As we can see, there is this ongoing conflict between Danny and Amir/Audio Science Review (ASR) over the years. Obviously, ASR has been highly critical of some GR-Research products like their power cable and speaker designs. I think that's to be expected; since when did objective-leaning audiophiles care for US$400+ power cables? Objective reviews naturally compare metrics and seek out good value so high-priced items that cannot show improvements in the measurements (nor with controlled listening) simply cannot be recommended.
Given that Danny made this video voluntarily, released publicly, I assume he wanted to foster discussion, so let's get into this for a bit.
First, consider the title - "Measurements vs Listening — and the History of a Site with an Agenda". Sure, Audio Science Review has an agenda and it's different from Danny's. There's nothing wrong with that and in fact is to be expected for anyone trying to publicly make a point to influence others! I'd be dishonest if I claim to have no agenda either given the kinds of articles I write in these pages. Here are some of the items on my agenda list:
A. To discuss audiophile topics through a "more objective", rational lens.B. When I review stuff, to aim to show demonstrable effects (measurements, graphs, etc.).C. To speak clearly when products appear to be Snake Oil.
I trust that none of those 3 points above would be a surprise to anyone who has read an article or two around here.
So too, I'm thinking the same for Audio Science Review. Amir is an electrical engineer. He measures stuff he reviews. While I don't 100% agree with his style of expression or some of his opinions, I appreciate his openness in sharing what he finds, and over the years he has been creative with how he runs the measurements, for example testing the GR-Research B24 power cable as if an interconnect to examine rejection of low-level distortions near a transformer. He clearly demonstrates what he finds, and his videos are way more informative than the vast majority of the stuff out there by "Golden Ear" reviewers who claim they perceive all kinds of things regardless of how unlikely.
[As discussed recently, it would be nice to see the hearing test results for some of these older subjective-only reviewers for context when they make claims!]
Yeah, ASR has an "agenda" to demonstrate changes using measurements as the primary mode of testing rather than doing the usual subjective listening thing. And in the process, pointing out things that make no difference electrically or acoustically but often can be very costly - snake oil of the various forms.
Danny's agenda in most videos seem to be to impress viewers about stuff he profits from in a positive light. The audiophile magazines likewise have an agenda of attracting advertising. It's only normal and fair then that Danny and Amir's aims, agendas, perspectives will conflict, right? The question then becomes: who is more honest in telling the truth about the benefits and the value of products?
I don't think it would be a surprise that I'm more interested in what ASR has to say about a GR-Research product with independent testing than hearing Danny's opinion about his own stuff unless he provides objective results. Salesmen on YouTube are a dime a dozen, but independent objective testing is precious.
However, this video goes beyond just "Who do you believe?". It actually demonstrates what I see is hypocrisy on Danny's part. This happens on a number of levels.
1. There's that "Not Flat" NASA T-shirt he wears as if it applies to his claims.
I've already spoken of this before. Danny is often a "UFO Believer" talking about all kinds of things over the years which cannot be demonstrated objectively. So, beyond just trolling the ASR guys, by wearing that T-shirt, he's actually misrepresenting himself. I think it's embarrassing.
Like UFO conspiracy theorists, there's always some reason why information can't be fully shared. Here, he claims that he's under an NDA to not open up the UberBUSS to show off the technology. And they're doing everything to conceal the innards including "potting" all the components. Sure, they have the right to do this for whatever reason (like not having the stuff cloned overseas). However, since there's no evidence provided, customer's can't have a look inside, to the point where this thing would probably not be fixable if broken, it's basically a disposable "black box", is it not? Wooo... Like flying saucers, ghosts, and other paranormal activity, the UberBUSS is just as mysterious!
Danny's asking that consumers have faith that there are worthwhile mystery components inside, demanding the asking price of "$1,595.00 - $2,014.00".
If we are to ask NASA about the James Webb Space Telescope, would they purposely obscure the inner workings or might they point us to a paper to explain more, even if the science is way more complex than most of us can fully understand? So, what are the basic principles inside this UberBUSS again?
2. "Yes, it has been measured" he says - "many times" apparently, with a giggle. "It reduces noise" he says. Where has that been shown?
