible transparency.

I can roll that in.

I added a bullet about the limits of human hearing and removed the bullet about chaining devices (it was starting to feel out of place). While it's true that DBTs can be used to identify transparency, I feel like that is more detailed than belongs here.

 

[LTig]

Yes, that detail got lost somewhere. It shall be resolved.

I can roll that in.

Perfect.

I added a bullet about the limits of human hearing and removed the bullet about chaining devices (it was starting to feel out of place). While it's true that DBTs can be used to identify transparency, I feel like that is more detailed than belongs here.

Agreed.

 

[nintendoeats]

I like the idea of a two-part approach:
I'd also add "My wife/girlfriend was in the other room and even she could hear a difference ..."

Overall, great idea and thanks for putting the effort into this.

Thanks! By the by, I swear NwAvGuy brought up this specific example somewhere.

 

[nintendoeats]

I added my concept of a FAQ (not complete, but a place to start from). I think the idea of having solid sources for each response is a good idea, but of course a task for another evening.

 

[MediumRare]

I ... removed the bullet about chaining devices (it was starting to feel out of place). While it's true that DBTs can be used to identify transparency, I feel like that is more detailed than belongs here.

Personally, I would leave both of those in. Two reasons:

- Chaining explains why we care about distortion levels below 1% even though it's rarely audible able that level;
- We rely on electronic measurements because they are a more convenient substitute for fiendishly difficult to do human listening tests. The essence of a lot of arguments against the so-call Objectivist approach is that the measurements cannot substitute for listening tests. "Our" response is, "yes they do; decades of research has led to the development of these measurements as a proxy for valid listening tests." Without the link to VALID listeing tests, the measurements on their own are worthless.

 

[scott wurcer]

Thanks! By the by, I swear NwAvGuy brought up this specific example somewhere.

I saw it first on DIYAudio, sometimes it's hilarious the lengths folks will go to to enhance the effect. First it's very important the the wife/girlfriend has no interest in the music, sometimes it's even better if she just opened the car door in the garage and had to come up and ask, "What did change on the stereo?"

 

[nintendoeats]

Personally, I would leave both of those in. Two reasons:

- Chaining explains why we care about distortion levels below 1% even though it's rarely audible able that level;

That's exactly why I added that bullet originally. I think this is a point for debate. For reference, the bullet in question was:

• Because audio passes through several devices before getting to your ears, inaudible effects can compound into something audible. For this reason, it is best to have equipment that is better than audibly transparent.

 

[nintendoeats]

I saw it first on DIYAudio, sometimes it's hilarious the lengths folks will go to to enhance the effect. First it's very important the the wife/girlfriend has no interest in the music, sometimes it's even better if she just opened the car door in the garage and had to come up and ask, "What did change on the stereo?"

I suspect that I read it in the same place, because I remember that same scene quite well

 

[PaulD]

I'd also add "My wife/girlfriend was in the other room and even .

I think SY analysed that in his Linear Audio piece “Testing One, Two Three” I mentioned earlier.

 

[RickSanchez]

Thanks! By the by, I swear NwAvGuy brought up this specific example somewhere.

@zermak was the first one to (jokingly) mention this example to me, on a different thread. Ever since then I've noticed it pop up around ASR with some newer members ..... and they're 100% serious.

 

[Ceburaska]

With all respect, I think ASR is ALL ABOUT how equipment sounds. The listening is the only reason most of us are interested in audio.

The key is that ASR differentiates between A) measurements that actually affect sounds, and on the other hand, B) perceived differences from unscientific efforts at listening that may or may not detect differences that don't actually exist when measured.

Maybe I wasn’t clear what I meant, so change to clarify is in italics:
So don’t ask Amir after a review of an item “yes, but how does it sound”

Anyway, it has maybe been a distraction from the OP’s manifesto. Sorry.

I think ASR is doing a great job on measurements, and is slowly helping us to understand the relationship of those with our perception of music/ sounds. It’s been eye opening (er ear opening?) to read the psychoacoustic information available.

 

[Hipper]

I see the preservation of artist intent as being very important. If the reader asks "why do I care about audible transparency", the response "because it's just better" doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. That said, this doesn't seem to be a universal feeling so I am prepared to rework those sentences.

Surely what people want to listen is up to them. They may want to hear 'the artist's intent'. They may also want to EQ it until it has the qualities they want. Neither is wrong. There's no doubt though that both need to start with the most accurate reproduction of that recording.

(It's a side issue of course but some recordings are not what the named artist intended at all. They've been tampered with by record companies to get sales or for other reasons.)

I've looked at you latest examples of a FAQ. I would suggest that you either start each point with a correct statement, as in number 1. Or, you give an incorrect commonly held belief and then correct it, which you've done for points 2 to 4. Doing both is a bit confusing.