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, or simply "sound good" with music.
Do as I say, don't do as I do? I think there's a pretty clear issue here with a messy thought process 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 ÜberBUSS 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.
 |
| Christmas card from Mike... See comments. 😁 |
That dude is my age. He ain't hearin' much.🎅🏻
ReplyDeleteHey there Richard,
DeleteDon't worry, I think you guys are younger than Paul McGowan who I believe is 75-76 years old now (based on his previous video) and just a couple months ago still thinks power cables make a "huge difference".
Moral of the story, protect hearing and you just might still be able to hear power cable difference into the mid-70's at least; based on high-end salesman's claims who advocate for $$$ AudioQuest wires of course. 🤔🤣
Cheers and Happy Holidays!
Let me guess that Danny will run for President on next round :)
ReplyDeleteHey Juhazi,
DeleteLet's hope that we're well past some kind of peak corruption, peak immorality, peak narcissism, peak cognitive impairment and peak societal delusion by 2028. 🥴
Hi, Arch. Thank you for listening to Danny's screed so I don't have to.
ReplyDeleteAlways the attacks on ASR and Amir! This one only just had a thread created about it on ASR by one of our newer members, like 55 minutes ago, Clearly Danny sees ASR and Amir as a threat. The other way around? Not so much. And as always, whenever the Dannys of the audio world postulate there are some audible differences not being captured in the measurement sets of individuals like yourself and Amir, the proper questions are: "Like what, Danny", and "How did you come to learn of these differences?", and "How does optimizing for them improve the audiophile experience?". and "What's your process for this optimization, what instruments did you use, and how can everyone else catch up to the groundbreaking research you've done in your workshop?"
And as for using upgraded caps, resistors, and inductors in rebuilt crossovers to mod speakers to the sound profile he desires, in other words, the old fashioned way, as opposed to using digital PEQ, and Room correction? Well, I am reminded of something I read in a book on aesthetics. In it the author pointed out that there are people in the current literary, and fine art markets still writing novels in the style of Charles Dickens, and still doing painting and sculptures in the realistic style of Rennaissance masters. So alongside Kandinski paintings and novels by Thomas Pyncheon, there are still people imitating Thackery, Rodin, and Titian. For the most part those folks don't get a lot of attention by contemporary literary/art critics who take the view of "Been there, done that" with regards to their opus, but still those guys have their niche. I think Danny is a lot like those people, using a lot of "been there, done that" approacg instead of using the newer tools, which as everyone not in his market niche knows, are far more economical, powerful and effective for getting the job done, and can be used without destroying the resale value of your LS 50 Metas. 😉
/
Well said Phoenix,
DeleteInteresting dynamic between Danny and Amir. Mainly I think it's just fascinating watching the oxymoronic "Not Flat" T-shirt-wearing Danny shooting himself in the foot in these videos while seriously making no sense about his understanding of "science".
I certainly have no issue with guys doing things the old fashioned way to create art. A beautiful sculpture done by hand by an artisan is to be admired!
Those choosing good linear power supply, good tube amp, fine turntable/tonearm/vinyl are certainly welcome to enjoying such things even if some could rightly describe certain audio components as "anachronistic" hardware.
But just like the Timex vs. Rolex article, I'm not sure an expensive crossover with all those fancy parts actually sound better in the often dramatic ways Danny claims because of the components used. Of course, I have no issues with using high-quality components that last a lifetime compared to cheap electrolytic caps that might need replacing every few decades... It's all about him making claims around sound quality that can be hard to believe (like this ÜberBUSS, or his power cables, etc.). 😬
Cheers and happy holidays!
this is an interesting idea.
DeleteIs art limited by purposeful constraints, such as a restricted colour palette, black-and-white analogue film, or the use of old and outdated technologies? Is art improved by the best available technologies? I believe that, ultimately, the answer is yes. I do not understand how one could possibly make any art the best it could be by deliberately rejecting tools that clearly allow greater creative freedom through superior and more flexible options.
Using film as an example, I will state clearly that comparatively poor technologies—such as analogue film, 24fps, and long exposure shutter angles that cause motion blur—will not completely ruin a film. However, I do not believe a film is better for using what are, quite frankly, low technical standards. These limitations may be serviceable, but they are not beneficial.
I cannot accept the idea that purposeful distortions which blur the image add anything positive or artistic. I have seen people argue that video is blurred deliberately because, without blur, unrealistic sets and CGI would be more clear. In some cases I've even seen massive budget films using dirty lenses (as seen in the latest Fantastic Four).
