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.
Saying an half truth will not solve the problem...
The ear can deceive YES and the measuring tools can deceive us also when we focus on one aspect of sound only, or when we focus on the GEAR or the TOOL instead of the acoustic multidimensional aspect piloted by our hearing...
People throw their money in upgrading the GEAR because the measuring tool say so in the publicity...
Instead of upgrading toward costlier components, learning acoustic by ear will liberate them from the consumers market conditioning selling the GEAR because of some MEASURED specs say so , underestimating acoustic experience of our trainable ears is the sin of the measuring fads and the cardinal sin of the SELLERS.......
Acoustic is not only a set of equations it is also a brain/ears experience and the dynamic correlation between the two in real time in our room ...We must learn our room...
Saying that the ears are not trainable because it cannot be trusted is like painting yourtself in a corner....
Repeating that the ears are not to be trusted is an half truth worse than a lie....
The problem for many people is they trust their own perception. This just does not work well for hearing. The result of all this is an entire industry based on deception. As long as it is not my money why should I care?
Everyone has their opinion and that's all it is including mine. The only way to get beyond opinions is with vigorous testing including our ears.
Yes, you've frequently issued these proclamations about your "One Way" of testing. But this is a hobbyist's group, not a scientific forum. No one here needs to satisfy your "rigorous testing" requirements.
... personal preferences tells us nothing about the component only about 1 persons preferences.
It's probably best that you speak just for yourself, rather than pretending to speak on behalf of some unnamed "us."
@mijostynThe result of all this is an entire industry based on deception. As long as it is not my money why should I care?
Two ideas there - of course it is none of anyone's business about the spending proclivities of people outside of your personal circle.
However, due to the absence of prudent market regulation, an industry built on deception is far from optimal. Due reward and incentives are not forthcoming to those with novel and robust products and who by definition do not partake of the deception cup. Innovation in these pursuits is relatively stifled.
@daveinpaI like your post! Your category 3 is right on. It is fine to buy something just because it makes you feel better. What seems to generate the most angst in these discussions is when people buy things for Reason 3, while trying to convince themselves it is for Reason 1. Then they go seeking confirmation from others on an audio forum. If there are no measurements or the measurements tell a story they don't want to hear then they become anti measurement and seek confirmation in the opinions of others who agree with them. Wait a second, this isn't gong on just in audio, it's all over the place!
After i got a new pre-amp and had the revelation of category #1 (irrefutable improvement) i've been on a quest to get that again. Last night i unpacked by new Pontus II DAC that replaced the Bluesound Node 2i internal DAC and got that "without a doubt it sounds better" result. I'm just afraid as i continue to spend more money and replace more components i'm getting into the 0%-10% categories and won't have that leap forward sound improvement I've gotten with my initial component upgrades. Moving to mono block tube amps next!
And FWIW - i like Amir's contributions and content in general. For things like cables and power conditioners showing there is zero difference to me is pretty hard data to argue against. However, when it comes to DACs, amps, etc. i think its a different ball game as to what to measure. Sure you can have great measurements but that doesn't mean it sounds great. And i'm sure you can have crappy measurements and it does sound great. But its nice to see good measurements for something you've spent a lot on.
You tube is rather different to the current big Audio Reviewing industry. Anyone can go on Youtube and say what they want, i see that as a good thing thou. Its the industry I'm talking about the paid Advertisement reviews.
What companies making novel and robust audio equipment are being stifled?
Should they currently
- be a company
- making product
- with a known brand name
they are probably already in the public domain, displayed at a store nearby alongside other established mainstream brand names, and have managed to overcome the inherent obstacles associated with the audio industry.
I'm thinking rather of new and emerging technologies and ideas, and the word "relatively" was used deliberately. . Its a fluid concept, one which is getting dangerously off-topic.
@redlenses03Actually, it was a mistake to even respond to this topic,
No, I would welcome an impartial review and assessment of ASR. One which is inherently hostile to the approach only serves to alienate interested people seeking truths.
The latest link you provided was to a very brief discussion of transients about which I know nothing, and should that be a material shortcoming in the approach then a discussion may be valuable. These things have probably been thought of and perhaps discarded. Or something? Who knows.
The limitations of SINAD beyond a certain level are known and hardly need elaborating upon.
