Audiophile Style State of the Union

I will quietly put in my 2 cents.  I have been a fan of Chris' site since I first learned of it.  I eventually signed up in early 2013 but rarely commented since my computer skills are fairly limited as compared to most who posted at that time.  CC and this site have drifted from its original mission and I think this move is an abandonment of the techies who started out with CC when he was evaluating computer hardware for audio use.  Whether this was due to computers becoming a mature audio platform, or CC losing interest in tweeking computers, software, and networking gear, I can't say.  However, shortly before the name change to Audiophile Style it was apparent that the subject matter had drifted from computer audio to Stereophile like reviews of digital gear that was too expensive for much of his techie audience.  Similarly, discussion of software has mostly disappeared since the advent of ROON.  

Moving the "objectivists," which are probably many of the geeks that started with Computer Audiophile, to the corner completes the transformation.  I have started coming to this site less and less since there are already dozens of websites that review high end gear.  I remember the old saying by Upton Sinclair that "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."  CC wants to review high end gear, objective testing be dammed, so he is kicking the tech guys to the side.  

I read ASR and find Amir's numbers to be very useful, as well as the fact that he tests gear by Chinese manufacturers, and I also read subjective reviews for gear in a price range I am willing to pay.  My position on objective tests is simple, if it tests bad then it probably has a problem that is audible.  If it tests well, then there are probably subtle differences that a subjective review is worth hearing about.  And to this end, I would really like to see some comparisons of gear that tests well, even if the price varies substantially.   Before anyone comments regarding China, many Chinese products use well designed chips without infringing any patents, and this is where you find many of the young engineers and audiophiles in this graying hobby.

You are welcome to it, @MikePM. Audio Science Review Forum is a cesspool.

I read the "reviews", but unfortunately best measurements don't translate into best sound. 

"cesspool"?  Apparently you don't read the same content I do.  However, it is this kind of generalization that really makes it difficult to have a discussion.  I recently built a hypex nc400 amp based on the measurements and reviews at ASR and love it. Paired with my Schiit Freya + it sounds much better that what I have owned before.  I hesitated, however, to go with the hypex due to the harsh anti-class D subjective comments on this forum.  Encouraged by the objective measurements, and actually listening to it, I am thrilled.  From my subjective point of view, the hypex with the Freya in tube mode is the best I have heard--even if it is likely that tubes add some distortion. And it is fast, musical, has air and all of those things.

p.s., But bad measurements probably do translate into bad sound. 

2 hours ago, MikePM said:

"cesspool"?  Apparently you don't read the same content I do.

No I think he's got it exactly right, but to each his own then.

2 hours ago, MikePM said:

I recently built a hypex nc400 amp based on the measurements and reviews at ASR and love it. Paired with my Schiit Freya + it sounds much better that what I have owned before.

Congrats on that, but ASR wouldn't be the only place to learn about NC400 based amp builds, not by a long shot.

2 hours ago, MikePM said:

I hesitated, however, to go with the hypex due to the harsh anti-class D subjective comments on this forum. 

That too is a generalization, there are both pro and anti Class D comments on this forum, all you have to do is look. If you are referring to the infamous GUTB's anti-class D tirades, that's just one guy's opinion and very easy to ignore based on his overall posting style/content, no? GUTB's stance on Class D is not the stance of an entire forum, but then you'd know that if you really looked.

2 hours ago, MikePM said:

p.s., But bad measurements probably do translate into bad sound. 

Also a generalization, there are many things that don't measure particularly well that do actually sound good, or even great.

5 hours ago, audiobomber said:

You are welcome to it, @MikePM. Audio Science Review Forum is a cesspool.

This is an extreme, highly disparaging statement, and such statements require some evidence if they are to be taken seriously and not be viewed as bad forum behavior. So too does the placing of the word reviews in scare-quotes require some explanation or justification if it s not to be considered gratuitous nastiness with no substance behind it.

I would encourage anyone reading this thread who does not already have a strong opinion about ASR to visit the site and decide for themselves.

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

This is an extreme, highly disparaging statement, and such statements require some evidence if they are to be taken seriously and not be viewed as bad forum behavior. So too does the placing of the word reviews in scare-quotes require some explanation or justification if it s not to be considered gratuitous nastiness with no substance behind it.

I like reading Amir's measurements, but measurements and some verbiage on features does not constitute a review. For example I was interested in reviews of the miniDSP SHD, especially how it performs as a DAC/preamp. Nowhere in his review did he actually listen to the damn thing. When he does listen to gear, he only listens via HD 650 headphones, which as I explained previously is too limited to be worthwhile, and he devotes next to no effort to describing the sound. Of course many people there think DAC's don't have a sound, which may explain the lack of listening. Should anyone care that one DAC has 111dB SINAD and another 118dB?

