Let me start by saying I like watching Amir from ASR, so please let’s not get harsh or the thread will be deleted. Many times, Amir has noted that when we’re inserting a new component in our system, our brains go into (to paraphrase) “analytical mode” and we start hearing imaginary improvements. He has reiterated this many times, saying that when he switched to an expensive cable he heard improvements, but when he switched back to the cheap one, he also heard improvements because the brain switches from “music enjoyment mode” to “analytical mode.” Following this logic, which I agree with, wouldn’t blind testing, or any A/B testing be compromised because our brains are always in analytical mode and therefore feeding us inaccurate data? Seems to me you need to relax for a few hours at least and listen to a variety of music before your brain can accurately assess whether something is an actual improvement. Perhaps A/B testing is a strawman argument, because the human brain is not a spectrum analyzer. We are too affected by our biases to come up with any valid data. Maybe.
Pepsi is more " biting" then seems more interesting in the short term for me, but if i would drink cola long term each day i will probably set for Coke which is more body friendly for me or less agressive and less "surprizing" in a wrong way ... 😁😊
In the long run even wine cannot beat water source...No water taste the same by the way...
Wine is the same than acoustic it must be learned...Like sex which is not only complex gymnastic anyway but a loving and educated taste experience so to speak......
It remind me of sex in the long run with someone you love compared to a short run with a beautiful unknown woman you dont fall in love with and either she .... this short relation may act like a drug rush thats all...If you ever love a woman you know why...And if you are loved especially ...
There is a part of taste, sound and sexe experience that dont work the same either long run and short run in term of evaluation and experience.....
You cannot taste and evaluate in the short run and in the big run some bread like a very big load of sweets so good they are... One is for each day a necessary addition the other not...Their action on the body is not the same...One replenish the body the other act more like a drug...
You cannot taste and tune and evaluate rightfully the ratio LEV/ASW , nor timbre perception in the short run....And it is more easy to get SOME dynamic improved and SOME bass a bit better in the short run it work like a load of sweets like a drug...It is the reason why most people at best stop acoustic experiments after buying some costly or cheap acoustic panels...
And if we listen music an hour a day. the level of sound may be liked VERY HIGH it act like a drug on the body ... But if we listen 5 hours of music each day , the sound levels will be prefered lower...
And sorry but nevermind the taste, heavy rock dont work like a string quintet at all on the mind and on the body in the short term and in the long run either...
And everybody know that the evaluation of music and sound will be influenced by the brand name visibility...
It is one of the reason why my acoustic listening experiments were so enlightening for me... i became conscious how secondary are the brand name of gear piece for acoustic science results...I supposed here not too much difference in design qualities for sure between gear choices on the S.Q and design quality and price ratio scale... A 100 dollars amplifier is not a 50,000 bucks one...
Acoustic can make miracles change yes, but dont transform stone in bread like Christ did once ...
Any basically relatively good piece of gear will do the job, but not any room will help the system and would do his job to transform it on another level of experience... We need acoustic basic knowledge for that...
Acoustic is more important than the gear choice, especially if neither of your possible choices are completely wrong for sure or if one is not at the high end level and the other at the lowest level for sur.
..Audio magazine are like Colas publicity nothing more...Acoustic and psycho-acoustic rule with ,mechanical vibrations control and electrical noise floor control all audio experience........
Buying and plugging in the wall is not enough sorry at any price ...
My 500 bucks audio system teach me so with murmur to my ears !
😁😊
There are actually more facets to the Pepsi story. Look up the "Pepsi Challenge" on Wikipedia for several additional bits of information.
The reason Pepsi started doing a single-blind Pepsi vs. Coke challenge decades ago was because Pepsi was often preferred over Coke if the test was based on a single sip of cola. (Most people think this is due to the fact that Pepsi tastes a little sweeter than Coke.) However, Coke often was preferred when consumption occurred over a more extended period of time. This sounds a bit like nonoise’s ideas about extended listening vs. short-term listening.
If you’re really into these issues, take a look at a great study of how brain damage to the prefrontal cortex can affect blinded or semi-blind taste testing:
This study showed that taste preferences were influenced by knowledge of the brand of cola, except in people with damage to the prefrontal cortex of the brain. I don’t know if this study has any implications for drinking wine, but it sounds like it could.
In my mind, my Pepsi story negates your audio listening hypothesis.
The two of you are right and wrong together and at the same time...
There is always a placebo effect and a nocebo effect at play...
For sure it is so....
We all are played by our expectation biases...Then my pepsi is your coke and vice versa....This is a common place fact in life and in science too...
But when this is said, all acoustic cues contributing to every acoustic factors exist objectively, they can be implemented and put in place with objective ratios between surfaces,volumes, various acoustic material content and various devices...
In the sound experience there is expectation biases and placebos, but what i listen to from my speakers/room emerge MOSTLY from my ability to control the room too or from my unability to do so...Not from my expectation biases...But from my acoustic knowledge and experiments...
Then explaining everything by expectation bias dont usually means much...
"Measuring tools fetichists" tend to negate any value to the expectation bias of the " subjective gear tasting fetichists"... And debates goes without end because they argued about the GEAR and they dont know HOW TO MODIFY AT WILL ALL ACOUSTICAL CUES contributing to the main acoustic factors and experiences in their room ...
The two main opposing groups of fetichist focus their attention on the gear pieces, one group subjectively, the other objectively...They ignore acoustic and psycho-acoustic or treat it like a secondary factor but it is the main one...
Acoustic/psycho acoustic is the science correlationg subjective and objective dispositions, ratios, and devices...
Buying an upgrade and plugging it in the wall with or without an objective measures set is SECONDARY business for the ultimate sound/music quality experience...Not the main business...
Acoustic is the sleeping princess and all pieces of gear are the 7 working dwarves, and the kissing prince is the psycho acoustic factor....
😁😊
There is also with the acoustic embeddings controls , the vibration/resonance mechanical control and the control over the electrical noise floor of the sysyem/room/house...
These three embedding controls are the KEY of a good sound experience not decimals about different piece of gear so important measures are for the design of a good piece of gear...
Is it not simple?
It is incredible that most people argue without end ignoring this three factors to audiophile perception and debating subjectively or objectively about a piece of gear...
All audio magazine are marketing sellers points not science , and almost useless to create our sonic heaven... It is not exagerated too much if i say so....By the way it is not because someone use technological tool that it is de facto science... Science need concepts not only tools...In audio the concepts come first and last from acoustic...
Anybody can buy a good basic piece of gear but knowing how to embed this working piece of gear in his mechanical, electrical and acoustical environment is the KEY...
i learn it the hard way...
And listening is not a placebo journey in deception, it is something we must learn, not by comparing various pieces of gear and calling our favorite brand name product the winner, but by training ourself in acoustic control : bass, timbre perception, dynamic, imaging, soundstage, LEV/ASW ratio, etc....
Not if you are making technically implausible claims...no.
In many instances (not all, but many) we really can say, through measurements, that "X is bad" or "the difference you heard was in all likelihood your imagination."
It doesn’t matter what room you listened in. That would be like saying "I saw a working Perpetual Motion Machine!" A physicist explains why that is impossible and you reply "But did you test it in the guy’s GARAGE where I saw it? If not...your opinion doesn’t count!"
Instead of trying to understand my point...You put something i never said in my mouth here : 😋
For sure it is POSSIBLE to say with adequate measurements that some piece of gear is badly designed... Engineers know what they do in their design and used standards ....
Where i did speak about the contrary?
But you commit to an error if you think that measuring will be enough in ALL CASES and all time to judge between two products of similar price and/or design...
You are intelligent for sure i dont doubt it and you already said that in your first sentence: yes you are right i dont make implausible technical claims either...
Acoustic method will not transform miraculously a bad design in a good one...
But now put my posts in their context, it is necessary ALSO to correlate listening with measures...
And between an upgrade in gear for example most of the times and acoustic improvement , the greatest possible improvement could come and come often from an improving controlled acoustical environment Why?