@daveinpaAnd i'm sure you can have crappy measurements and it does sound great. But its nice to see good measurements for something you've spent a lot on.
I wouldn't even go as far as saying that its nice to see *good* measurements for something, because that word is in itself a judgement, as is *crappy*.
Its just nice to see measurements. Only a few years ago all we had was specs, which as we now know could be of limited use at best (at worst, deceptive).
When it comes to hearing memory your perceptions are every bit as faulty as mine.
There is a large industry dedicated to the manufacture of excellent audio gear. Then there is an industry based on deception and pseudo science bent on using our weaknesses to make a profit. I suppose you find that ethical?
As I said before, it is not my money and aside from speaking out on what should be obvious to everyone I really do not care.
I have assembled what most people would consider to be an excellent system. I do not have any aftermarket power cords or fancy interconnects. I have not one piece of power management or purification gear. It is certainly not because I can't afford it. I just ordered a Lyra Atlas Lambda SL. Does the performance of my system suffer? I do not know, maybe? I prefer to spend my money of gear that is more likely to make an improvement based on my own understanding of the science involved. Everyone else is entitled to make their own choices. Using your hearing as the only gauge to make these choices is IMHO a mistake.
@daveinpaNice choice! May I ask how long it took for the Pontus to arrive once ordered?
Denafrips is a good example of a generally well respected name in the reviewer world. The Pontus has not been reviewed on ASR but I looked and saw the Ares was and surprise surprise it measured well! Hope you enjoy it for many years!
@bruce19it came pretty quick - maybe 5 days at most I think. The distributor (Vinshine) must be going for some sort of customer service world record because they are beyond helpful.
Personally I don’t get what you could measure with a DAC that would matter sound wise. The topping DACs measure perfectly according to ASR and I don’t doubt the results. But I couldn’t tell the difference between my 200 dollar topping DAC and simply plugging my laptop audio out to preamp rca inputs. The Pontus was a big improvement however - as it should for 10x the price and some beautiful engineering.
Sometimes you just need to take it with a grain of salt when reading Amir's measurements and his assessment. It is the same for other reviewers' comments. I found, though, good measurement is not a sufficient condition of a well-received devices, but often a necessary condition. For example, Schiit Bifrost 2 receives many good to excellent reviews from reputable reviewers but it does not measure well in ASR. On the other hand, a majority of well-received devices have good measurements from ASR even the entry level ones (like DACs).
I really like what Amir is doing on ASR. Measurements are super helpful in gaining a better understanding of what is happening when I like or don’t like reproduced sound. They help me get to where I want to be without stumbling in the dark so much, or overdoing something while another issue is the real problem. I generally find the science he goes by matches what I hear. I’m open though to the possibility that something that escapes the standard set of measurements could make an audibly important difference to me. Recently I’ve started to think I’m hearing a meaningful difference if I digitally reduce the input to my dacs, and then turn up the pre-amp at the analog stage to get the volume back up. It seems more dynamic. If that’s the truth I should be able to measure it somehow. As for why that might be, my dacs are modified in a way that is generally considered not good practice - they don’t have op-amps on the outputs and just feed straight into the pre-amp stage. I’m thinking they might be pooping out when asked to output too much voltage due to insufficient impedance on the pre-amp inputs. In any case, I think I’m hearing something as an improvement that I wouldn’t have thought would be an improvement because of loss of bit depth, but perhaps it is because bit depth isn’t the limiting problem in my case. For now I’m just enjoying the perception, but I’d like to figure out how to test this and see if I can show some measurements to back up this idea. If I can, I might want to invest in some new dacs, or a new crossover unit, or both! You know, I guess I could send my crossover unit to Amir and have him measure it! But then my stereo would be out of service.
@daveinpa "...But I couldn’t tell the difference between my 200 dollar topping DAC and simply plugging my laptop audio out to preamp rca inputs..."
I do not think Topping $200 ish or even sub $200 Dac (assuming your Topping Dac is one of the good ones in ASR) is that bad (unless the internal Dac inside your laptop is equally good). First off, the average output voltage from a laptop jack output is around 1.5 volts, slightly lower than the 2 volts of Dac output and the P.A input. So I believe, with everything else being equal, the volume output level will have to be lower from laptop->PA setting. Secondly, even you match the volume level with ext. Dac->PA setting, the internal Dac of laptop is in general less quality (Mac uses Cirrus Logic and is generally better) that results in less dynamic, less bass, less full midrange, and less almost everything as compared to entry level Topping or other well-received brand such as Smsl. When I upgrade from the entry level Dac to mid-tier (around $500), the improvement is also pronounced just like from laptop internal Dac to entry level external Dac. I think this "accerlerated return" improvement is consistent with what is shown in the ASR’s measurements.