Despite all these claims about having been measured, watching his video, I see a lot of hand waving, physical gestures, eye-rolling, but not one single shred of evidence that any measurements were done. Don't just brag about how great this "sounds" for at least 15 minutes in that video! How hard is it to just show us a graph or some results of the noise reduction if it has been done multiple times? Is the questionable AI stuff from Ron/New Record Day all you got?!
If you don't think Amir knows what he's doing and is missing this remarkably audible noise reduction product, then show him how it's done because you're The Man apparently with all the objective answers.
Beyond objective measurement claims, Danny also pushes hard on the idea that he's "Striving for... audible improvements." and there's some kind of conflict between "measurements vs. listening" as per the video title. Hang on a second, didn't you just say you measured it, and that it reduces noise? Why create this conflict between listening and measurements when I don't think anyone would disagree that lowering noise could be beneficial? I think most people would just like to see the evidence for that claim of "reduces noise" first. Whether the noise reduction is audibly significant or not can be debated later and audiophiles can consider the context where this could be beneficial.
[BTW: Can anyone think of an example with modern audio measurement systems in the 21st Century, where clearly audible improvements have not been measurable?
Especially audible to middle-aged men and older who are the typical consumers of these kinds of products?]
 |
| "Danny VS SVS" clickbait title from 2021. |
3. He uses measurements only when it suits him, like when he talks about how great his speaker crossovers sound in videos over the years.
If you watch the GR-Research videos, he makes a big deal about his rudimentary 1/3-octave smoothed measurements and how poor some speakers sound based on these results. I'm sure many of those loudspeaker companies do not appreciate his teardowns, disapproving attitude, or comments about "cheesy parts" and the like. As discussed before, while changes in crossovers with frequency response improvements are welcome, there's still no good evidence that just using expensive parts (and stuff like his tube connectors, and anti-ferromagnetic neurosis) bring dramatic audible value.
Danny really shouldn't be so sensitive about Amir "Throwing a dart at everything I do." when he himself doesn't hold back his own dramatic judgments about products from other speaker brands.
So isn't it fair for others to also take his stuff apart, run measurements, and comment on whether something of his is good or not?
In the video, he goes into a tangent and claims that "It's different with speakers." in defense of the UberBUSS for really no good reason other than babbling on about this bad crossover, that phase anomaly, or some other "attribute" that still "doesn't tell you how it sounds". To be honest, I'm not sure what he's getting at other than some convoluted rationalizations that he knows better than others about what can or can't be measured or correlated to sound quality. Don't ask if verification is needed, because "I've done that a whole bunch of times" for many things apparently (I guess he "checked" as per the NASA T-shirt 🤣).
His statements about "real science" vs. "no science" are rather laughable for a man who sells a product for more than a thousand bucks, provides no concept about how it operates, has no measurable or audible evidence that withstands scrutiny, and prevents others from testing it - everything's potted inside, and he's not going to sell Amir one as discussed later in the video. What ever happened to the scientific principle of reproducibility/replicability for verification, Danny?
I don't know what his beef is with the name Audio Science Review. Integrating scientific principles into the review process including insights into human physiology (eg. hearing thresholds), psychoacoustic perceptions, and the physical sciences (electronics, physics of sound waves) is obviously important these days. It's important for good companies using "real science", it's important for educated consumers, and insightful reviewers evaluating these products we buy. This is what ASR does and generally the discussions in the forums adhere to empirical, objective methods used in gaining scientific knowledge. There's nothing wrong with this "agenda". Most of the time, the issue is simply that certain companies don't like the results from such analyses. Since snake oil is not uncommon in high-end audiophilia, the disdain - and perhaps fear - is to be expected from such Viper Oil Peddlers and the faithful among audiophile hobbyists who do not want to accept that they've been sold unnecessarily expensive things.