Because no piece of gear work optimally at his peak sound level PERCEIVED quality in a bad room or in a room uncontrolled...
We must learn how to listen (acoustic/psycho-acoustic) audiophiles or engineer alike...
I never say that Amirm measuring could not be useful, i said that some of his bullying disciples make communication difficult here or there...
It is the same here where a few are agressive toward those who focus mainly on measures...I myself trust only correlation method...Because we all love sound and music at the end...
My best to you.... And deepest respect...We may differ on many subjects but i know that you are an honest person...
I understood quite clearly what you posted. You without any lack of clarity accused the users of the Audio Science site of ignorance wrt the need for room acoustic treatment. I will post it again.
Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities....
This is in my experience and to anyone who happens to visit there patently false.
I expect you went there and tried to tell some experts in acoustics how to do acoustics, and it was not well received. Based on your posts, it is likely you made some claims wrt what you could accomplish by ear alone that from my own audio journey is not impossible.
Audiophiles can’t have it both ways. You have Tony complaining that a device was not recently calibrated to a 35 year defunct Bureau of Measurements meanwhile almost no companies in this industry supply any measurements let alone NIST traceable while you claim that your ears are "accurate" enough. Surely you see the irreconcilable issue here?
With this truncated quotation of my post , anybody can think that i spoke about EVERYONE on ASR and not about a "few bullys"...For sure...
You quoted my COMPLETE post ONLY after my 2 answering posts about your insinuation, thanks....
Then everybody can read my real intention clearly and your misinterpretation of my ORIGINAL post and intention ...
Do you learned how to read? i think so if i read your posts...
Perhaps my english is not exemplary i dont doubt that...But your interpretation is not my words...
it is evident here that i spoke about SOME people on ASR not about ALL people there..
i even precisely mention a "few bullys"...
I must conclude after your insult that you have a grudge about me here because you seem too much intelligent to be unable to read the context..Who are you then? you are new here, and i welcome you, and you picked one of my post, misread it in an evident way and you go on after me... Comical...
For example in my post , "their common point"; "their" refer to whom here?
it refer to the "few bullys"...not to the ASR site in his totality...
Anybody read that clearly in my post and not your distorted interpretation...
I know you are clever, then what i must conclude?
I even said many times here and in this post that Amirm was polite and honest then what?
There is only 2 possibilities you have a grudge against me but i dont know you then i must conclude to your bad faith...
Sorry but i refuse to think that you cannot know how to read a text like an idiot..You are not an idiot, you are evidently very intelligent... Then you quoted me in bad faith...For whatever reason i dont know...
Are you one of the few bullys on ASR?
your choice of name for your avatar goes in this interpretative direction...
It is the first time someone insult me here AFTER i welcome him on another thread where he was attacked...Comical...
😁😊
«
They are many pompuous very clever but closed minds ignoring anything resembling a listening experiments but Amir was polite...There are good people also there listen me right but they are dominated by a minority of bullys protecting the master...They are easy to recognized, some come here ridiculizing anyone who listen with his ears... Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities...»
Anybody can be proven to make a false statement with any extract of words...
With this avatar name you dont seem to be of good faith if i think about it after your insult.....
Only an idiot can say that there is no acoustic expertise here in all the audiogon forum or on ASR... I am not an idiot ...This was not my point....This is explained in my last 2 posts...
You take advantage of some bad sentence out of the context of all my posts here to pick fleas in my neck...
Be it...
I never insulted you and this is a FACT ....
No distortion of my posts context will change this simple fact: to assess a product we need to listen to it in well determined acoustic condition... this is in all my posts here...You can distort this simple fact and claim that i said that there is no acoustic specialist on ASR if you want and put that in my mouth... This is stupid claim i never did...There is acoustician here and in any other big audio sites...
This does not change the fact that most people in audio UNDERESTIMATE acoustic power concerning S.Q. improvement versus a new electronic design upgrade... This is my point...
Measuring the gear is not enough to judge 2 designs one against the other...Acoustic here is key...
it is clear even with my bad english syntax..
Welcoming me does not change the fact you made a false statement, that I did not take out of context. That would near impossible given what you said, and you both will not admit to the actual words you wrote nor their meaning. I don’t perceive any ability to have a coherent honest conversation with you.
Mahgister, you appear unable to both form a coherent paragraph, nor stay on topic. Throwing out names like Helmholtz nor TYPING IN CAPS does not make your point any more succinct or accurate nor confer any expertise on you.
By the way i never insulted you, i even welcome you, remember?
Then instead of insults try to discuss..
I never pretend to any SCIENCE... I pretend to have experimented in my room and to my surprize discovered many acoustic basic facts that change my listening experience...
Then i spoke about what i know: SOME acoustic and psycho acoustic basic fact help more than upgrading our piece of gear generally ... Especially costly one for MOST people and especially if what we already own is relatively good to begin with... I dont speak about people or for people who can afford anything at any cost here...
Second: speakers cannot sound the same in different SMALL room...
Third: it is easy to deduce from that that reviewing piece of gear by only measuring some electrical characteristic is not enough..
No need of a doctorate in digital engineering for that..
i hope all is clearer ...
By the way i dont throw the name of Helmholtz to be smart , i used some different devices with his name on them...
I used capital letters to insist on a word... This is not like your sentence about me which is an insult, but just a way to be best understood...
And also i said already many times here i dont doubt that Amir of ASR is honest... Some of his disciples less honest...They develop the idea that we can assess quality of a product without listening in the proper acoustic condition, and they use some electrical measures to mock anybody who like a product after listening to it only...These few disciples called anyone who listen without knowing the numbers meanings a "deluded audiophile" is this ring a bell ? 😁😊
My opinion is less simplistic than the opinion of most audiophile or the opinion of some ASR disciples : we must takes any measures seriously yes for sure, but we must listen ALSO the product in a very well controlled acoustic room.. This is the way to speak about ANY audio product for me..
Is it clear enough?
By the way english is not my first language, i only read english dont speak it well..
Mahgister, you appear unable to both form a coherent paragraph, nor stay on topic. Throwing out names like Helmholtz nor TYPING IN CAPS does not make your point any more succinct or accurate nor confer any expertise on you. You made a blanket statement that the users of Audio Science do not care about room acoustics. That is patently false. There is no walking that back. You made a false statement. It would be best to just admit it.
You extracted my sentence of his context...
Nobody in his right mind can clain that there is no one interested by acoustic here or in ASR... this will be false... this is evident for ANYONE...
Second: I spoke about some people in ASR claimingv that measuring a piece of gear say all there is too say about his Sound quality...
I said we must listen any produtct in good acoustic condition...not only read some chosen electrical measures to assess his quality...The final quality of any audio system is DETERMINED by his relation to a ROOM acoustically controlled...
is it clearer?
Dont pick fleas in my back, try to understand context...
I am not sure why you are comparing your room to headphones. They don’t sound the same. That is an apples and orange comparison and does not mean anything.
First anybody in his right mind know that we cannot compare headphones with speakers...They are different BUT.......They cannot be compared en GENERAL, they can be compared by an owner in his room...
Second i prefer my speakers now to all my headphones why?
Because i can replicate the INTIMACY we feel with headphones with my room/speakers ...And all other acoustic cues are on par or better with my speakers..
With the same system it was not the case a few years ago without any acoustic control of my room... i prefered headphones at this time in the same uncontrolled room...
is it clearer?
The acoustics discussions are definitely deeper there, but of course more focused on studios and mixing spaces. The concepts are similar though.
i dont doubt a second that the acoustic discourse is better on ASR than here...i know that there is more "specialist" there than here...
This does not means that measuring a piece of gear ONLY and only measuring it is the final word about his quality...If Amir say i take measure and this dac is good this other bad...This is not enough information about the sound quality of anything... Improving Acoustic conditions in my experience beat most upgrade... This is my point...
The final word is a listening in the room with a good acoustic...
A reviewer speaking of any product in a non treated and non controlled room for me cannot give the final word... be it here, in an audio magazine or in ASR...