I first heard of this web site not that long ago. It was from someone who used a quote from the site… and in my experience (50 years) this generalization was simply not true. So I went to the site and read a dozen or more reviews. Sorry, I found the comments and listening observations or recommendations that of no value and generally contradictory to my knowledge.
I have been a scientist for over a decade and worked with hundreds of electrical engineers for decades in high technology… people that make the stuff inside virtually every electronic device you own. I love data: collecting, interpreting and presenting what the data is telling you. I have spent well over a decade doing that, I love the tools, the process and the outcome. But I quickly learned with high end audio this is a great way to lead you away from great sound. Listening is the only really effective way of evaluating equipment. … although in all honesty he typically measures budget gear.
I hold The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, and HiFi+ in high regards… particularly the first two. I have heard hundreds of components which they have reviewed over the last forty years and the accuracy of there evaluations is really astonishingly good. Not perfect, but very very close. Very trustworthy sources.
@noskeFWIW, I have a great deal of respect for scientists - I double majored in physics and mathematics. I have no problem with the tests, but I'm glad you like the pictures!
Rigorous testing is always important in technology, where the goal is the production of identical, interchangeable units. However, we're so far from "perfect sound" that we're still arguing over which imperfections matter and how much. The first measurement we targeted was flat frequency response. Nope, we're not there yet. So what's worse - a broad suck-out of the midrange, or an extremely high-Q resonance above the range of hearing? What if the HF causes your amp to oscillate? What if it's at middle C instead? Is THD better than IM? What about TIM?
The answers to these kinds of questions depend on the observer and the other components in the system. Just curious (I've only looked at a couple ASR reviews), but does he have different acceptability criteria for tube vs solid state? If he measures speakers, what about planars vs. box speakers? It's pretty easy to set up your testing standard to fail either group pretty much entirely.
As I said, ASR serves a purpose. If it works for you, that's great! Clearly, it's not everyone's cup of tea, though.
I prefer reading Stereophile (I'm guessing that Absolute Sound made this transition also when they hired Robert Harley). They generally do a subjective test and comparison to reference & similar-priced gear, followed by bench testing that includes listening in an attempt to corroborate both the subjective & objective results. They always let you know when there are differing opinions on a component. The bad news is that the industry has gotten too big to cover in that depth, which has resulted in perhaps an undue focus on the most expensive gear.
Is this the same Amir that had his former partner make damning accusations before the thread was removed? The one about bad measurements of competitor products to protect his sponsors?
IMO if you have to do an A/B comparison blindfolded and struggle to hear any major differences, then keep what you Have. If you don't hear an immediate improvement then cross that item off you list.
“Science is a bunch of guys in white coats cutting up frogs”. Woody Allen. But just to drag the thread back on topic, I really wasn’t talking about Amir’s measurements or reviews. I was talking about his comments on the “analytical brain” vs the “enjoying music” brain and the difficulty these may cause in evaluating components.
"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."
It won't matter. If you're expecting a difference you will find that difference. Either in reality or imagination. And if you're really committed to the outcome, you will make an excuse for why you failed to find a difference or identify the correct device.
ABX testing allows you to listen and switch at your own pace with your own music, even over days or months, and still that has made no difference in the outcome of blind tests.
I participated in my first blind amp test in the late 80's and it was an eye-opener. Much along the lines of the infamous 1987 Stereo Review test.
@chayro, Those two issues, enjoying the music and analyzing what you are hearing are separate issues. I do not know about others but when I am analyzing what I am hearing I am not thinking about the music at all, my foot is not tapping.
Unless I hear something I do not like when I am enjoying the music I am not in analysis mode. If I am trying to decide what I like better, say which copy of a specific album, I have usually gone about synchronizing the two and am switching back and forth listening to different aspects of the recordings. For personal reasons the most important factor is just being honest with yourself and expelling any bias that might enter the equation.
It is hard to find someone who does not enjoy music but, fortunately for the world audiophiles are a much rarer breed. You can do both.
