Talk about a crazed forum.

I totally get it. Science and measurements are the new religious zealots.

Look at all the most recommended products by ASR and you will find that the all belong to two "chi-fi" brands, Topping and SMSL. I suspect these two share the same owner, who pays generously for good reviews.

One wonders how Amir feels about fuse directionality.

Stereophile and ASR. I agree with Hollowman as far as his take on Amir. Amir does really seem to think that good specs make good equipment, and I think that point is difficult to argue. But I don't necessarily agree with him that poor measuring equipment is automatically bad, especially speakers. There are so many factors with regards to amp/speaker/cable interactions, not to mention room acoustics, that blasting everything that doesn't measure well seems short-sighted to me. I wonder what he would think of equipment if he listened to it first, then measured it, like Stereophile does.

hollowman wrote:

MattJ wrote:

Stereophile and ASR. I agree with Hollowman as far as his take on Amir. Amir does really seem to think that good specs make good equipment, and I think that point is difficult to argue. But I don't necessarily agree with him that poor measuring equipment is automatically bad, especially speakers. There are so many factors with regards to amp/speaker/cable interactions, not to mention room acoustics, that blasting everything that doesn't measure well seems short-sighted to me. I wonder what he would think of equipment if he listened to it first, then measured it, like Stereophile does.

All well and good ... but you didn't address the question I raised about the BIG, BIG GAP. And neither has anyone else for that matter. It ain't that hard a puzzle, folks ;)

The typical specs one sees in analog component ratings are basically worthless under lab condition experiments. Some of the below points are measurable and some are extremely difficult.

1. Frequency response measurements are performed on one channel, which leaves out channel separation issues.

A. Highs and low frequency channel separation are usually not as good as mid band channel separation. As such, when both channels are utilized, the frequency response deviates more than the single channel measurement. Spacial qualities are altered from the original recording.

B. The human ear is incredibly sensitive to tonal balance/frequency response changes. A +/- 0,1db 20-20khz spec means the deviation that occurs is roughly only -54db down from midband. The ear is so much much more sensitive.

For instance, when designing a two way speaker, crossover ~170hz, with quasi 2nd order crossover, several tests results correlated, which demonstrated how sensitive the ear is. For instance:

1. Using 5 foot lengths, ten 18 gauge wires in parallel in each leg to speaker was found to be the most accurate for those particular components in the system. Using 9 or 11 wires degraded the sound.
2. A basic resistor "R" with paralleling/series resistors, including a variable pot, all in series with the full range driver, allowed one to alter "R" resistor by 1 millionth of an ohm, the sonic change was easily perceivable, as the response change was over many octaves.
3. The 10 mh, 600 watt iron core inductor in the full range driver crossover; removing 3/16" off of one turn, and even bending the lead wires were perceived.
4. Rotating a speaker 0,5mm was perceivable.

2. Material combinations affect the sonic qualities.

3. Purity of materials affect the sonic qualities.

4. DA and ESR, even Inductance in capacitors affect the sonic qualities. DA and ESR affect Active devices as well. As such, polyprope vs electrolytic capacitors offer different sonics even though the component specs remain the same.

5. Harmonic distortion, odd and even, affect the sonics in different ways, and are also weighted according to number. As a simple example, 9th is easier to perceive than 2nd.

6. Global negative feedback, and the relationship to open loop bandwidth. This relationship is important because the feedback becomes less and less helpful (phase relationship) as the frequencies are increased, thus the distortion rises as the frequency rises. The higher the open bandwidth, the less is the increase in distortion.

As mentioned above, not much of the above is mentioned in the specifications, yet influence the musical qualities.

Not that much mentioned in the specs is scientifically meaningful, except the frequency response and channel separation specs including at low and high frequencies. (I have seen DAC specs that claim -3db at 20hz and basically flat response to 20khz. That is something to be concerned with.)

As such, a bad spec amp could easily sound better if some of the above points were addressed which the better spec amp did not address.

One has to address ALL the science, not just a portion.
Besides that, there are some aspects that cannot be measured, or correlated to sonic quality.

cheers

steve

Objectivism in the style of ASR is rising in the charts kind of like QAnon is rising in the charts. If you can’t argue with success then argue louder. Lol An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. If it looks like a logical fallacy and walks like a logical fallacy it’s probably a logical fallacy.

hollowman wrote:

"Your're gettin' warmer, doc .... nah you're gettin' colder." (Buggs Bunny to Elmer Fudd)
https://looneytunes.fandom.com/wiki/Hare_Do

I just saw in another string that you agree that measurements don't necessarily determine quality of sound. If you wish to add additional scientific point(s) to mine, please do as my list is not exhaustive.

cheers

steve

Much more important than "measurements don't determine quality of sound" is "price doesn't determine quality of sound".

geoffkait wrote:

Objectivism in the style of ASR is rising in the charts kind of like QAnon is rising in the charts. If you can’t argue with success then argue louder. Lol An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. If it looks like a logical fallacy and walks like a logical fallacy it’s probably a logical fallacy.

precisely the opposite is the case. Subjectivism in the style of this place is the equivalent of Qanon. And your repeated assertions that scientific fact constitutes "logical fallacy" and that "appeal to authority"is a fallacy only serves to confirm that the ridicule that you have so famously been subject to is richly deserved.

I never made any such assertion. I’ll be the judge here of what is or is not scientific fact, not you. Try to keep your “facts” straight. You are obviously part of QAnon, that much is abundantly clear. You obviously don’t even know what an appeal to authority is. If you’re pretending to be dense you’re doing an excellent job.

If you were half as intellegent as you think you are you would be twice as intellegent as you are.

Would you like me to make your future posts for you? I can save you a lot of time. I can write exactly what you would only in a more intellegent and sophisticated parlance. And without the obvious childishness. You might want to consider this. This could be exactly what you need.

If you’re trying to convince me you’re mildly retarded I’m convinced already. See a doctor pronto.