By the way i dont pretend to teach their job to acoustician...
I pretend to have been able to tune my room..
Then dont put in my mouth what serve your goal...
And in case you dont know it, SMALL ROOM acoustic is a recent field in acoustic science investigations ... The market for small room acoustic is few decades old...Amphitheater exist for millenia...
i dont pretend to know anything, i only experimented 2 years non stop in my room...
And my room beat my 8 headphones... it is not perfect but it is enough for me..
And by the way the best acoustician in the world are on the net with their articles and books... They are not in the ASR site...And if they are there. did they contradict the idiotic way to judge a piece of gear by numbers alone ? Inform me about that i dont know... 😊
How do you think i learn to tune my room? By consulting acoustician articles on the internet...And creating my own experiments...
Serious Acousticians are not dwelling in audiophile forum for sure and not in your ASR site either , they WORK ...
Read my post right please before categorizing me in the "deluded audiophile "box your avatar name suggest....
I expect you went there and tried to tell some experts in acoustics how to do acoustics, and it was not well received.
Sorry but the way a piece of gear could be evaluated is in a specific ROOM ONLY ... Not by an electrical partial chosen set of measures ONLY ...CORRELATION BETWEEN MEASURES AND ROOM is NECESSARY ...
That was my point...
I know perfectly well that there is all kind of people in this site, even acousticians...
But claiming that a piece of gear is "bad" without listening it in a controlled acoustic is BULLSHIT...And this is what Amir does often and his disciples who attack "deluded audiophile" if you know what i means...
And it is perfectly possible to tune a room by ears, i have done it to my satisfaction AT NO COST...It is not perfect but it works...Helmholtz did it before me and the Egyptian...
I dont need any headphones now nor any upgrade nor any advice by fools who think measuring some aspects of a dac without listening to it is the way to chose one...
Then read me right... Iam not a deluded audiophile nor a deluded measuring fool...
If there exist only 2 cases in your audio brain; deluded audiophile and measuring fool, add a third one for me...call it CORRELATING EARS AND MEASURES guy...
😁😊
I understood quite clearly what you posted. You without any lack of clarity accused the users of the Audio Science site of ignorance wrt the need for room acoustic treatment. I will post it again.
Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities....
Ears Training is not an audiophile or only an acoustician matter it is a musician affair too..
Correlating subjective impressions with objective disposition of acoustic devices or content or ratios is the ONLY WAY...
Measuring with some tool a piece of gear and claiming without listening to it in controlled environment that the tool say the gear is good or bad is beyond ridiculous, exactly like vouching for the market publicity of gear....
Stupidity has no borderline... My borderline in audio is CORRELATION between the gear potential the room acoustic ratios and the ears...
You quote me then i want to be understood clearly...
"Gear tasting brand name subjective fetichists" or " Measuring tool alleged Objective fetichist" focus, the two warring groups, on the GEAR PIECE ...They are gear obsessed...
One group trust ONLY their ears, the other group trust ONLY the numbers they look for...
The two group recognize the existence of acoustic and psycho-acoustic science for sure and give it a lip service for sure but my point is the two groups COMPLETELY UNDERESTIMATE the huge impact of acoustic treatment and especially of acoustic mechanical control of SMALLROOM and also of mechanical vibration control of the system and electrical noise floor level control of the house... The goal being AT THE END how to reach the best S.Q./price ratio ...
They war each other ignoring that the only important factor in audio is not measured numbers alone or ears ALONE but their ongoing CORRELATION...
Then i am not a "deluded audiophile" like your avatar name suggest i may be, and i am not an Amir disciple either...
I used my EARS to tune my room by myself with a rigourous step by step process where location, reverberation time, timing, intensity sound level, time delay differential between each ears from each speakers etc play a major role..
In this process ears listenings and objective measures and objective measures ratio between the mechanical device parts are CORRELATED one with another to make the tuning process a succeess... i made it at NO COST by myself with only homemade devices...
I hope to be counted in NONE of these two groups, but for sure i dont dismiss ears training like one of this group systematically do...
They are many pompuous very clever but closed minds ignoring anything resembling a listening experiments but Amir was polite...There are good people also there listen me right but they are dominated by a minority of bullys protecting the master...They are easy to recognized, some come here ridiculizing anyone who listen with his ears... Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities....
I am a naive person generally and i trust people to a point...
I quited this reunion of disciples also...After they laugh a lot about my "quartz/shungite experiments... 😁😊
Sheeps crowd are not for me...
Here sheeps exist too but most people LISTEN...With ears...
You must use the same system and not only the same music...
And it is not enough at all...
We are USED to acoustic very precise conditions in a ROOM, our room, which by far affect the sound quality more than each piece of gear UNBEKNOWNST to most people because they dont pay attention to acoustic...
Comical....
No one own "golden ears" but we all own our listening ability BECAUSE of our hearing HISTORY circonstances and IN some KNOWN ENVIRONMENT WITH our specific audio system...Buy an acoustic book and forgot blind testing fetichists...Learn how to tune a room and you will spare money...
Only ignorant people in acoustic and psycho-acoustic imagine that people pretend to have "golden ears"... Save some reviewers in audio magazine another kind of fetichists who vouch more about gear than acoustic science also...They need golden ears to sell... I dont sell anything, i need my ordinary ears to LEARN and be acoustically creative...
My normal ears deetect any change in my room condition even a straw introduced in the room in some location why?
Buy an acoustic book and read about Helmholtz resonators and you will know...No need to have alleged "golden ears" at all.. these accusation against people come from ignorant people...The gear reviewer tasting fetichist is ignorant like the meaasuring tool fetichist... The two groups IGNORE acoustic learning experiments...
Quit those fools measauring noise with a tool to decide if a dac is good without any listening controlled acoustical experiments to compare them after this "measuring" feast ...
If you want to blind test everything, it must be in your room acoustic condition with your system and a music you know by heart..but it will be a lost of time and IMPRACTICAL...
How do you think i was able to optimize and tune mechanically 100 Helmholtz tubes generators and diffusers one at a time ?
Golden ears my a....
Blindtest my a....
The reason is my listening learning history of EXPERIMENTS in my room with my system and my music...
Do you imagine that a piano tuner must use blindtest to tune a piano?
😁😊
Acoustic ignorance is the ONLY audiophiles or pseudo-scientist measuring fetichists COMMON problem ...
Easy to verify...
if you are a "clear thinker" i am sure you can figure all that by yourself...How is it not the case already?
You read too much about gear and blind test... Not enough about acoustic and psycho-acoustic ESPECIALLY..
Is it easy to figure out ? NO
You need to be a real clear thinker...It takes me 2 years alone , much time but at no cost...
my 500 bucks system give me ALL acoustic factors: natural timbre, dynamic, clearbass, 3-D soundscape filling the room, depth imaging, listener envelopment/sound source wodth ratio or LV/ASW ratio, intimacy like with headphones superior to me 8 headphones with a sound out of my head AROUND me... I am in some recording AMONG the musician on the scene...
500 bucks system few bucks dac, vintage amplifier a very good one and good speakers paid 50 bucks... Is it the best system there is? Not at all half people here own a better one...but it work in OPTIMIZED acoustic condition...I am not envious of ANY superior system why?
Because there is a TRESHOLD of acoustic qualities, a MINIMAL threashold from which you are HAPPY even if better system exist.. Why?
Because your ratio S.Q. / price is OVER THE ROOF...
Is it not clear?
is it not good?
Thanks to acoustic and psycho-acousatic BASIC elementary knoweledge...
I dont boast about my gear here, i never did, it is relatively only basic very well chosen gear ,i dont even name it here...
I thanks acoustic science nothing else..
SIMPLE SOLUTION: PLAY THEM A PIECE OF MUSIC THEY DO KNOW.
Blind testing is nothing to do with measuring. There are no measurements involved.
Claims by an individual to hear a difference are only valid as opinions of that individual. Not only could he be wrong, he could be knowingly lying. Such claims can only be validated by blind testing. This proposition is so simple and so obvious that it does not need six pages of debate here.
