Some or Many Steve Hoffman Forums users think ASR is a religious cult as well
ASR’s basic premise, better measuring = better sounding is flawed. What follows is a bunch of cultist nonsense.
ASR is a forum for fanatics. as such there is a heavy bias towards a particular dogma. this forum is the polar opposite and generally polite and supportive. ASR is instead a close minded group of fanatics that are obsessed measurements only. its by far the least helpful and least fun audio forum around.
Research done using measurements on test equipment. No test equipment can measure everything humans can hear. And some operators of that test equipment, like ASR, make errant measurements.
Quite, I mean Amir and ASR has built a reputation as a "myth buster" and as such is hardly a neutral scientist approaching testing open-mindedly. Furthermore, if we go by the bible of ASR then we would all just use $200 Chinese DACs (they measure the best according to Amir) and $5 Costco cables (expensive cables are a waste of money according to Amir). In fact the forum threads on ASR are unsurprisingly reminiscent of some of the posts on this thread - Amir reviews and lambasts a product (if it isn't a cheap Chinese DAC), his followers go onto the thread lauding him with god-like praise and laughing at the poor fools who would buy such a product, bathing in their perceived superiority for "seeing the light". Sound familiar? The irony is that when you look at the gear list of posters on this and other threads who adopt the objectivist approach and laud ASR, I don't see them using those same cheap Chinese DACs that ASR bangs on about measuring so well and I often see expensive cables listed in their gear list. Seems they don't always practice what they preach.
Why? ASR knows how to measure everything but knows the value of very little, it seems. Like a kid given a ruler for the first time, running around measuring the world and casting judgement and deciding its worth. Right. Being able to measure something does not make you an engineer. Give him/ASR time. Maybe one day he'll grow up.
ASR doesn't review equipment with human ears. They use machines.
I don't believe that this is true at all.
But if I were to suggest changes to this site to prevent such misconceptions among unexperienced visitors, I would recognize two things and perhaps try to change them:
1. Like any mostly-uncensored forum that deals with controversial topics, we sometimes do congratulate ourselves or denigrate the lack of insight on the part of those who disagree.
2. I think we inadvertently reinforce the untrue stereotype that we elevate products based on inaudible measurements of SINAD, simply by using a ranking graphic as the most visible aspect of our reviews. Amir is more and more careful to mention inaudibility in his narrative discussion, and the color-coding tries to make things less scalar and more categorical .... but the graphic does seem to suggest a tilted value system that rewards one thing based on a single measurement, rather than a balanced multi-factor review.
I can imagine objections to even conceding anything at all to those who promote the stereotype, since it is not true, and we don't want to appear defensive over untruths. It's also true that we are generally striking home with our approach, and those we put at a disadvantage will rant away no matter what we do.
But for those who aren't close enough to ASR to know better, and might be receptive if they engaged with us, I would suggest that a pragmatic step would be to not step into the punches of misguided adversaries, and that two ways to do that are:
1. Speak to one another like the dispassionate scientists we mostly are in our forum conversations. That's a hard one. It is up to all of us to reinforce such decorum in our own posts, and to politely reinforce such values in the posts of others. Walk our talk. (or should it be, talk our walk?)
2. Arrange our reviews so as to reinforce their multi-factor content. For example, perhaps move the ranking graphic to one central location on the website, and arrange headings in the individual reviews into an outline format that identifies the various objective and sometimes subjective factors being considered, with negative scalar measurements broken into categories iike always inaudible, inaudible except under test conditions, and audible to critical listeners. Or whatever makes sense. (We don't have to clone RTINGs, but maybe consider it as at least an example of a clearly-multi-factor approach.)
Fight back by doing what we already do well and promoting it with professionalism. But also, use some PR savvy about breaking the back of stereotypes.