[ec]

If this is not good form to link to another forum then mods feel free to remove.  I frequent Audio Science Review forum which has similar objectives as Bryston namely well engineered products with objective measurements to back them up.  Great thread on the measured performance degradation (lack thereof) over long periods of time.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/bryston-bp-25-preamp-10b-sub-electronic-crossover-and-3b-st-amplifier-measurements-and-review.64767/

[James Tanner]

Hi EC - does not want to open?

james

[ec]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com

Hmm.  The link works for me. Maybe it because I was logged in when I copied the url.  Go to the above url then "reviews" by clicking on the three bars in the top left to get the drop down (if on a phone).  Just noticed that I do not get this when on a PC.

[inglisd]

works for me on pc/firefox.  Great to read all the responses on that thread, especially
from those with older Bryston gear.
My 4B and 11B ((SNs 413061, 110401) are still going strong and sound great.

[cleeds]

... Audio Science Review forum which has similar objectives as Bryston ...

I've never thought of "Audio Science Review" and Bryston as sharing the same values at all. For starters, my few interactions with Bryston have always been friendly, respectful, polite, informative. In my view, ASR could learn a lot from Bryston style.

[R. Daneel]

I've never thought of "Audio Science Review" and Bryston as sharing the same values at all. For starters, my few interactions with Bryston have always been friendly, respectful, polite, informative. In my view, ASR could learn a lot from Bryston style.

There is more to being an engineer than just the engineering. Unfortunately, many engineers are what the Germans call "fach idiot" - good at the job but not much else and usually incapable of understanding anyone with a different viewpoint. Frequently, they are unable to explain even the basic engineering principles to a common man.

Granted, I am an engineer of a different trade, not related to audio, and while I do appreciate the structured methodology of Audio Science Review, I object to just about everything else. That's a topic for another discussion but if the fellow who owns the ASR was a structural engineer specializing in bridge design, all of his bridges would use three times as much material as is needed and they would be ugly because the only parameter he would take into account would be structural stability or quite simply, the mathematics of it, disregarding the visual appeal or the architecture of it if you will.

Cheers - Antun

[RDavidson]

Perfectly stated, Antun. That’s exactly why I don’t participate at ASR either, despite that I also work in design and engineering (unrelated field). I certainly appreciate the work done there and the information provided, but that’s all. I agree with you that it says a lot about Bryston that they have been a long-term sponsor and active member on AC while always being an astute representative of audio engineering excellence.

[cleeds]

The folks who run ASR are so blatantly dogmatic that it renders suspect even their "objective" information. The forum is toxic, but I understand that some people really like that sort of thing.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

If this is not good form to link to another forum then mods feel free to remove.  I frequent Audio Science Review forum which has similar objectives as Bryston namely well engineered products with objective measurements to back them up.  Great thread on the measured performance degradation (lack thereof) over long periods of time.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/bryston-bp-25-preamp-10b-sub-electronic-crossover-and-3b-st-amplifier-measurements-and-review.64767/

 My issue with ASR is that if the measurements are not good, then there is no possible way it can sound good which is BS.  Nelson Pass said he can easily make something that has excellent specs but sounds bad and visa versa.  My Parasound A 21 amp had great specs, much better than my Pass X250 amp but the A21 has much inferior sound.  The ASR fan boys do not want to believe that.

The other day, I read a thread on ASR about Van Alstine gear and they were belittling Frank Van Alstine and his gear because he did not publish specs.  They haven't even heard his gear which is excellent by the way

I have bought one of their recommended Chinese DAC's that has great specs only to find it sounds like crap in my reference system and my son's.  I bought it to use with TV and it does work well there.  There is more to good sound than specs and most designers know that but you can't convince Amir.

[R. Daneel]

Perfectly stated, Antun. That’s exactly why I don’t participate at ASR either, despite that I also work in design and engineering (unrelated field). I certainly appreciate the work done there and the information provided, but that’s all. I agree with you that it says a lot about Bryston that they have been a long-term sponsor and active member on AC while always being an astute representative of audio engineering excellence.