But from the beginning of this thread this look like if not truth at least a possibility..
Then the master has created his disciples crowd and it is not the disciples who are at the evangile distorted origin : only measures means anything...Throw ears, golden one, or Karajan ears or mine in a dust bin...
Anyway it does not take a genius to know that measures alone dont equate to a good sound when you add mutiple components together...
.
I’m okay with measurements used in proper context but I don’t respect Amir any longer because he clearly and obviously evades answering important questions. He simply ignores matching components during his reviews which misleads many others who don’t know any better. He’s closed minded as far as I’m concerned. They’re really an extremist bunch.
It is this part of the brain attention mechanism focused on habit analysis and details on his MAP versus this working part of the brain focused on the large unknown TERRITORY AROUND us and which attention is encompassing the whole around us...
This writer is important :
In Goethe less diplomatic words it was the poet against the philistines...
And remember that Goethe was one of the most important natural scientist of his time with Darwin ...
For you it is " subjective gear fetichists audiophiles" against "objective tool measuring fetichists pseudo scientist" ?
For me it is more SERIOUSLY acoustic/psycho-acoustic method who always correlated measures of ALL KIND, to subjective impressions...These 2 groups war is RIDICULOUS.... But at least one use his ears even if they succomb sometimes alas! to gear marketing ploy...
The danger posed to beginners here by ignorant technocrats advocating their tools of choices is not less disastrous than the danger posed by those who has been conditioned by marketting tasting gear audiophiles...
Between these two sleepwalkers warring groups, only acoustic and psycho-acoustic research is serious science ABOUT SOUND perception and the value of perception over electrical chosen sheets numbers only...Standard electronic design verification is good, but sound experience does not emerge only from a good chip...
Sound is not the result of an electronic design first and last, but of acoustic and psycho-acoustic experience first and last ..The gear convey information not sound experience...
Spewing numbers without correlation to listenings experiments is meaningless...
I dont attack Amir verification of products, i attack some of his sleepwalking zealots who haunted audiophile threads mocking anyone using his ears.... At least subjective audiophiles, even if they dont use acoustic and psycho acoustic experiments dont throw their EARS in a garbage bin...
The main science in music and sound is acoustic and psycho-acoustic... Digital engineering profitted and emerged from acoustic and psycho-acoustic research and cannot replace them by bits and numbers on a dial....Listening experiments protocols, not necessarily and ONLY blind one are the key...I dont need blind test in my room tuning because it is NOT PRACTICAL nor useful...
Some posts here amount to "why can’t we just go on letting young audiophiles be duped by manufacturer and dubious audiophile claims like the rest of us?"
Some of the claims in high end audio are a balloon, ASR is the pin, and some people see their own beliefs being burst and don’t like that feeling.
Then yes Amir, is interested by measuring gear, but the site is more than that...
The problem is not Amirm but some audiophiles fanatic disciples indeed here and there...
The first chief hobbyist is OK, nothing bad to say, but the bunch of disciples create a void around their guru ...
This is YOUR words:
What a load of nonsense. Amir has no agenda.
If you read my posts you will understand that borrowing INCONSCIOUSLY about an ideological position is NOT HAVING necessarily AN AGENDA... I just call Amir a measuring tool hobbyist chief, he is a digital engineer after all who worked at an important position at Google i think, entertaining what he like most for the PLEASURE of doing what he know already and giving his advices...This is OK...And useful...But Amir is not Google and corporation had agendas, in the case of Google, transhumanist agenda...Promoting google agenda is being a sleepwalker...
Some of his sleepwalking disciples like you are less innocent...They created a fanatical movement around him, instead of thinking by themselves...this is a sad agenda...
Your sleepwalking " agenda" here in this thread seems to be distorting post and presenting NO ARGUMENT to mine , my 2 posts here are supposed to be just "nonsense"...prove it answer them...I made many points in these 2 posts...For example a point about the meaning of acoustic/psycho-acoustic science in audio being more important than simple direct electronical measures of the gear In itself...
Is it not a strawman argument of the worst kind by you which illustrate my point about the sleepwalking disciples: ?
The reason why A.I.will stay a mere "tool" forever, save on the planet where people could be so stupid to renounce their creative freedom for a master , and for sure this possibility exist, the reason then is : MEANING...
Meaning exist when the part is intricate in the whole and the whole completely intricate in the part, It is possible for the human mind to DISTINGUISH between the whole and the parts, but the human mind never SEPARATE them completely.... He can forget one for the other for sure...One part of the brain can work OVER the other... 😁😊 But forgetfulness is not complete separation...
A.I. is powerful because it can work in a CONTROLLED environment where it can mathematically distinguish parts and wholes BY SEPARATING THEM mathematically ...The map become the territory here and the territory can be transformed in a perfect map... Why not, it is only mathematical play ?
A.I. is and will be a tool, but an unhabited machine haunted by a ghost or a soul for sure, and anyway the sorcer apprentices will call them mere ghosts... Concrete details we dont need on the map, or a map so real it lack only some abstract useless details...Like love, freedon, souls, beauty, non logical truth, etc...
Yuval Noah Harari, a transhumanist historian said that human have no souls nor freedom and can be hacked by A.I. and will be...
Then we can be intelligent like he is and blind to meaning and reduce meaning to INFORMATION....I prefer to stay "stupid" than this kind of "intelligence"...
The whole and parts mutual participation are manifested "meaning" for the human mind able to "fly over " the world hyper space and perceive instantaneously qualitative experiences where the distinctions can exist but WITHOUT ANY COMPLETE SEPARATION EVER... Exist only for us humans a temporary forgetfulness of the relation between the encompassing whole and parts, this forgetfulness , the Buddha and the Christ called it back to his roots anyway...
The body is the soul, but the soul is not reducible to the body....The sound is the music but music is not reducible to sound...We can distinguish the two but cannot separate them...
An information engine can work only by SEPARATING body and soul, one is real for a machine the other is only an animated ghost it put in a corner...It is a MATHEMATICAL EXORCISM ....Very precise one and it work completely and successfully...
Technology is powerful but only small mind confuse science with technology...
The center of mathematic is divine, the peripheral is human work....
«Distinguish without separate » Anonymus Smith
«Distinguishing without separating i will name it the poetical mode of language and thinking, the contemplative one, the creative one, the other, distinguishing for separate is the mechanical and prosaic daily mode»-anonymus thinker
«We need the two ends of a stick and the stick itself, is it not three ?»-Groucho Marx
It would be fantastic if it did, but my guess is that the human ear is needed to detect the benefit of your product
Astounding!
Who believe that the only main factor in sound/music experience is measured electronical sheets ? Suggesting that ears experience in audio is useless is beyond preposterous...
What we hear in a speakers/room system is determined by acoustic and psycho-acoustic science ...It is determined by the rigourous relation between the resonant body of a sound source, a speakers set or a musical instrument, and the CORRELATIVE subjective impressions of a musician, a listener; or for example the ears/brain experience of a customer of a watermelon fruit sellers on an open market tapping it to let know to the customer if the fruit is in a state before being ripe or after being ripe...The human ears can INTERPRET with sound experience the QUALITIES pertaining to a distant object or an invisible hidden object ijn the dark...
Only ignorant people think that a mere part of a frequencies bandwidth in a piece of gear measuring well is ENOUGH to define what is "sound" and what is "sound experience"...Actual science cannot read a large spectrum and decipher it like the ears/brain do in a second and declared that a piano is such and such, or this violin such and such, or this room is acoustically such and such......Or this fruit is such and such after percussion , or this metal bowl of such quality after percussing it and let him vibrate for the ears.....Instrumental TIMBRE is not REDUCIBLE to a spectrum ONLY..
It is the reason why i quit reading this technocratic pseudo science hobbyist site ... The first chief hobbyist is OK, nothing bad to say, but the bunch of disciples create a void around their guru ...