To me, this is a very strange and clearly backward attitude. Surely a better response to unrealistic sets and visible CGI would be to invest effort into improving the quality of the sets and visual effects, rather than wasting time blurring the image to the point where it becomes, quite literally, difficult to see what one is watching.
Hey there Dan,
DeleteInteresting philosophical discussion about the nature of "art".
After all, what is art?
While I don't have a clear definition - and perhaps this term defies any simple definition - art itself I think needs to be viewed through human subjectivity. While I too, as a "high-fidelity" AV guy would prefer the highest resolution, frame-rate, dynamic range presentation, I can certainly appreciate the subjective experience, the look of "old film", old analog technology can evoke in the viewer/listener when needed. Sometimes the imperfections like motion blur, intended bokeh from narrow depth-of-field, chromatic aberrations from old gear can be rather stunning...
Obviously, for art classics - like say the Mona Lisa - I don't think anyone would argue that if da Vinci had used modern canvases, paints, or even digital technology, it would have turned out any "better". It's the art of its time and transcends time itself by touching our shared humanity...
In terms of technology, the highest technology now and in the foreseeable future is AI-driven. The concept of "art" with a technology that can learn about out human subjective interests and preferences is the new horizon. Undoubtedly there will be heated battles between human and AI-generated art as society figures all this stuff out!
Here's something cool:
https://x.com/DrClownPhD/status/2001548232787120390
Hi all,
DeleteI hope I haven’t come across as dogmatic. I agree that art is subjective and that context is very important. However, I have to say that, using my favourite film as an example — Apocalypse Now from the 1970s — I’m not convinced the film wouldn’t have been improved if it had been made today with a 60fps digital video camera and short exposure shutter angles.
It was filmed within the technological limits of the 1970s. The filmmakers had no choice about whether to use analogue film or digital. I see Apocalypse Now as a film that makes the best possible use of the limited technologies of its time. I’m not sure I believe the director would have chosen a similar look if the film were made today.
I also can’t think of any way I could use 24fps “artistically”. I’m not convinced that filmmakers are technically competent. I struggle to believe that the majority of films use 24fps because the director has put any thought or purpose into using 24fps.
While I can imagine a small, limited use of low-frame-rate scenes within a 60fps film, where a low frame rate could be used deliberately, I can’t imagine a scenario in which I would choose 24fps. In this scenario, I would use a lower frame rate.
I’ve seen possibly thousands of films, nearly all at 24fps, and I can’t say I think 24fps has brought out the best of the films.
Yup, in general I agree.
DeletePractically locked into 24fps ain't good enough for movies in the 21st Century. Among AV specifications, I think this is glaringly one of the worst specifications in use to such a degree!
You have to be kidding me! Apocalypse Now in 60fps? I would rather be sick 😅. I’m aware of the philosophical limitations of trying to argue that my strong preference for 24fps with a 1/48 shutter speed is anything other than associating that with the look of movies, and associating high frame rates with reality television and soap operas, but I’ll give it a good go.
DeleteTo use an analogy from music, our perception of tonal systems and hierarchies is generally thought to be socially constructed via exposure. Practitioners of atonal music in the 20th century felt that Western preference for tonal music was a product of historical saturation of that type of music, not because of some biological inevitability in human perception of tonality.
But I don’t hear y’all making similar arguments about music just because our choice of musical system is somewhat arbitrary. Your preferences for the music you like are socially constructed and rooted in historical musical development, and you’re happy to situate your musical life within those confines despite the potentially infinite number of other musical systems available to you. In the same way, I feel that 24fps for film can represent part of the “language” of film, just as an arbitrary musical system that feels “normal” to you becomes the language of musical expression.
I am a professional filmmaker of music videos, and also a pesky objectivist in the world of audio (big fan of the blog Archimago, by the way, been reading it on and off for years!). Sometimes those worlds interfere with each other. I’ll note ASR’s apparent suspicion of “euphonic distortion,” but he doesn’t seem to note that in the studio, saturation is deliberately added to practically everything to get a mix to sound good. I work with digital video every day for convenience and cost purposes, but I vastly prefer the look of film. I can make no strong substantive argument as to why, but film’s inherent imperfections make my job easier, and half my life is spent making digital video less perfect in order to emulate the natural textures of analog media, just as a great deal of the digital audio plugin industry is dedicated to providing digital emulations of analog devices. Devices you can drive hot to add euphonic saturation, or devices that create subtle imperfections and textures that were inherent in analog media.