Other than Amir's measurements, the main topic in the ASR Forums is audiophile-bashing. Anyone making a subjective comment is piled on, and driven out. There are far too many examples to cite. It is a vile and hostile place to anyone who does not drink the objectivist koolaid, that's why I call it a cesspool. 

I haven't been visiting this forum as much over the past couple of years. At times, the community content is not much different than over at Hydrogen Audio.

For myself, listening to music through my audio system is a hedonistic experience. I upgrade, modify, and tweak my system to get maximal enjoyment. IDGAF if a cable upgrade is a "merely" placebo. If I hear it as "better" that's all the matters to *me*. I don't expect anyone else to hear it the same (but isn't it interesting that so many others do?). Many of you have reported sonic differences among software that I don't hear. But I don't think any of you are wrong about it.

It shouldn't be a mystery that people who come here to share their experiences enjoying music reproduction don't enjoy coming to this forum to hear all the "reasons" their experience is wrong or imagined.

16 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

I haven't been visiting this forum as much over the past couple of years. At times, the community content is not much different than over at Hydrogen Audio.

 

For myself, listening to music through my audio system is a hedonistic experience. I upgrade, modify, and tweak my system to get maximal enjoyment. IDGAF if a cable upgrade is a "merely" placebo. If I hear it as "better" that's all the matters to *me*. I don't expect anyone else to hear it the same (but isn't it interesting that so many others do?). Many of you have reported sonic differences among software that I don't hear. But I don't think any of you are wrong about it.

 

It shouldn't be a mystery that people who come here to share their experiences enjoying music reproduction don't enjoy coming to this forum to hear all the "reasons" their experience is wrong or imagined.

Exactly. 

This is a hobby. It's about the journey and destination and sharing enjoyable experiences with like-minded people. 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Exactly. 

 

This is a hobby. It's about the journey and destination and sharing enjoyable experiences with like-minded people. 

Then why relegate the tech oriented crowd to a sub-category?  They have an opinion that is often useful.  As I noted above, I have been coming to this site less and less since it shifted focus to reviewing rather than helping work with and adjust computer software and hardware for audio use.  There are lots of review sites, but unfortunately, few for computer audio.  

As to the general tenor of arguments, I find the tone here to be about equal to ASR, with a recent shift here towards ad hominem comments against anyone that suggests objective testing has merit.  It is a hobby and good measurements should justify a listen, i.e., a subjective review.  If it measures bad, however, I think some real explaining is in order.  As a lawyer I would say that if it tests well, then the presumption is that it likely sounds good, but if it tests bad, the piece should be strictly scrutinized.  To that end, how about doing subjective comparisons between gear that measures well, regardless of price, so we can ferret out just what those subtle differences are.

10 minutes ago, MikePM said:

Then why relegate the tech oriented crowd to a sub-category?  They have an opinion that is often useful.  As I noted above, I have been coming to this site less and less since it shifted focus to reviewing rather than helping work with and adjust computer software and hardware for audio use.  There are lots of review sites, but unfortunately, few for computer audio.  

 

As to the general tenor of arguments, I find the tone here to be about equal to ASR, with a recent shift here towards ad hominem comments against anyone that suggests objective testing has merit.  It is a hobby and good measurements should justify a listen, i.e., a subjective review.  If it measures bad, however, I think some real explaining is in order.  As a lawyer I would say that if it tests well, then the presumption is that it likely sounds good, but if it tests bad, the piece should be strictly scrutinized.  To that end, how about doing subjective comparisons between gear that measures well, regardless of price, so we can ferret out just what those subtle differences are.

Hi Mike, I disagree with your characterization of the "tech" oriented crowd being relegated. It's just one way to split people up in an attempt to have some peace. 

You may like the review coming up next week of some JCAT hardware.

I haven't seen a recent shift toward "ad hominem comments against anyone that suggests objective testing has merit." I'm sure one can find a couple comments, but that doesn't make a shift in any definition I've seen. 

It would be interesting to discuss what constitutes a bad measurement versus a good one. Then we must also consider all the products that appear to measure badly but have many fans around the world who love the gear. Where does that leave us? It leaves us without a real answer or any real information. 

I'm not anti-measurement at all. I read them and use them. However, I've caught myself getting way too concerned with them and losing track of the plot. It's human nature.

I have many emails from people saying my Wilson Alexia Series 2 speakers don't measure very well against much cheaper speakers or my old TAD CR1 speakers. I can say I've never had better sound in my listening room than with these speakers. 

Subjective comparison between good measuring gear would be fun. I'm with you. Could be very useful. However, it may also be a clap trap because the subjective qualities may not translate to anyone but the writer. If I say DAC XYZ both measures good and has the best tube-like qualities, then it will be put at the top of a list above DAC ZXY with the second best tube-like qualities. People will use the list as if it's gold. Just like Stereophile Recommended Components. So many people make purchasing decisions based on Class A, B C, etc... It's a shame. 