I use my ears .... Any piece of gear must be listened to to be picked by me and judged ... A child may know why.... A technocrat like Amir can ignore why by profession, especially a digital designer... But an acoustician use his ears in a controlled room to adress the alleged quality of his stereo system BECAUSE he is a scientist specialized in the "sound field" studies...
The ears dont need "bits" after all and they dont hear "bits" anyway...Stereo gear system MAY need "Bits" to be TRANSLATED for sure...
Us we hear this acoustic and psycho-acoustic TRANSLATION...A Dac can REPRODUCE "a sound" by Fourier discovery about waves ...But the speakers/ears translate them to the human ear/brain like an acoustic musical instrument does instead of speakers, and the ears/brain INTERPRET QUALITATIVELY this acoustic language coming from the concrete resonant body, speakers or violin, he interpret them in music or speech and attribute them some qualities...
Sound is way more complex phenomenon than mere "waves"....If not, psycho-acoustic will never exist to begin with....Acoustic dont explain sound and music WITHOUT psycho-acoustic studies... Perhaps there is more about the ears than mere "bits"...And the brain is NOT a mere Fourier analyser... We dont understand what is sound, mastering technology, being it nuclear bomb or digital technology dont prove that we understand quantum mechanics meaning and the universe no more than this explain sound perception...
«I dont need this bit of music, "bits" are enough»- Anonymus digital engineer
Audio and musical experience are LEARNED experience by the ears/brain, in this transhumanist world, human ears are obsolete...
My guess is, right at this moment, there is a group of people, mostly young people, who are just getting into the hobby. They have to base their purchase decision on something, anything, and since 1) they have no clue what sounds good or not so good (remember, they are just getting started with the hobby), and 2) visiting a local dealer is so 20th century, even where they still exist, they turn to the internet. And in the absence of actual listening, and most importantly, lack of good vs. bad sound perception / experience, they turn to…. you guessed it: numbers. Stuff you can read and see (I.e graphs) in the internet. They are just being rational, nothing to blame them for. That’s where Amir M. comes in play, along with his militia disciples. It helps that what he preaches is cheap, typically China cheap. Everyone wants to save a dime here and there, yours truly included. I am not blaming anyone for trying to save money.
Thus popularity of ASR, and even other (caricature of) sites like Gene’s site. Amir M., like it or not, is winning this “war”. A very sound and effective marketing strategy for the cheap China toys he peddles. It is most definitely working.
Ha, ha! But if only it were that simple with ASR. The fact is that he sometimes doesn’t listen at all. So what’s the point?
Many audiophiles listen to their gear ... 😁😊
They can listen for example a 100,000 dollars dac....
Some others measures the specs sheet anew to verify... So what?
Are they listening really?
I myself listen myself, listening the universe in my head/room...And i control the conditions of the acoustic experience but not the experience....
«Sound is a powerful river harnessed by a dam (musical instrument and/or room) which give rise to a huge energy level called emotion »-Anonymus estheticican
«Remember that if sound could be music, music is not sound»-Anonymus deaf musician, probably Beethoven.... 😊
The goal in audio is the creation/translation of this music/sound from one acoustical context, which is the RELATIVE perspective of the recording process on a lived event, to be translated in the psycho-acoustic geography of your room which is also a relative acoustic and esthetic perspective from and on the recording event ....
Japanese people invent a word for this, it is a central concept of their esthetic: YUGEN...
We can make a garden with stones and sand like japan master did with chosen proportion and measures ( exact one) which will CORRELATE with the original perception of the garden creator for exemple but will never be reducible to a set of measures and words by definition...
Focusing on gear or on tool, is fetichism at worst , at best a necessary preliminary to the central and essential esthetic and scientific acoustic/psycho-acoustic experience...
I provided a link to one scientific study that showed how people her differently. And this study (my guess) assumes that the ears they tested are created exactly the same. But we know that every human has a different finger print. So that is not even in this study. You get my point, I hope.
Great point for sure! Thanks...
We must LEARN to listen...
We must learn it if possible in a treated and controlled room...
The premice that all ears are equal and overpowered by tools is ridiculously false...
The ceiling of a room is less a limit than something who qualitatively shape my enclosure, the 20,000 hertz limit for example is also less a limit of my hearing than something AMONG OTHER ACOUSTIC FACTORS which define my qualitative soundscape...We cannot reduce sound qualtative information to ONLY measure in Hertz...
Anybody can detect if a resonant sphere is dense or empty inside by his sound WITHOUT any need to measure it or see it... Timbre perception is not reducible to ONE spectrum only... A blind can cycle among traffic without crashing in a car... Etc...
i think Amirm does a great job doing what he like to do... When this evidence is said....
I must say i think less well of some of his disciples....
And by the way, measuring some of the specs of a dac against the specs chosen and given by the designers , so useful it could be, must not be CONFUSED with scientific objectivity ITSELF .... Science is NOT some partial technological practices picked and decided by the designer or by Amirm ... Especially when, like in audio, acoustic and psycho acoustic are the CENTER of the experience......Noting with caution and taking seriously what a listener HEAR is also part of the ONGOING objective scientific acoustic process...
I am pretty sure that Amirm know that, many of his disciples seems to forget it....The question is WHY they want to forget that?
Probably for the same reason audiophiles prefer their "tasting" of brand name gear to acoustic and psycho-acoustic experiments, each one go with his ideological agendas and partial perspectives because it suit them ...
Acoustic is the key in audio experience...Purchasing an upgrade is not...Using a measuring tool is not....They are only CORRELATIVE parts of the whole acoustic experience...
«So many disciples, so many traitors» Anonymus Roman observer at Christ cruxifiction...
There is nothing wrong with enjoying what appeals to you, but it is absurd to find fault with scientific objectivity
This is a common place fact so evident i cannot even imagine someone cannot know it in the first place... It is the foundation of A./P.A. and the reason why small room acoustic designed for ONE listener could not be the same than amphiteater acoustic designed for a crowd...It is the reason why musicians prefer and own for example very different guitars...And no guitar is the best for all... It is the reason why you must design your room for YOUR specific ears not only from general acoustic principles but from specific listening experiments by yourself...I called that mechanical tuning of the room with Helmholtz method...
Thanks for the link....very interesting proof with brainwaves analysis...
But when a science like A./P.A. is so complex how to present arguments to two groups of opposite fetiichists, the gear tasting one and the tools measuring one to convince them to CORRELATE their perspectives TOGETHER instead of opposing them with useless blind test war or cables wars, or digital/analog futile debates? 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😊
If a scientific study cannot convince you that we all hear differently then only Amir can help you. Good luck.
A sound proposed in a blind test, and disconnected from the listener room historical intimate soundfield and proposed to be evaluated in a testing unknown room alien soundfield with a different relation with the speakers/system used cannot prove anything certain about the alleged difference claim by the listener...
Why?
Because the interpretation of a sound difference is ALWAY different coming from system differences in the test, or coming from the speakers/room specific differences for example...
The way a dac translate a specific soundfield from a recording trade-off set and propose it through a specific system FOR another room soundfield is completely specific and always vary...The difference between sound coming from gear in different room conditions can even be huge...
My dac cannot be judged to stay the same after changing the room compared to before for example and this is also true of my amplifier, cables, speakers, they give something which is the same by virtue of their designed qualities but in a complete different way when i modify the A./P.A. conditions.....
I myself could not be able to detect all differences i can detect in my room with my gear transported in other acoustic conditions ... I know that WITHOUT blind test and with a CONTINUOUS Listening experience where the affective and acoustic cues are never disconnected and where my memory then can goes on working...it is how i tuned my room....ANY CHANGE CAN BE DETECTED, even sometimes a single straw acting like an Helmhotlz diffuser or a single straw variable perimeter and lenght working as the neck of an Helmholtz resonators.... But mark my word here, I have ORDINARY hearing ability in my age group by the way but an history of listening experiments for years in MY ROOM which explain how and why i can did what i did...