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.
Actually, the human brain and ear ARE an spectrum analyzer. A FFT type spectrum analyzer. The world’s finest, in fact.
Here’s the kicker, though:
That depends upon the owner-operator conditions, though. Which vary.
Each one is built out of similar materiel. But, each has different capacities.
Akin to the difference in intelligence. High Ear-Q vs Low Ear-Q.
This is also tied to intelligence and capacities to understand the abstract in mental terms and descriptions. All the stuff required to make it to the point of doing correctly framed physical experiments. Experiments known to be limited in their scope and the weighing of such outcomes in the so-called real world..
As it all has individual aspects, in differential, and happens internally in the brain and ear and mind of the owner-operator of the given ear-brain. There is no winner-loser-etc in in any connected mundane analysis, like a person passing a finishing line first, or whatnot. That childlike simplicity in analysis (of this complexity of a question) is not possible, here. It will require a brain and balance to get to the meat of the matter.
Next item up for bids on "the intellectual analysis is finally correct" scientific comedy show (when it comes to the correct definition of the question), is, that we each train our individualized Extreme grade FFT analyzer independently of anyone else.
Next item that comes up, is that this individualized organic based FFT device is UNCONSCIOUSLY shifted about, wordlessly shifted about, it is not written on paper and then we flip a switch with loud proclamations that we are flipping a switch, or twirling a dial, and changing the measurement criteria scope or range - that anyone can check on. There is no place or spot where everyone can see a physical differential or change is simply not possible, and never really will be.
No first past the post no monopoly ownership of a game, no photo finish, no measurements taken with gear. Thus the lower tiers of mundane analysis are denied their grip on the idea of physical realities that all can access. This sort of thinking is denied presence, denied by the barrier of intellectualism and thought being required --as part of the set of components involved.
Ground pounders are confounded into confusion and insistence. Rightfully so, IMO and IME.
So, we move to intellectual and internal analysis where philosophy and thought and verbal/written analysis and synthesis takes place. Our highest endeavors are connected to our world in these sort of areas. The physical, for some, the visible, for some, the hard facts, for some, are all seen as the final arbiters of reality for humanity ------ but this is not true and has NEVER been true.
We enter into a point where are forced to go back to the origins of scientific rigor and deal with the point that philosophy, extrapolation, and rigor in logic... are our finest tools in defining the rigors of science. Defining the directions and scope of the overall human endeavor.
The next step in explaining why hard measurements over that of what ears say..to explain why that view and position is wrong..that complexity... involves getting the people who think such ways to understand they are wrong -- this is the nut or core of the problem.
Such a scenario involves getting them to understand something that they are seemingly wired to not understand, something that they block. Which turns to philosophy and the rigors of psychology as tied to the wiring of the human mind.
THAT is the big nut we try to crack in these arguments that seem to go on forever.
Sometimes it seems more than a little bit hopeless.
If it is constantly explained but the details go ’whoosh!’ and the deniers go back to their position of ’The hard measured physical reality in front of us describes all’..we are not going to get very far, are we?
Every person in the world of audio comes up against this complex question and we each handle it differently. Some go on to understand it, some butt their head against it forever.
Some feel they’ve reached some completion in the hard physical measurements but the question remains in others, to a high degree. To a high enough degree that others commit to high levels of battle with the ’measurement crowd’, to prevent the measurement crowd from attempting to force a reality on all others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I could go on for pages and pages more, but the end point is that physical measurements as they stand, connected solely to engineering criteria and weighting, fail to take into consideration the capacities of the human ear and brain and generally fail to understand ’hard engineering based measurements’ limits and limited scope, in application, to the complex question at hand.
I await the next ’whoosher’ to come in and attack me, when the opposite is more the real desire. I desire them to step back, and reform their hypothesis. to move to real scientific based investigation. NOT engineering based investigation.
As engineering based attempts of analysis comes AFTER scientific definition of a problem and it’s parameters in/for analysis......NOT before.
Where.. if one is lucky, the results of that may finally reflect the seen and known reality in all it’s complexities. The longer a question remains unanswered, the more fundamental the mistakes in the formation of it’s orignal hypothesis.
That...is science. Not this illiterate tail wagging the dog we see on these forums, day in and day out.
This is my beef with ASR. It is clearly anti-science. It is dogmatic. To a serious level of fault.