Perhaps you can attribute my preference for these things to nostalgia; however, I’ll point you back to my argument that after a time, certain things simply become part of the language of expression, and that’s OK.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi IGotALetter,
DeleteThanks for taking the time reading my opinions and writing your thoughts.
in an ideal world both version would be available for everyone to pick their favourites.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
DeleteIMV, 24fps motion is not something to be fixed, it is cinema. So I suppose I’m one of the luddites holding back that evolution 😅.
It’s interesting to note that despite all the other technological innovations within the medium, 24fps has stood the test of time, and there might be more to that than just an accident of history. I agree this is speculative and completely unfalsifiable, but perhaps the particular temporal blur of 24fps, when compared to HFR, lends itself more naturally to the romance of the medium. Perhaps not, but it does seem notable that there has been so much innovation in cinema except in this area (framerate darwinism!).
One day, 24fps dominance may well end and 60fps might come to be viewed as cinematic. However, I think that for the foreseeable future, artists will continue to be shaped by the existing aesthetic context of cinema, and will therefore continue to see 24fps as “correct,” at least in the near term. And honestly, I hope it lasts longer than that, because I simply cannot stand the look of HFR. Regardless of where that preference comes from, I can’t shake the aesthetic sense that 24fps feels cinematic and 60fps feels wrong, haha.
I even perform a small public service for grandparents, older relatives, and technologically illiterate friends by quietly turning off the default motion-smoothing settings on their TVs, so films look “correct” without them realising.
Down with the 60fps revolution!
The decision to pot circuitry to hide it is a huge red flag for me. Long ago I actually had a Rapaport preamp that did the same thing. Years later I read that someone managed to grind the resin open and discovered that what was hidden was a (faulty version of) a reference circuit based on cheapo 741 op-amps. So I tend to assume that when someone wants to obfuscate their design and won't provide objective evidence of performance, it isn't because they are doing something admirable.
ReplyDeleteAlso, potting line-level circuitry is one thing. Potting mains circuitry seems like a more questionable choice in terms of longevity and perhaps even safety.
Yup Bluememe,
DeleteRed flag for sure. More money spent on obfuscation in the manufacturing process! Every which way, this product IMO is simply ridiculous...
Hej Arch,
ReplyDeleteDid not think you would find the time to publish another article before the years end! Well done.
I am at a crossroad regarding Danny and his mantras. He is either sincerely convinced of his “truths” and will therefore not budge from his beliefs or he is simply another in a long line of snake oil salesman, fully aware of the bs he is spouting but if enough suckers believe in him, and reward him, he will continue if it is profitable. ASR constitutes an irritation for him and his ilk. Scientific measurements that question and reveal any marketed sonic improvement as nonsense will constitute a problem for him and others. I think the answer lies somewhere between the two. Then we have characters like Hans Beekhuyzen who like to surround himself with expensive measuring equipment yet provides only very subjective reviews. He claims to have bought three different generations of the Audio Precision Analyzer yet only uses them to check if the equipment is working properly! He is naturally a fan of expensive network switches debunked by Amir in this video: https://youtu.be/BHPwPRLxDWc?si=UT3jA2DJYpbgGSah
Hans also likes Synergistic Research products, which comes as no surprise. I seem to recall your appreciation of their products 😊 https://youtu.be/c-5KuyZPPMI?si=WFpxJBUuLwjM9hZS
Visit Synergistic home page and study the picture with the banner, “ASR Snake Oil.” It then claims,” It’s Easier to Be Wrong Together Than Right Alone.” The text that follows claims current measuring apparatus cannot measure accurately the sound produced.
https://synergisticresearch.com/fundamentals/tunein-with-ted/its-easier-to-be-wrong-together-than-right-alone/
Sigh….
Take care and have a splendid Xmas!
Cheers
Mike
Hey there Mike,
DeleteHope you're having a great holiday time!
Thanks for the fascinating tour through current audiophile foolishness.
Didn't know Hans Beekhuyzen was still running his videos. Hard to watch a man of his vintage speaking like this and with clear neurological limitations which could affect subjective evaluation at the "Golden Ears" level. I thought with age was supposed to come wisdom which seems to be missing here. Beyond the measurement equipment as props, I see he still never shows actual photos of his supposedly multiple sound rooms! Seriously, as if cartoonish setup screens somehow add to the gravitas of these reviews!? LOL - Synergistic Voodoo 🤣. IMO absolute waste of time and money.
Ahhh, I see that Synergistic article can be correlated with the OCD Mikey/Mike Powell "weird stuff" link where he supports and I guess is happy to sell Synergistic crap.