Then mocking me with the false claim that i pretend to have bat ears is BESIDE MY POINT.... Proposing to test me by blind test make no sense at all....We learn to hear in some condition and with particular tools or instruments and devices...This is this content we learned to identify not by superpower but by learned habits in a KNOWN context with familiar sound/speech/files/albums...
Blind test prove nothing generally in an audiophile tool fetichist deconstructing context... But those using these blind test to debunk some product are , like the opposite group those who promote these same products in the same gear fetichist war FORGETTING acoustic/ psycho-acoustic (A./P.A.) conditions and science...
But when this is said, i dont think that Amirm measures are useless, not at all, but used by his disciples cohort of fetichist tool measured specs, which are not an absolute anyway, they go and stay in an audio dead end, ...
In the same way audiophile focusing on the brand name gear goes in a dead end forgetting the relation between A./A.P. to idolize the gear piece overestimating his power contribution to the final S.Q. experience and undersestimating completely the crucial relation of the gear with A/P.A. conditions ...
Prove me wrong...
It is my personal experience i dont pretend to be a scientist, but i learn something in the last years in my room... 😁😊
The difference between piece of well designed gear in the same bracket of the S.Q./price ratio EXIST but are way less diffrence than the improvement make on them by putting them in the right acoustical embeddings settings... The diffrence here is HUGE....This is true for all piece of gear at ny porice tag...
No speakers beat the room like said some unknown acoustician...
This is true for a dac, an amplifier and for any piece of connected gear in the system...
Blind test is most used in the pharma business among others industry...There it is easy to understand why it is very important tool and testing drugs methodology ... Statistical method and blind testing goes hand in hand here...
But in audio if even singular non statistically significant blind test in some case yes can be useful, CLAIMING it must be used systematically on people to DECONSTRUCT their CONTINUOUS experience in meaningless bits is bordering ridiculous when "measuring tool fetichist" warring against "brand name testing subjective fetichist " called it "science"...
Audio is a science where A CORRELATION between subjective experience being maintained must be accounted for with objective tools and methods yes, but not systematically deconstructed by ideological claims...Audio experience is more encompassing than audio industry itself , it is not primarily about gear and tools it is about acoustic/psycho-acoustic and sound/speech/music scientific relation...
Acoustic/psycho-acoustic first and last are sciences in audio with electronic engineering between these two moments of A/P.A...Blind test is a secondary tool at best here, not a primary concern like some fetichist claim for their weak argument about audio which is : We listen and can really listen ONLY what is measured or explained by some set of measures...The rest is deceptive fraud or illusions...
Subjective Perception of tonal timbre for example may be tested by blind test usefully but not negated in itself to exist OBJECTIVELY with the utmost value even if it is a subjective determination... Some people are better than other at this task of timbre tonal perception for sure....Subjective evaluation controlled and correlated with and by objective means is the heart of music/sound experience and science but the reverse is ALSO true, objective means and tools must be subordinated also to the subjective evaluation itself , it is a true TWO WAY correlation process ...Not an ideology...
Hearing is not even understood completely by far today...
It is very revelatory that the two warring fetichist groups battle each other AROUND the gear, focusing on the gear MARKET, and not around acoustic/psycho-acoustic experiments and experience in audio thread...
And like A.I. promotion in some circle is used AGAINST human real INTELIGENCE , which is conceptual creation, in audio digital industry some want and claim to redefine human hearing experience WITHOUT the need for a human subject....
This is not science in the two cases but ideological groups inside true science...
Welcome to you here by the way....
Hello,
not much discussion here about statistics... well, it’s not an exciting subject really.
I thought the point of blind testing was the sample size. One person is not enough, maybe you need more than 100. If more than, say, 60% of them opted for A you might be able to say that A is better than B, and if it’s 50/50 then that’s a pretty good indication that A and B are close to the same thing. I would venture that when only one person attempts AB you will not get conclusive results unless one of A or B is truly terrible.
It’s hard to get 100 audiophiles into the same room, and you would need good security to prevent fights breaking out.
But "Objective measuring tool fetichists" , not Amirm perhaps, but his less enlightened disciples, will claim that sound experience, contrary to any psycho-acoustic/ physical acoustic science fields experience, will come directly and is DECIDED by and from the measured gear specs , not Amirm who is intelligent enough to give only his personal measured numbers, and will SUGGEST that his measures numbers had this meaning or this other one ...But for his disciples this suggestion is a defintive dogma... No listening experiments can contradict it with any value of any kind...Only blind test will defeat SUBJECTIVE biases....And they need to defeat it... But we cannot optimally tune a SMALL room for ourself WITHOUT our learned subjective biases with only objective physical acoustic principles ... 😁😊
People are gullible, be it techno fad "alleged" scientist or those other type of " fetichist who taste their brand name gear" in itself for itself without any objective context to put them at test....The more important context is a room acoustic controlled or not ...
Audio for me is investigation by listening experiments of the acoustic/psycho-acoustic dimension... It is not about a McIntosh or Schiit or Mephisto amplifier specs or price... For sure all piece of gear are different by their design but what we can do to put them at an audiophile level of optimal working ? This is the question...
There is a good amplifier at any price tag....New, old or vintage anyway...
Deception for me in audio is the ignorance of acoustic importance...Bad design will exist even after Amirm measured testing tool bench test , and sometimes good design will exist in spite of his critic with his measuring tool... And anyway what is good in some room may be bad in another room SOMETIMES...
Reality dont emerge from a simplistic formula....
There exist truly bad design but no measures specs are necessary most of the times, a little listening will do...
The inherent flaw of any sort of blindfolded A/B testing is when there’s unfamiliarity of the test subjects with the items being tested. For example - a blind taste test of Coke vs Pepsi is adversely affected if the test takers aren’t cola drinkers. Without a recognizable frame of reference, "best" or "better" is merely a guessing game.
So, playing a piece of music the subjects don’t know on a system that is not like their own and asking them to compare that sample to a slightly changed subsequent sample is a waste of time, not a universal truth. Most of us have several pieces of music/performances/albums that we know intimately. If the benchmark used is one of those on our systems (or an equivalent one), then comparative testing has validity, but only then.
Then yes Amir, is interested by measuring gear, but the site is more than that...
The problem is not Amirm but some audiophiles fanatic disciples indeed here and there...
And yes there is no less acoustic posts in ASR perhaps than in Audiogon and perhaps better one... Then...
Then thanks to your post information....
It seems to me that my own perspective anyway is right about audio: correlation between objective and subjective perspectives... And the gear matter yes, but acoustic/psycho-acoustic matter more...
course, Amir is not an expert in psycho acoustics,
Fortunately there is an expert who graciously contributes his knowledge at ASR
In a word i dont need a blind test for any change in the acoustic disposition of my own room...
And the specs sheets of any piece of gear so important and useful it can be to pairing piece of gear with one another SAY NOTHING about the FINAL sound quality of the system as a whole and his relation to the specific room and to my SPECIFIC ears...
Simple no?
I reject the " brand name gear tasting subjective fetichist " and "the digital tech measuring tools objective fetichist " TOGETHER here , because i live and listen in my room acoustic and the two groups completely UNDERESTIMATED small room acoustic power....It is there in my own room that the gear succeed or fail FOR MY EARS , nevermind his measured specs...Correlation between the objective position,size, tuning of acoustic devices in my physical room and my own tuning subjective abilities and preferences are WHAT MATTER....
I called what i added to the classical passive materials room treatment, mechanical equalization and active tuning control of the room after Helmholtz method...
I dont design a product to be sell, i design my own room.... AT NO COST or almost... 😎 But i made it with a METHOD....
Why?
Because a SMALL room is not an amphiteater acoustic....One is designed by my ears for my ears, the other one is designed for a crowd... Timing of waves, pressure zones control distributions for example dont play the same game here...
Acoustic of the room is the sleeping princess, all pieces of gear are the 7 working dwarves with their tools , and psycho-acoustic of my own specific ears is the kissing prince....