Thanks for your reply.  I keep coming back because you still do things like the reviews of the various remasters of classic CD's and occasionally describe how to set up software.  As to reviews, I really appreciated the recent Matrix Audio X-Sabre Pro DAC review since this is an example of a product that tested extremely well.  

I think with reviews we are saying the same thing.  My point is that good and bad tests are evidence of how it might sound and it is important to consider that when doing the critical subjective listening.  I also believe that tests should indeed cause you to be more critical if you have to overcome bad measurements.  As an aside, I would note that while mediocre measuring equipment probably can sound good, truly bad tests are hard to dismiss.

I don't understand your point about "subjective qualities may not translate to anyone but the writer."  Isn't that the basic reason for the merits of some objective analysis?  All subjective tests are the opinions of, we hope, trained listeners to help us buy equipment in an environment where listening opportunities are limited.  My thought is lets take like measuring equipment and try to describe the subtle differences that can be heard, or not.

To those who know me it will come as no surprise that I applaud the recent change in the rules - Edit, new sub forum (the rules, as I understand it are much the same).

No doubt there will be some teething problems working through the gray zones but IMHO, it will only be the 'usual suspect offenders' that will find the adjustment difficult or struggle to navigate the gray zones in good faith.

Basically those who want to be snarky, sarcastic and confrontational will not like this change in direction. Where's the sport and entertainment in belittling people if you can't be snarky about it ? I never understood how supposedly "saving people from themselves" mutated somehow into putting them down.

I submit the worst offenders will self-identify and likely leave in a flurry of indignation, true-to-form sarcastic barbs, and with cries of "censorship", or even worse, being marginalized into "ghettos". 

The thing is that most already 'get' the rules, the offenders just choose to ignore the rules to push their agendas and/or they simply enjoy the conflict. It is a conduct issue, not a censorship issue.

Many left AS in the past fed up with the poor behavior of a minority of loud and rude people pushing their dogma in places where it was neither requested or welcomed.The negativity and abrasive tone stripped the joy out of the hobby. This came from both sides of the camp but IMO there was a preponderance of inciters from those that insisted on telling people what they couldn't hear.

The hobby, if it involves listening and PERCEIVING pleasant sound and sublime music, IS inherently subjective. It doesn't follow that measurements are therefore not useful, I am not saying that.

The General forum in many audio fora becomes the same thread repeated endlessly. Irrespective of the title there is the same arguments by the same people who hijack every thread....Typically it goes like this. I hear a difference....No you can't, prove it.....No, you have the burden of proof.....and for a fun additional 30 plus pages, arguing the merits of DBT's.   

Hearing a difference in sound quality is an *observation*,  spending money on gear is a choice. Sharing a hobby with like minded enthusiasts is fun, so is learning through robust helpful discussion. Listening to great sound in the service of beautiful music is a joy. YMMV.

David

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

To those who know me it will come as no surprise that I applaud the recent change in the rules.

 

No doubt there will be some teething problems working through the gray zones but IMHO, it will only be the 'usual suspect offenders' that will find the adjustment difficult or struggle to navigate the gray zones in good faith.

 

Basically those who want to be snarky, sarcastic and confrontational will not like this change in direction. Where's the sport and entertainment in belittling people if you can't be snarky about it ? I never understood how supposedly "saving people from themselves" mutated somehow into putting them down.

 

I submit the worst offenders will self-identify and likely leave in a flurry of indignation, true-to-form sarcastic barbs, and with cries of "censorship", or even worse, being marginalized into "ghettos". 

 

The thing is that most already 'get' the rules, the offenders just choose to ignore the rules to push their agendas and/or they simply enjoy the conflict. It is a conduct issue, not a censorship issue.

 

Many left AS in the past fed up with the poor behavior of a minority of loud and rude people pushing their dogma in places where it was neither requested or welcomed.The negativity and abrasive tone stripped the joy out of the hobby. This came from both sides of the camp but IMO there was a preponderance of inciters from those that insisted on telling people what they couldn't hear.

 

The hobby, if it involves listening and PERCEIVING pleasant sound and sublime music, IS inherently subjective. It doesn't follow that measurements are therefore not useful, I am not saying that.

 

The General forum in many audio fora becomes the same thread repeated endlessly. Irrespective of the title there is the same arguments by the same people who hijack every thread....Typically it goes like this. I hear a difference....No you can't, prove it.....No, you have the burden of proof.....and for a fun additional 30 plus pages, arguing the merits of DBT's.   

 

Hearing a difference in sound quality is an *observation*,  spending money on gear is a choice. Sharing a hobby with like minded enthusiasts is fun, so is learning through robust helpful discussion. Listening to great sound in the service of beautiful music is a joy. YMMV.