After all the hullabaloo, as if Synergistic truly understands or is able to do anything with Maxwell's equations. One who understands the meaning of the equations would absolutely not be making claims as they do. Just as one who understands Einstein's Relativity would not be criticizing Newtonian physics when calculating the trajectory of cannonballs in a gravitational field.
Ultimately, it comes down to this from the article, doesn't it?
"The only question is whether they matter at audio frequencies and typical cable lengths – and that’s an empirical question that can only be answered by experiments designed around the field model, not by tests built on the simplified one."
Go for it Mr. Denney. Show us utilizing the best methodological blind test that your speaker cables can "beat" the sound quality of 12AWG OFC bare copper wires of say a generous 10' length. Show us the audibility statistically with as much time and number of participants you need. After all these decades, where's the data that Synergistic is researching anything more than just different ways of "extracting" money from faithful audiophiles with their incessant "generations" of cables?! Scam.
Anyhow, hopefully most audiophiles can see right through the BS and just enjoy the music through this holiday season and beyond...
Yes, Hopefully they conduct their own proper research before splashing out on magic boxes and other voodoo nonsense. Here is a Xmas card for you and all your readers.. Merry Christmas Audiophiles!
Deletehttps://chatgpt.com/s/m_6949968a229c8191baea790849bfc083
Oops. Tried to embed the picture. Failed miserably. Her is the text I used for Chat GPT to generate,,,Great fun..
ReplyDeleteIn a room glowing with the warm light of vacuum tubes, several individuals, dressed head-to-toe in velvet Santa suits, sit in high-backed chairs, eyes closed in concentration. Each one is positioned precisely within the "sweet spot" of their respective, meticulously calibrated sound systems. The air is thick with the scent of pine and expensive audio equipment. One Santa carefully adjusts the vertical tracking angle on a turntable the size of a small table, while another, with a twinkle in his eye, tweaks the bias on a pair of monolithic mono-block amplifiers that hum softly with power. The air is alive with the "soundstage" of a classic Christmas carol, rendered with exquisite detail through speakers that loom like festive monoliths.
LOL. Thanks Mike,
DeleteI've added the Christmas greetings as an image at the end of the article with some text...
Nice one!
1. ASR is not objective as Amir's measurement parameters are not objective, they are subjectively chosen. The measurements are internally consistent, he is comparing apples to apples. Internally consistent and objective is not the same. Measurements are great for development and for eliminating crucial mistakes, but they do not give you the whole story.
Delete2. ASR has an agenda, Amir is biased: if not can't be measured it can't be heard. All DACs sound the same etc. I can tell you that one expensive USB cable has muffled the sound in my Questyle DAC/amp. Hence, not all USB cables "sound" the same.
3. ASR applies measurements wrong in some instances. A good example is the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt. It is designed for minimal power draw, hence you cannot use it for high-current guzzlers and insensitive headphones. Every engineer should know that this leads to distortions. So no wonder if distorted with the unsuited listening equipment. But he Cobalt has a very natural sound...I listen a lot to symphonic music.
4. Not sure whether all listening is subjective. The interpretations may be subjective (better or worse) but it two things sound different, they just sound different. An example: DragonFly Red and Cobalt...no audible difference found by Archimago and a friend. The Red has audibly more bass and some shrillness in the upper mids, I hear the difference from miles away.
5. I don't buy $400 power cables etc. either, but I'd lend an open ear to such things in a listening room. There surely is a lot of snake oil and diminishing return, but this does not mean EVERYTHING is snake oil.
It is very simple for me: if a device does not make a big difference, or the difference is debatable, it is not worth it.
DeleteThat critique applies to literally all of science. Why do physicists at CERN use the Large Hadron Collider instead of personal spiritual revelation to figure out how the universe works? Because they operate within a framework, the scientific method, with methodological assumptions about what counts as evidence. If your argument is “he chooses what parameters to measure,” then you have just invalidated every scientific discipline. That is not a serious position.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is Amir chooses measurements grounded in electrical engineering and psychoacoustic research. You can disagree with specific choices, but pretending they are arbitrary is just wrong. He could defend why those parameters are relevant to human hearing.
What you are doing instead is dismissing a genuine attempt at objectivity so you can smuggle in pure subjectivism. And the irony is, Amir does not reject listening tests. If you could reliably detect your “muffled” USB cable in a properly controlled blind test, he would accept that result, full stop. Measurements would not override repeatably established perception.
So where are those results? Show me controlled tests where people can reliably distinguish USB cables once expectation bias and price cues are removed. Not anecdotes, evidence.