A riddle:
Do you think i modified my speakers for example in reading only their specs sheets ? or by listening them in my room? I listened to them and used Helmholtz resonators and diffusers ON THEM also to crossfeed each one and decrease the acoustic crosstalk in my own way mechanically...Results are astonishing...In near listening and in regular listening...
Each one of our ear and singular speaker is a world in itself....
Thanks for the reference... Very interesting set of articles !
But i was talking about small room acoustic and psycho-acoustic of small room...
And it is a field in itself...
And if you read the site all is about psycho-acoustic and digital technology....
Almost anything about small room acoustic...
What matters for them, at least for Amirm are the tools to measure human hearing in sound PRODUCTION... Not about sound ACOUSTIC TRANSLATION in a small room...Signal processing is not room acoustic....
I dont suggest here that this prycho- acoustician who work with them know less than me... I am not an acoustician myself for sure... I only express my opinion about the emphasis put on DIGITAL TECH. and hearing abilities in the digital tech.context, not in the relation between physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic in small room , which is a field in itself...
My point is that ANY measures of the gear must be subordinated to the small room/ speakers relation and specific ears abilities and listening history of the owner of the room... Because CHOOSING a piece of gear at his peak working potential ask for the guiding listener/customer subjective impression in a room not only about some electronical measures of the gear...A point that NO ACOUSTICIAN can contradict by the way.... Even this one....
In a word what these articles spoke about centered around digital tech. EQUALIZATION, my own approach to room acoustic centered around more Primitive so to speak, Helmholtz MECHANICAL approach... I will read these articles because psycho-acoustic dont change his principles from the digital field to room acoustic...
But in digital tech. the focus is in the technology itself, in room acoustic the focus is around the owner of the small room... Some subjective impressions are at the center of the matter here; AFTER an objective disposition of the acoustic content of the room in relation with the specific abilities and limitations of the room owner...
Of course, Amir is not an expert in psycho acoustics,
Fortunately there is an expert who graciously contributes his knowledge at ASR
Precision is mainly a concept for electronical engineering...
In psycho-acoustic precision is subordinated to musical experience and human ears evaluation... And the precision did not exist for itself or for delivering an electronical product but to understand subjective hearing experience...
Amirm is not even wrong about audio ...It is useful to have the RIGHTFUL measured data for sure...
Myself i trust the only fundamental science for my audio system experience: it is not comparing amplifiers with some measuring tools...IT IS NOT ENOUGH AT ALL ... I dont say it is not useful. it is...
But acoustic and psycho-acoustic are the main fields if someone want to understand hearing and music experience and improve at low costs his sound system/room ...
Amirm sell digital technology of all kind not music or acoustic or the optimal audio experience...He is a digital tool specialist...It is what he sells...
Like i said he is honest, i dont think he is not at all, but his disciples in audio are deluded and obsessive, they dont have the excuse to be digital engineer like their master... ...
Some folks prefer precision while some prefer musicality.
Someone can be anti-science using some scientific tools at his disposal...science is also about conceptual tools linking some field to another field...
Especially in audio where acoustic and his relation to psycho-acoustic is no less a science than electronical technology when we try to UNDERSTODD listening experience...
Audio science is no more fetichism of the tool than fetichism of the gear......
Objective measure are not only around the gear they can be around the speakers/ears/room serving the subjective perception of the timbre experience for example ....
This possibility seems to escape "our si called scientists" here....
I’m ready glad that audio precision doesn’t think like the objectivists on this forum, they actually think there is more or better measurements that can be performed in the future to better understand what we are hearing.
So you are against the idea of searching for a better and more reliable understanding of what we are hearing?
That sounds like flat-out anti-science.
I’m glad there are people out there trying to investigate these things, rather than
being happy with our current state of understanding.
This is the problem I mentioned earlier. I do not believe that either Amir or the folks at PS Audio know exactly how all possible distortions (and time delays, phase changes, noise patterns, filter slopes, audible effects that change with frequency, etc.) interact to affect the sound quality the human brain hears and interprets. Thus, SQ cannot be assessed using measurements alone. Listening must be part of the assessment.
Great post indeed! thanks very much....
And particularly these 2 lines...
I do not believe that the folks at ASR are omniscient, and I also do not believe that the folks at PS Audio are trying to rip-off their customers.
If there is some OTHER form of distortion Amirm is not measuring for that would be audible...what would that be?
I am pleased to inform you that the distortions coming from the room geometry, topology and acoustic content pairing with a specfic audio system is very powerful impediment to S.Q.... More powerful than comparison between relatively good electronic design subtelties measured by Amirm tools..
"Gear brand name subjective fetichist" like "tool objective measuring fetichist" ignore acoustic and psycho-acoustic and take the ears/ room to be unimportant way less than a decimal in THD+N amplifier specs for example...
This is called losing sight of the tree looking for an ant....
Yes it is useful to see an ant on a tree....But it is foolishness to never pay attention to the tree..
Distortions is not an electronical notion "per se" it is first and last a psycho-acoustical notion...Electronical design distortions concept come from the measured hearing human range perception and qualitative evaluation and subjective judgment guiding necessity ...
No piece of gear sound the same in different rooms...
An anechoic chamber is an experimetal room not a listening room..
There is no STANDARD room, all small room are different and own different acoustic positive and negative potential..
Then evaluation of an audio product not only is relative to human ears "specific" innate distortive potential working and history but related to specific room negative and yes, unbeknownst to most, sometimes to the positive effect of some distortions when they are controlled in some range and timing ratio for psycho-acoustic reason and experiment...
Acoustic is at least at the same level of complexity than basic electronic ...
I dont speak about common rule of placing acoustic panels on a wall here when i speak about acoustic... 😁😊I speak about something a bit more complex to say the least...Physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic of small room is not less complex than amphiteater acoustic architecture but in fact perhaps more complex because it must be designed for a specific audio system only and for the singular pair of ears of the owner room......
« Look at the tree on the back of the walking ant »-Anonymus Zen monk
I too appreciated Amir effort and journey with his tools and investigations...
I went on his site and even try to participate few years ago...
But i guess i did not appreciate the ideology of his vast court of disciples attitudes toward listening experiments at all...And sarcasms instead of an opened spirit...
I never go back... Why ?
Because we choose a piece of gear not mainly by numbers, measured numbers are only the necessary beginnings but the last word about choice of gear is by listenings or/ and analysing ton of reviews or others opinions....
Amir is honest to himself and do what he want to do and it can be useful because he inquire about claims yes......
But "the measuring tool fetichism" ideology of his disciples crowd worsen and impede listening experiments in acoustic and psycho-acoustic by making belive to people that the S.Q. results come more from the gear specs itself than the link between the system and the room/ears acoustic and psycho-acoustic relation...
The "tasting gear brand name fetichist" group and the "measuring tools gear fetichist" group are linked together by the same underestimation of ears/room objective acoustic and subjective psycho-acoustic CORRELATION experience and experiments...
Consumers are conditioned by the market like the RCA dog listening directly the gear pavilion or reading some numbers on a dial like the dog master without NEVER analysing the relation between the system as a whole the specific ears and the specific room...
i am a free thinker and i dont like groups...Anyway....😁😊
i admire Amir for sure but despise "yes man" then i cannot stand the disciples attitude toward something OUT of their perspective ....I am human myself and far from perfection...
I don’t own speakers recommended on ASR but I do appreciate the effort put forth by Amir in his speaker testing it gives one a good look as to if the speaker has been properly designed and how well it can be adjusted by DSP. How you like speakers to sound is entirely your own preference.
A perceived acoustic QUALITY is not REDUCIBLE to ONLY a specific range of frequency perception...There is more than that to explain this quality...
Timbre is not even describable in only a spectral envelope ...There is 5 factors in the most elementary description of timbre...
Imaging, soundstage, listener envelopment has nothing to do with BAT ears superhuman abilities , it is possible to perceive them for any average human healthy ears of any age who learn how to listen and how to implement the acoustic conditions for their perception...
It sems some "measuring tools fetichist" dont know even basic psycho-acoustic...