 

David

 

 

Bravo

Chris I support you 100% . After all, its you're site, you're rules. Ok by me.

Hi Chris, just a quick suggestion. Can we create a science thread - with exclusion of audibility and off topic bullying. Just the discussion of overall science, whether it's audible or not or how it translates to the audio link shall discussed in other places. Just to share and discuss only papers/publications on actual science (directly or indirectly related to audio). I would be able to contribute a significant chunk of links and some basic explanation of what each of that means to audio. I believe building such a repository would be beneficial for people to probably have an idea where their issues/experiences could stem from. I know that this looks like fragmentation, but think of this like a FAQ thread but more scientific.

For example, Lot of people don't know usb has a spec and for a specific reason. This touches the basics of characteristic impedance : 

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 8:31 AM, MikePM said:

CC wants to review high end gear, objective testing be dammed, so he is kicking the tech guys to the side.  

 That comment is unfair.

 I believe that if a suitably qualified member offered to complement Chris's reviews with a raft of useful measurements , that Chris would more than likely jump at the chance, provided that logistics and the time frame of review equipment availability wasn't a problem.

The reply volume to this thread is interesting.  If I were to guess, the firestorm herein, possibly defines why Chris came to the conclusions he did.

In the early years of such forums as this and in general, in an effort to help each other, hobbyist cited their experiences, shared their personal knowledge and provided their opinions.  Folks with technical experience and listening experience helped those without.  We all learned from each other.  There wasn’t much sniping, and finger wagging based on I’m right and you’re not. 

As with all information that comes into our purview, it was understood that some information was, or may be incorrect, some was pretty accurate and other information was downright crazy (and an almost infinite amount of variance between these 3).  As with all things in life, the researcher/reader (human) must make decisions and conclusions for themselves.  Why should I try to tell someone -- especially in a very subjective pursuit such as a live performance recreation in our homes -- they can’t be correct because of this, that or the other thing!?!  I may think it and oftentimes I do.  But what would be my motivation for pointing out to them what is to me, the obvious?  And herein lies the crux of the issue.     

Slowly but surely, what seem to be I’m right & you’re not chest-pounder's and activists began seeping in and popping-up (perhaps the devolution over the years, of our on-line discourse experiences).  Their motivation for posting implied that they wanted to warn of wrong-headed bias and as such, save the uninitiated from self-serving vendors, but essentially themselves, or make it easier to conclude what to buy etc…

For example, “Danger...Will Robinson….Danger”: 

• Logic and "facts" dictate you can't be hearing what you believe you are and here's proof!
• Beware, this, that, and the other....is snake oil.
• You must be educated upon statistical and research bias (which of course assumes you are not) – e.g. recall bias, confirmation bias, I spent big bucks for it, so it must be good, et al. 
• To be believed, double blind listening tests need to be conducted, your hearing needs to be bat-like and your room must be an ideal listening environment (https://www.amazon.com/Master-Handbook-Acoustics-Alton-Everest/dp/0071603328)….but more importantly, measurements must prove your conclusion....ad infinitum. 

So, the bottom line is a reversion to measurements (so called facts) and science.  Only these aren’t the end all, be all either, especially if they are not repeatable or peer reviewed, or proven to be 100% correlated to the ways we process auditory input.

It’s interesting that when I read a subjective pronouncement, I weigh its value and make conclusions about it, knowing I’m right/wrong, partially so &/or otherwise.  I very rarely have seen the need to post a judging rebuttal.  What would be my motivation?  But then again, the question of my motivation, is something that I constantly attempt to ask myself when it comes to all, but such things as autonomic reflexes.  One can learn a lot with that sort of introspection.

However, when someone begins making pronouncements of right, wrong, citing so called facts based on this, that or otherwise, my back bristles.  Especially if they begin on the bias routine which I’ve understood and personally fought-against for far too many decades to recount (much to my chagrin, sometimes I win, sometimes not, I'm only human).  There are liars, damn liars and statistics.  By its very nature, science constantly revises facts.  Maybe not today, tomorrow or in our lifetimes, but we know from history, that “facts” will and do change.  Too believe otherwise, is far too godlike to contemplate.    

Here’s a clue, we all biased in far too many ways to count.  So what, it’s the human condition.  Deal with it or not, whatever the case may be.  I don’t, can’t care!

I only care if I believe that the performance-recreating-illusion occurring in my 2-channel listening room is enjoyable, exciting, makes me happy etc.  I can cite what equipment I have and state my musical and recording studio bonafides (which I don’t have by the way) in an attempt to convince or convey why I’m correct because of this, or that fact and you must not be correct etc.  But again, what is the point, the motivation?  To troll or not to troll, that is the question.  If one posts to be helpful, so be it.  But it appears that is becoming less and less often the case and it seems that Chris may somewhat believe likewise.