And this is the core issue. Instead of actually testing the claim, you retreat into vague philosophical complaints about “objectivity.” That is the easy way out. The hard way is simple. Set up a blind test and demonstrate that listeners can consistently tell the difference between a $400 cable and a normal one, or that the DragonFly Red has “shrill upper mids” in a way people can reliably identify.
Amir does not need to run that test. He is not the one making the claim. You are. The burden of proof is on the person asserting audible differences.
That you attack Amir philosophically just to let all this subjectivist waffle in via the back door rather than with a dynamite objective listening test that proves that your USB cable muffled the system, or that the red has shrillness in the upper mids, is very revealing. A simple listening test with ONLY your ears and no expectation bias would shut everyone up for good, but no subjectivist ever takes this test.
Philosophical is the new subjective? And opinionated is the new open minded? Reminds me of the guy trained in bible school who is replying with "talking points".
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing objective about Amir's method and I take the liberty to decide myself what I like or not - and not BEING TOLD by know-it-alls who are nothing but believers. I don't need to BELIEVE the INTERPRETATIONS of somebody's measurements. Any INTERPRETATION is subjective and so are the RECOMMENDATIONS, which Amir (or anybody else, including myself) gives.
The problem with Amir's method is that there are 50 cents missing to the dollar. His OBSERVATIONS are ok, but he overinterpretes his data. Extrapolation of his sine curve measurements to music is not founded in anything.
The difference between people like me and Amir's disciples is that I DON'T dictate people what is good harping on questionable methods.
If you object Amir's results, there is a whole bunch of Piranhas jumping at you. You are living proof of that by assuming who does not go by Amir's results must have fallen for expectation bias.
Amir and his disciples are not only highly opinionated, many of them having mental issues and compensate in forums for their shortcomings in real life.
It's how Jehovah's witnesses operate.
"If you can't measure it it can't be heard" is complete bogus.
My point was that yes to some extent deciding WHAT to measure is to some extent rooted in subjectivity but that is true of all scientific inquiry, so are you prepared to throw that out?
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, you are responding with talking points: your critique of Amir is largely philosophical. You dismiss his measurements and pretend that what he chooses is arbitrary when it is not. Amir never says that a 1khz sine wave represents the sum total of an audio system, but that that sine wave is revealing of noise and distortion which absolutely correlate with our subjective experience of music in a way which is backed by psychoacoustic research.
Is it worth spending money on expensive power cables? extensive analysis which includes listening and null testing shows that at least the expensive power cable that GR research sell almost certainly makes no difference to a system. Do you accept that a null test proves that there can't be an audible difference between two signals? If you mathematically subtract one wave from another wave and find that all that is left is silence, would you accept that CLEARLY the power cable can't make a difference?
Why does this discovery threaten you so much? It's deeply valuable to the community, it gives us real worthwhile knowledge about where to invest in our hifi systems. But no, you choose to side with manufacturers like Danny who have a CLEAR financial incentive to promulgate the idea that high end power cables matter. Yet the person who has performed a basic repeatable null test is the problem, and the one who is "biased".
Humans are entitled to spend whatever they like and believe whatever they like about their audio systems, but one shouldn't object to someone performing objective tests and warning others that there are many established audiophile products and practices which are almost certainly a waste of time and money.
I presume that if I told you that putting special stones on your amplifier improved the sound you would ask for verification of that claim, the easiest way to verify it would be to put me behind a curtain and take the rocks on and off and ask if I could identify when the rocks were and weren't on the system. We have prior knowledge (for example electrical engineering principles) that tell us that TCP/IP or USB is robust and so a working device that is in spec shouldn't make a difference to the sound. If one claims it makes a difference to the sound the best way to establish that is through a blind test. and that's the thing, audio objectivism doesn't just rely on measurements, controlled listening tests are essential for establishing the bounds of human audio perception. If you could point me to anywhere where people have been shown to reliably distinguish between power cables and USB cables in controlled conditions then I'll take the claim more seriously. Until then I'll assume it is expectation bias because it violates what we should expect given our prior understanding of engineering principles.
Expectation bias is not an accusation, it's simply an aspect of human auditory perception that is well established. Do you deny that it exists? or does it just not affect you?
Also as you decided to insult me and diagnose me with mental illness, I'll do the same for you and say that you are an industry bootlicker coping hard with the sunk cost fallacy of investing too much in ridiculous things that don't matter, so you psychologically project that inability to accept that bruise to your ego by making vague and inadequate philosophical jibes against clear-thinking concepts you are not morally or intellectually equipped to understand.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go and deliver some copies of The Watchtower.