Then if someone perceive something not reducible to a measured quantity they speak about "bat super human " ability to mock the perceived change in the perception of an instrument timbre for example...
take a simple experiment: put a big chunk of quartz on your amplifier and after that put a big chunk of shungite.... And take a blind test to assess the change in S.Q. .... It will be easy to pass it... Try it at home...It is only a test to demonstrate an acoustical effect that the ears measure more easily than any other tool....It is a test more easy to do than a scientific blind test.... Science progress dont wait for blindtest...The industry need blind test not science...Audio can use blindtest for sure and already use them with succees but reducing all perception real experience to be real only after a public blind test is ridiculous...
Objectivist Tool fetichist or subjectivist gear fetichist ignore acoustic and psycho-acoustic complex relation ...And ignore some simple experiments save blind test they want others to pass...
Tone is not timbre....
Frequency is not timbre...
And decibel scale dont say all there is to say about hearing ability and timbre....
Human ears can sense the qualities linked to a resonant sound source, and we listen to capture these qualities ... We can "measure" if a fruit is ripe or not by tapping on it.... Blind people SEE with sound... And their ear are average like mine is....
The fashion up to date now is "blinders" of their own making it seems among tool fetichist and gear fetichist....They argue about their blinders ....
I feel alone without blinders or at least without the same blinders.... 😁😊
I will add that not only aural memory can be improved but also must be learned with the body sensation not with only the brain or the mind but with the heart... Why?
Because mechanisms of memory are linked to perception and interpretation of sound which are themselves related to the feeling body and are stored in this body not only in the brain or mind...
The sound of a duduk is unmistakable for example and provoke a feeling you will never forget, same with the chinese Erhu, wich are insruments with a timbre linked to an innate feeling so powerful we cannot forget it....Same with guitar, organ, piano etc....Any sound is associated with a distinct feeling varying in each of us for sure but not so much, it is the reason why music is a universal language...
Each instrument is deep in meaning and unique like a human voice....
It is the reason why doctor can reach alzheimer patient with music and for a moment ressuscitate a true part of them from oblivion...The sound feeling perceived by their body BEFORE their mind even interpret it, ressuscitate their consciousness for a fleeting moment by association with their past experiences with music...
It is the reason by "measuring tool fetichist " often claim that sound memory is measured in few seconds and cannot be remembered... This is not false, this is only an half-truth used for "ideological" cultist motivation...
For sure a bit of sound WITHOUT MEANING detached from our usual environment and detached from strong feeling cannot be remembered well...Pick a sound meaning you very well know by "heart" not only mind, and listen continuously IN A RELAXED condition to it in your usual environment and you will KNOW and DETECT any change in the sound qualities...Even if you had not listen some piece of recording for weeks and you put it after having changed the acoustic of your room you may detect huge change... i just live that a few minutes before writing this post myself with a recording i know by heart but which i did not listen to for a few months...
it is my own experience and experiments...
How do you think i was able to tune mechanically adjustable100 Helmholtz tubes resonators and diffusers in my room ?
No i am not a bat nor a " golden ear".... I know my hearing are the hearing of a 70 years old man in health for sure but...But we memorize acoustic MEANING in our body/brain not ONLY brute meaningless sound measured in Hertz and decibels...
I was able to tune my room with my feeling and perceptive memory, stored in my brain/body of what must be a natural timbre...For sure it is not perfect.... Timbre perception is a SUBJECTIVE phenomenon in psycho-acoustic... But there exist OBJECTIVE acoustical conditions necessary to be inplemented to generate a more natural timbre perception...The rest is my CORRELATION process between many objective preparation and disposition of the room and my subjective apparatus..
Aural memory is the result of a learning process, and an ability that we can develop just as any other cognitive function. Improving it is the same as learning a new skill.
When there is effort put in, it can be vastly improved upon, and conversely, lack of training will result in the decline of aural memory faculties.
Just as we can remember words, colors, pictures, we remember sounds with analogous mechanisms. A person who can retain a 7 digit number for 10 seconds can train to withhold it in memory for an hour or longer, eventually retaining the ability to call back the number after a longer time period, and with increased digit counts.
Same with aural memory.
As every learned skill, it takes a lot of effort....some people have a head-start, but ultimately perseverance is key, and is the secret to a good aural memory.
A/B test cannot substitute an acute aural memory.... perhaps with an A/B selector switch we can cut out the time-caused retention-loss... yet, in case the aural perception and memory is so poor that it fades in seconds, then the detail observation skills are also comparatively abysmal. In consequence, the A/B tester with poor aural skills does not have the cognitive faculties to perform the test in a competent way.
Supposed i have been a member of an astrological society for 20 years....Which is not the case anyway but supposed it is the case....
There is no difference between us if we are the two of us FREE THINKER first and last....
if not, we are cultists...
There exist groups of people and associastion partaking common interest, in them or outside of them there exist free thinkers...Nervermind the group...
The most important word concept in audio world is: CORRELATION between the subjective impression and some external objective disposition...
The measuring is not enough... Perceiving is not enough.... We must correlate them to IMPROVE the two at the same times...Like it is necessary to learn how to correlate by meditation the two main part of our brain hemispheres and we must learn how to CORRELATE our focus and peripheral attention.... Then unlike the RCA dog we must also learn how to listen with our subjectivity and measure the room not only the gear brand name.... 😁😊
No one can contest the useful analysis of gear made by someone like Amir...
The problem is in the IDEOLOGICAL general stance...
No one can contest the importance first and last of perceiving subjectivity by audiophiles...
The problem is in the general IDEOLOGICAL stance...
Amir like an audiophile look at the gear not at the room...The focus of their attention in the two groups is the brand name gear, one measure it the other think he hear the gear alone and taste it...
Acoustic is forgotten by the two groups...is it not comical?
I myself experimented the fact that most of PERCEIVED S.Q. is an acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomena...Not mainly an electrical engineering one...
Then correlating objective measures and the guiding subjectivity at play is the crux of the matter...
Anyway i dont use non acoustical tool , i am not an electrical engineer, and i know that sound dont come from the gear alone in my room but from the gear+room...
Then i stay mute when the 2 cultist groups will battle between them but it is difficult to stay silent for me....
The two group are the same RCA conditioned dog, sometimes he listen directly to the gramophone and sometimes the dog measure it oblivious each time of the room acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomena...
the two groups are the results of the same market conditioning...
The problem like i said is not Amir himself, but his disciples crowd... Testing gear by measuring tools is not the same as participating to an ideological cult....The problem was never Christ but his successive fanatical disciples...
Tool testing obsession reductionism is not better than gear tasting brand name subjectivism...
Reality is not binary game and i know that you know it for sure....
And of course as I’ve argued many times, no audiophile has to pay any attention to measurements or science - we can all buy whatever we want, for whatever reason.
But Amirm is providing some extra information for those who seek it, which is great.
Acoustic did not is reducible to psycho-acoustic science...
Psycho-acoustic science dit not reduce itself to acoustic...
Great posts thanks.... Gear fetichist tasting group and measuring tool fetichists perhaps will understand something....
We cannot measure the difference between a middle C, played on a properly tuned clarinet vs. a synthesizer, vs. a trumpet. Your brain knows which is which immediately. Just like humming the note and singing out, wide-mouthed would measure identical, but you know they sound very different.
Nor can we measure the vibrations our body picks up from places other than our tympanic membrane. (bones, hairs, nerves) Spatial awareness in ingrained in us through evolution. A noise, rustling in the grass on the savannah is a matter of life and death. Our ears are only a piece of the "listening" equation.
I’ve played with EQ and a spectrum analyzer to make the response curves of Magnepans and Klipsch horn-loaded box speakers measure the same in my seat ...and they sure don’t sound identical, though no frequencies are missing.
No measurer can ever tell you which one, out of 2 pieces of gear sounds better. (however you define it.
A timbre is not a tone...A playing tone is made of two phenomenon then...
It’s trivially simple to measure the difference between a clarinet and a trumpet.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