Objective measured findings vs Subjective, time-tested listening help fuel our hobby, often with much howling. Thanks, chayro, in requesting calm on this topic.
As an over-ripened audio guy, I plead guilty to "expected" changes in adding, replacing or removing gear, plus burn-in factors. I've done a ton of A / B comparisons, including assisting cable manufacturer evals, both in-house and in my rooms. Despite this seasoning, there are always unexpected twists and turns. TIDAL updates, for example, can change streaming quality settings, without notice.
There is certainly a place for the Amirs in our hobby. This is the balance. We each possess the most refined listening tools created, however. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Trust, and utilize laser rulers.
But many people dont figure out generally even the difference and correlation between acoustic science and psycho-acoustic...
We are like RCA dog thinking the voice come from the device itself not from the room/ears...
I could go on for pages and pages more, but the end point is that physical measurements as they stand, connected solely to engineering criteria and weighting, fail to take into consideration the capacities of the human ear and brain and generally fail to understand ’hard engineering based measurements’ limits and limited scope, in application, to the complex question at hand.
I could go on for pages and pages more, but the end point is that physical measurements as they stand, connected solely to engineering criteria and weighting, fail to take into consideration the capacities of the human ear and brain and generally fail to understand ’hard engineering based measurements’ limits and limited scope, in application, to the complex question at hand.
That is indeed the issue, @teo_audio, and it's one that divides our community. I'm among the undecided as to the extent measurements reveal what we hear, and that just infuriates the measurementalists who essentially insist that their "science" is already perfect. That separates them from the genuine scientists and engineers, who welcome inquiry.
That...is science. Not this illiterate tail wagging the dog we see on these forums, day in and day out.
Absolutely. And it doesn't even matter which "side" of the question you're on.
This is my beef with ASR. It is clearly anti-science. It is dogmatic.
It's absurd that anyone would pretend to evaluate audio equipment yet not listen to it as part of the process. But that reveals the extent of the measurementalist's faith and as with all matters of faith, no proof is required, by definition. But that sure isn't my religion.
I think Amir is excellent and had an ideal methodology. I wouldn’t buy anything that didn’t pass muster with him. ASR is an outstanding site. But, if you like million dollar cables and hyped up rubbish it isn’t the place for you.
Great topic. I too agree it can take a long time to really appreciate & understand what a certain component is doing or how it sounds. Often, once you get used to that new sound, it becomes our new standard & how we think it "should"sound. It's a strange phenomena.
That said, comparing speakers in the same system doesn't take very long & to me, usually sound quite different. This can be due to the amp driving them or the room & set up & the synergy between it all & the speakers so it too is not a for certain thing what is creating the differences, but they are usually very clear.
I think Amir is excellent and had an ideal methodology. I wouldn’t buy anything that didn’t pass muster with him. ASR is an outstanding site. But, if you like million dollar cables and hyped up rubbish it isn’t the place for you.
You opposed here "measuring tool fetichist" against "listening brand name gear fetichist"...
They have the same ignorance in common with the RCA dog listening the pavilion of a gramophone with NO ROOM between his device and his ears...At least the dog trust his ears not a decibel meter or a spectroscope only...
These two groups put acoustic and psycho-acoustic way behind their obsession with the gear in their journey , but it is , unbeknownst to them alike, MAINLY with acoustic treatment and control we can reach reach optimal sound/musical experience with a speaker/room ...
Measuring is useful...Listening is useful too and correlating the two in acoustic is mandatory and the only fundamental for explaining sound experience... For sure the most deluded are those who trust more a tool at the END than their own ears...
Acousticians use their EARS to tune a room...Guess why?
The interesting experiments are really hard to do. I can imagine a test involving giving some audiophiles long term daily access to a very highly regarded system in an excellent listening room. The trick would be to change things out and see if they hear it. Change out a real copy of an amp or pre-amp or other component with a shell version that looks identical but has different innards. Have available a form to report if they hear something sounding off or degraded, or improved. They would never be told about the fake components being sneaked in on them. The point isn’t to put them on the spot, but to see if they notice changes when they aren’t expecting them at all. I would distract them with some kind of claim that the test was about medical and mental benefits of high end audio use, or something like that. If it is found that they do notice changes on gear that supposedly measures well enough to be beyond the hearing limits of humans, then we have something interesting to start testing - just what is it that’s different about these components that allows people to hear the difference? If something is found, then that can be tested in future components and our understanding of how to make good sounding equipment will be advanced. Without some testing like this, all the reporting of improved sound without a meaningfully correlated measurement is just anecdotal accounts of subjective experience that give us little to build on. People perceive they are hearing differences I have no doubt. But they don’t know why although they offer conjecture. Perhaps the manufacturers do know why but if so they aren’t sharing information that would be very valuable to science and would dramatically enhance their reputations far beyond the audiophile world. As it stands I don’t see research in high end audio reproduction trickling advancements into other fields. That kind of substance doesn’t seem to be present. It’s always the other way around. Or am I wrong?
I saw the post referenced in this thread and think, as many here, it's a valid point. After all the ears have predictable behavior but not the brain. It has all sorts of biases. I recall listening to a system in a store when the rep changed out the DAC to a different model and yes, the sound did change. In the presentation they used 'night and day' or some other statement. All I could think is that they both sounded pretty bad. Now, that's a harsh opinion, but doesn't negate his interpretation that one sounded better, and good for him, that improvement is meaningful and worth the cost.
Read about acoustic and psycho acoustic and forget " gear listening fetichist" and their rejection of blind test and forget " measuring tool fetichist" and their embrace of blind test instead of their own ears... These oppposing camps are united by the SAME ignorance...
I am not against the use of blind test by the way...
But using his own ears like acoustian learn to use them is the key to audio...
And the materials you put on the wall and the cheap homemade device you will use dont need to have a price tag but need to have the right physical amd mathematical acoustical properties...All my acoustical devices cost me nothing and we dont need blind test to tune our speaker/room no more then we need blind test to tune a piano or to verify the tuner hearing, playing the piano will do the test...
Is it not simple to understand?
And dont try to test other people claims, it is a waste of time, learn how to listen in your own room...
😁😊
The interesting experiments are really hard to do. I can imagine a test involving giving some audiophiles long term daily access to a very highly regarded system in an excellent listening room. The trick would be to change things out and see if they hear it. Change out a real copy of an amp or pre-amp or other component with a shell version that looks identical but has different innards. Have available a form to report if they hear something sounding off or degraded, or improved. They would never be told about the fake components being sneaked in on them. The point isn’t to put them on the spot, but to see if they notice changes when they aren’t expecting them at all. If it is found that they do notice changes on gear that supposedly measures well enough to be beyond the hearing limits of humans, then we have something interesting to start testing - just what is it that’s different about these components that allows people to hear the difference? If something is found, then that can be tested in future components and our understanding of how to make good sounding equipment will be advanced. Without some testing like this, all the reporting of improved sound without a meaningfully correlated measurement is just anecdotal accounts of subjective experience that give us little to build on. People perceive they are hearing differences I have no doubt. But they don’t know why although they offer conjecture. Perhaps the manufacturers do know why but if so they aren’t sharing information that would be very valuable to science and would dramatically enhance their reputations far beyond the audiophile world. As it stands I don’t see research in high end audio reproduction trickling advancements into other fields. That kind of substance doesn’t seem to be present. It’s always the other way around. Or am I wrong?
Amir and co were also proclaiming Bybee devices would have no effect whatsoever on audio. Then one of them actually measured them, and the Bybee devices were reducing distortion. So did they admit they were wrong? Of course not, Amir just immediately moved the goalposts to saying the measured reduction could not possibly be audible, and then demanded double blind tests as proof the Bybee did anything. Then they got embarrassed and quickly locked the thread on their forums so it would move off the 1st page.
They probably failed to remember that Jack’s devices/similar works (works from the same mind) are being used in detection systems in nuclear submarines, for lowering the noise and distortion floor for said extremely sensitive equipment that is being used to detect underwater threats. There being likely even more, that Jack was not allowed to talk about.
I was just thinking of putting together a wide ranging (As it would have to be) article for the audio world, called:
"Synthetic psychology and the midwit problem -- in High End Audio."
"Gear listening fetichist" or "tool measuring obsessive fetichist " are marketing conditioned creatures ignoring acoustic and psycho-acoustic power anyway...
In acoustic the division betweem subjectivity ande measures make no sense, because their correlation id the center of psycho-acoustic science... Acoustician are superioir audiophile because they listen sound not the gear like RCA conditioned dog listening not a room but a gramophone pavilion ... 😁😊
it is Bybee that give me the impetus to try my journey in my embeddings controls adventure search...
I bought one of his device at low cost 7 years ago... I decided to create my own heaven WITHOUT upgrading the gear but instead putting the gear in a better mechanical, electrical and acoustical environment...
I replicated the first Bybee device with great success...Using minerals +crystals experiments ...
I succeeded...It is not the same as Bybee invention but it work enough to convince me...And it work not less... But in other way than the orginal Bybee plates...
I even replicate some Bybee results about room acoustic upgrade in my own way...WHY? Because when you know that something is possible then you gain the desire, the energy, the trust you need to do it in your own way...Simple...
When you dont believe in something and you dont believe in your own brain/ears learning potential then you dont do it... Simple...
Bybee results give me confidence...
Thanks to him for his story and inspiration...
Amir and co were also proclaiming Bybee devices would have no effect whatsoever on audio. Then one of them actually measured them, and the Bybee devices were reducing distortion. So did they admit they were wrong? Of course not, Amir just immediately moved the goalposts to saying the measured reduction could not possibly be audible, and then demanded double blind tests as proof the Bybee did anything. Then they got embarrassed and quickly locked the thread on their forums so it would move off the 1st page.
They probably failed to remember that Jack’s devices/similar works (works from the same mind) are being used in detection systems in nuclear submarines, for lowering the noise and distortion floor for said extremely sensitive equipment that is being used to detect underwater threats. There being likely even more, that Jack was not allowed to talk about.
I was just thinking of putting together a wide ranging (As it would have to be) article for the audio world, called:
"Synthetic psychology and the midwit problem -- in High End Audio."
"Synthetic psychology and the midwit problem -- in High End Audio. Or, ’"How illiteracy, Jonestown, emotions, thought forms, ’Jesus Christ-Lust For Glory’, and Spartacus -- all met on the road, one day"
I was just going through the history of digital audio and also looking at class D design.
In both cases, human hearing comes down to largely being a drawing or writing down of a direction of the conclusion of both bits of work.
Long histories of discussion about the math and the engineering ... charts, drawings, formulas..etc... then, finally...at the end.. an arrow pointing at an image of a human ear. That’s all she wrote.
In digital audio, it is all math and engineering...where the human ear is barely mentioned. Other than being the final target of all the mathematical works.
Same for Class D design. All math, and the ear as a nebulous target.
Zero mention of the intricacies of the human ear or how humans are connected to said ear, or how any of the ears exist as being ’individually differentiated’ in qualities and capacities.. and are also self determined, as outcomes (and remain a variable in tuning, filtering and scope!) in said ear-brain combinations.
The target was never really ever considered in either of the mathematical and engineering cases.
Where the math and the engineering is good but the ear is a individual variable and is not all that well understood, to this day, regarding final aspects of capacity and quality or how it works, in the minutia.
If that’s not a massive case of being bassackward, I don’t know what is.
It’s a case of finalizing an answer for a question that is not fully defined enough for the answer (digital and class D) to be properly connected to the question.
Where, ultimately, there is an ’not equals’ sign between them.
It’s an OK fit, it’s an averaged fit ----not a perfected one.
A scientist, a theoretician, would catch that. They are trained to. It's in their mental wiring. Their mental wheelhouse of capacities. It is simply good clear logic and analysis in the art of exploration. An engineer is not really properly taught such aspects as their work is primarily not of such a nature.
That is the idea behind the concept and execution of the class or direction called ’engineering’. It’s about dogmatic text ( eg, theory taught as law) being applied to relatively fully understood and fleshed out concepts, for the purposes of building out the world in the physical sense. Things well enough understood to build physical objects. Engineering.
In all seriousness, engineering came about as a class or grouping of people, in the context of education, where the group of people were not generally mentally capable of the aspects of science that requires an ease in abstract thinking and imagination. Not their wheelhouse.
The human mind, being ensconced within an animal carrier that colors all it’s thoughts...at it’s limits of cognition..it goes to ground and attempts to reach out in forms of hard physicality, not abstract application of ideas and ideals.
We’re talking about individual aspects of human intelligence and psychological reach and range, as it plays out between individuals. The renaissance men who created the concept of engineering as a class of endeavor, they took this aspect of human limits reverting to dogmatism, and turned it into something useful, for having large amounts of people who could build out the physical world.
Thus, rote repeat and texts and teaching of a dogmatic bent/nature were born, into academia. And the world of engineering was born. Levels of academia tied to generalized levels of intellectual and mental capacities. That’s how it works.
The problem is that the engineering type of mindset, which is a notably larger group of people than the abstract thinkers who created the enginnering group endeavor as a class of endeavor.., said engineering group wants to pick up those now (created for them) biblical texts of ’scientific law’ of what is really scientific theory, and promote it as unbreakable law.
This is how we end up with a large number of people not well versed in science and exploratory works in to unknowns, who think they are, coming along and telling us that ears must obey the law of the land and we are all fooling ourselves.
They are marching around wearing the entire field of science backward. Where academia purposely created this overall scenario - with this unintended but unsurprising outcome ...and we must ALL obey or have some sort of scientific papal bull issued against us, if we don’t.
Right......
Academia recognizes this and you won’t find a single professor in any upper quality academic situation in the world who disagrees with my general analysis, here. You might find one or two but ~+99% or more would agree with my general analysis of this audio related situation.
It’s when the dogmatic mind is free of academia and scientific rigor in execution and thinking-- it then reverts to type and we end up with this infection that poisons discussions of complexities in audio.
My Helmholtz "mechanical equalizer" with one hundred adjusted tubes resonators and diffusers tuned by my ears, use my ears not a microphone, and not some testing frequency but a large bandwidth spectral set which is called an instrument timbre or voice to guide me in the process of acoustic optimization..
This mechanical equalization work to optimize the room /speakers ---> relation and this grid of Helmhotz resonators and diffusers modify the pressure zones distribution in the room being a permament WORKING part of my room...
This mechanical equalizer is useful to fine tune the relation " from the room TO the speakers with my ears"...
But i can use also with it a useful tool to complement it : an electronical equalizer to fine tune the Speakers/room ---> relation this time...
Why?
Because with it i will fine tune the relation "from the speakers TO the room without my ears" using not instrument timbre for my ears, but a tested frequency for a microphone and using an integrated pink noise generator in the Sansui and an automatic equalization process....
Then the two process are complementary and add something the other CANNOT add ...
But unbeknowst to most people electronical equalization is not enough ALONE for helping our specific ears to recreate all acoustic factors like listener envelopment for example... And mechanical equalization so wonderful it is, is not "accurate" nor perfect but is like our imperfect ears are imperfect ...But imperfection is not a defect here it is the SPECIFIC way our brain interpret sound experience FOR US Individually... We are all different ...
My dream now is buying this:
Only a mechanical equalizer alone or only an electronical equalizer alone is not enough to OPTIMIZE a small Speakers/ room/ears complex relation...
Acoustic is the sleeping princess all the pieces of gear are only the 7 working dwarves...Psycho-acoustic is the kissing Prince, and only him can awake the Princees...
The human ears is the gravific CENTER of acoustic...psycho-acoustic must rule over physical acoustic in music listening...then mechanical equalization and electronical equalization can be used at the same time to complement each other ... Correlation between subjective perception and objective measures is the WAY...
Not one without the other....
Gear brand name fetichists and "subjective" tasting fetichist are like measuring tool fetichists , the two groups negate or undermine the CORRELATION at the center of acoustic and psycho-acoustic relation which is the only HEART of audio experience...
Not one of these chambers can be reduced to the other one...
Amir dont take into account these 4 factors, only the playing with his measuring tools matter for him, then all his disciples erase completely the two subjective factors...
The very, incredibly ironic thing about him and his "Audio Blind Testing: You're Doing It Wrong" video? The fact that HE doesn't even do blind listening tests.
The dude waxes on and on about how reviewers aren't reviewing speakers correctly because they aren't doing A/B tests and they aren't conducting blind tests. But what does he do? Sits a speaker in front of him and listens to it. He does this while both seeing the speaker itself AND he even has already seen the data on the speaker.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
I can't take him or that video seriously. How people aren't jumping down his throat about something so blatantly obvious and hypocritical just shows how scared anyone is to speak up on that forum. It's sad, really.
I'd rather he just perform his measurements and keep his chest-puffing out of it. He's no better in this regard than the Michael Fremer(s) of the world.
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.
