Late-thread Summary: we are down to pretty thin gruel, here, folks!
(1) There is no clear merit to any claims that the measurements and methodology on ASR are unsound. All such claims were either hand-waving and/or were addressed.
(2) Fringe science/engineering claims are also without merit and seem often to be active attempts to distract from the core issues but are sometimes interesting to explore.
(3) Some designers and consumers prefer added/inadvertent distortion components to achieve specific goals. Some even insist more distortion is a well-justified preference. ASR focuses on a value system where fidelity is central and invokes group preference studies to justify.
(4) There are factors other than fidelity that arise when selecting audio components and we can talk around them in digressions that I have labeled “connoisseurship.” It is mildly better than subjectivist word salad, I suppose, and invokes boutique firm histories, the preferences of household members, design aesthetics, and broad theories of social good. I don’t think anyone has more than quibbles about tone with these; they are orthogonal to ASR concerns. You b u.
ACTIONABLE:
(5) The polls on ASR reviews might benefit from a disclaimer (in the new FAQ?) that clarifies that these are votes based on the review, not ownership.
(6) ASR could benefit from more volunteer moderation when discussions get heated.
(7) If ASR reviews HQPlayer, Amir should get advice on how to adjust the software settings.