Indeed!

At least with audio, unless we are talking about audiometric measurements where people are 'helped by the science' and their quality of life is improved, nobody dies if the equipment doesn't 'measure'. They might if a bridge collapses! Being an engineer yourself, you can certainly understand the necessity of design in accordance with established engineering norms and regulations so that no harm is done. But in audio, what possible harm is done if you like your sound 'warm', whatever that means to you. It's like buying a painting - a luxury - it needn't be an artistic masterpiece for you to like it.

Even engineering must begin with common sense.

Chhers - Antun

[R. Daneel]

The thing that bothers me somewhat about Audio Science Review and others like it is that there seems to be something that has a lot less merit than it aapears to have at a glance.

There is no doubt that there has been an absolute flood of inexpensive yet well-measuring gear in the last several years. It is a good thing, of course, because a lot more people can afford it without risking financial troubles. But if you insist that only well-measuring gear is what you should be considering and that there cannot possibly be any reason to spend more - and you are using sccientific measurements and your CV to reach high ground - then you are 'targeting' that specific group, taking advantage of the situation they are in. Suddenly, those who wanted a piece of HIFI kit they could not afford become a proponent of something that gives them comfort - 'I cannot afford it but just as well because it is not good anyway - the science doesn't lie'. Also, because such people will always be the majority, there is a large pool from which you can 'fish' and have enough public to make a living out of it.

Now, you might argue that this is in the service of helping a fellow man buy something cheap but good. If that is so, why the toxicity and hostility towards those with a different opinion? Is ASR a closed club? If it is, then the word 'forum' hardly applies.

You have to hand it to the ASR team though, smart folks. I just wish they used their smarts for something with more merit.

Cheers - Antun

[cleeds]

...why the toxicity and hostility towards those with a different opinion? Is ASR a closed club?

Some people just love that kind of environment. They get a dopamine rush from it.
It's an open forum for those with closed minds.

[R. Daneel]

Some people just love that kind of environment. They get a dopamine rush from it.
It's an open forum for those with closed minds.

That certainly appears to be the case!

Cheers - Antun

[Jozsef]

The notion of measured performance being, to a significant degree, independent of subjective sound quality is on its face a very reasonable one that will be consistent with experiences that each of us have had. From this we can conclude that either lab testing is irrelevant or we have ignored at least one significant variable. In actual fact, it's the second one.

When I studied this at Carlton U fifty years ago, it was already old news. We experience the world with our brain, using input from our eyes, ears and sensory nerves. We hear primarily with our brain and thus, professional violinists when comparing a Stradivarius with several other violins will absolutely love it, unless they are not told which instrument is which. In that case, they don't like it, preferring good modern instruments made with the knowledge of what makes the Strad great. People comparing good to not so good audio gear will hear very big differences in SQ between the two systems that are quite reasonable and consistent with what one might expect, except that the reactions track with what they are told is playing rather than the equipment they are actually listening to.

When you consider that we are listening to recordings and then presuming we know what those should sound like with little or no knowledge of how the recordings were made, that additional large variable in my mind makes subjective evaluations of equipment of very limited value. I don't say none.

I looked at ASR years ago and gave up because they were too subjective at that time, or made some assumptions about sound without requiring any real proof for those beliefs. I don't now recall specifics but one belief I believe to be wrong is the idea that noise and distortion can be below a threshold and further improvements will be inaudible. Bryston has shown that as of a few years ago, we had not reached any such level.

I want to be clear that I had to make the journey from believing The Absolute Sound as a subscriber from its inception, to what I espouse today, so I have no sense of superiority to anyone who thinks that listening tests are the most meaningful way to evaluate audio gear. If you're happy to disagree, that's good and if you're motivated to investigate the issues I've raised, I think that's even better.