BTW, no, a "reviewer's job" is not to "Give subjective feedback on how something sounds.". It could be, and probably should be most of the time. But when it comes to potential snake oil products with no measurable (or at times even theoretically beneficial) improvements, what "subjective" feedback is there to give when a product actually doesn't do anything, doesn't change the sound?! Shouldn't reviewers be honest about that and just say that subjectively there's no "difference" to hear with so many of these products (like power cords, interconnects, power conditioners, streamers, even between excellent hi-fi DACs, etc.)?
 |
| GR-Research lab: one speaker is all you need to design crossovers. No need for stereo listening, apparently... |
4. He accuses Amir of not listening in the reviews, but he doesn't either when making his crossover kits!
Danny complains that the GR-Research speaker review done by ASR was only a single unit. Well guess what, his crossovers are typically also designed with one speaker sent to him by customers as well (again, discussed already, referenced here)! Despite spending time talking about the importance of setting up his room, Danny himself doesn't listen to a stereo speaker pair before or after his crossover designs to confirm that things like soundstage remains wide, or deep, or nuanced with music.
Do as I say, don't do as I do? I think there's a pretty clear issue here which Danny should spend some time sorting out for himself.
hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisiesthe practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Some purveyors of questionable products wisely shy away from addressing criticisms publicly. For example, we typically don't see snake oilish guys like Ted Denney/Synergistic Research respond to critical comments except when talking to similarly bizarre interviewers (weird stuff).
Others apparently like to "double down" which I think is what we're seeing here with Danny Richie and his defensive videos. Not only do his claims about the ÃœberBUSS remain highly questionable, they're also arguably dishonest, and I think also hypocritical when he uses his measurements to criticize other audio companies. Danny is unable to tolerate the heat when others do the same to his company's products.
Furthermore, he has some kind of concept of "science" which he expresses rather poorly. So, if ASR is "no science" or "Audio Science Theories", what does Danny think he's doing here arguing for the UberBUSS with absolutely nothing objective to show but wearing a NASA T-shirt and yapping about basically nothing? Is this not pretentious at the very least?
Who knows if Amir or the ASR guys really care that much to get the UberBUSS in for their own measurements. I'm sure where there is a will, there is a way even if Danny doesn't directly sell them one. Either way, I don't think this video makes the UberBUSS more interesting for audiophiles, nor would it likely convince anyone wisely skeptical to rush out and place an order.
Good that Danny offers a money-back trial period.
As we end, in the spirit of Christmas and "Peace on Earth", I see in the video that Danny says "Those guys (at ASR) hate me.".
"Hate" is a strong statement and I'm not sure that's totally true. Let's be honest, as a business owner out to make some money, Danny cannot misrepresent himself as some kind of well-beloved saint. He sells basic products like power cables, and the UberBUSS acts as a multiplug outlet (not even surge suppression abilities) at high prices without high-performance metrics to show for what they do.
Notice though that when there are measurable benefits for some products, Amir gives Danny credit - for example the Klipsch RP 600M GR-Research crossover upgrade was "a job well done". Likewise, ASR's article on the GR-Research X-LS Encore Kit said it "shows very good performance". Some good reviews, some bad reviews, seems pretty balanced to me; certainly not just one-sided "hate".
ASR is quite clear about what they want to see in order to get a positive review. It's part of the clear agenda of objectifying high performance audio products. Isn't that fair enough and a better, more transparent deal than just making some subjective-only guy happy for the general audiophile public? 🤔
[BTW: I see that Ron / New Record Day also issued his own video. It's somewhat apologetic for possible bias in the listening test, the optics (at least) around its "infomercial" nature, timed with the UberBUSS release. But more importantly, unfortunately, he does not address the inconsistencies of his recordings nor the questionable AI-assisted analysis dressed up as if conclusive results.
Well, at least Ron seems to be showing a bit more insight here than Danny about how this all looks.
I think these boys from Texas need to be a bit more careful next time peddling what is most likely just another brand of oil.]
--------------------
Alright audiophiles, now it's time for me to drag out the Bing Crosby among others here at home!
Here's some Elvis & Martina McBride (2018, off Elvis Presley Christmas Duets) - great job with inserting Martina into the vintage video:
Let's end with my favourite Christmas song from what felt like much simpler times. Here's Amy Grant's "Grown Up Christmas List":
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment