"Everybody with a brain has problem with your dogmatic stance about human hearing abilities limitations in relation to audio experience and your claim that only electrical measurement tell the story to be told about listenings acoustic qualities of gear ..."

I have made no such claims.  You all keep making up stuff about who we are and what we do.  We absolutely value listening tests and more so than measurements.

What we do NOT value is joe audiophile sighted listening tests.  Science doesn't care how good you claim your hearing is.  Your eyes should not be involved in said evaluation.  Conditions must be made equal.  And statistical rigor needs to exist in the outcome.

Failing that, we can measure.  Measurements tell us a lot about the design of a product and audibility of its response.  Take this amplifier frequency response measurement:

See the comment about load dependency?  The amplifier output impedance rises with frequency.  That then interacts with the impedance of the speaker causing variability in tonality of sound.  Same thing happens with tube amps although their high impedance tends to be across the board.

A person without measurements and understanding of the above technical topic would connect some speaker to this amp and declare it as sounding warm, bright or neutral.  Any of those could be true depending on what speaker he hooked up to it (and his hearing to some extent).  You would not at all know then that his evaluation may not apply to you.

There is no way you can sniff and tease out the above factor by just playing music with this amp.

Next measurement of power shows you this:

This amplifier costs less than $100 yet it produces this incredible amount of power at 190 watts (peak) per channel!!!  I bet all of you would just one look at this little box and think it would produce a couple of watts:

From noise and distortion testing we know that it is keeping those factors below more than half of the 240 amplifiers I have tested as well.

Information does not need to be complete to be highly useful!  But it does need to be reliable.

So no measurements don't tell the "whole story" but they sure as heck tell you a lot  more than some random, totally unreliable listening test by random audiophile or youtube reviewer.

 

"ANSWER this physicist who design high end audio as a hobby without ad hominem attack this time..."

Did you not watch the video I provided where I go through every one of his tests and demonstrate why they are all completely wrong?  Here it is again:

Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review

https://youtu.be/a0p3D_Gv6IY

I go on for 41 minutes breaking down every claim and test in his paper.  Please don't keep demanding that I answer you when I have already done so.

"@amir_asr still waiting to hear about this $100.00 BAC that smokes all other DACs in the $5K range. You are quite the shill. Or is it s schill? "

What the heck is a "BAC?"  If you mean DAC, easy to show.  First up is your expensive DAC: Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC ($5999):

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ps-audio-perfectwave-directstream-dac.9100/

Here is its noise+distortion:

As you see, it ranks way at the bottom in yellow color.

Here is its noise performance alone:

Can't even clear the noise floor of 16 bit CD 40 years after introduction of said format!!!  Multitone test shows heavy rise of distortion in low frequencies:

Reason for that?  Output transformer.  Designer admitted that they cut costs and picked a cheaper transformer resulting in this much increased distortion.  Yes, you pay $6000 for DAC and yet corners had to be cut.

Here are my listening test results (sighted):

"I started the testing with my audiophile, audio-show, test tracks. You know, the very well recorded track with lucious detail and "black backgrounds." I immediately noticed lack of detail in PerfectWave DS DAC. It was as if someone just put a barrier between you and the source. Mind you, it was subtle but it was there. I repeated this a few times and while it was not always there with all music, I could spot it on some tracks.

Next I played some of my bass heaving tracks i use for headphone testing. Here, it was easy to notice that bass impact was softented. But also, highs were exaggerated due to higher distortion. Despite loss of high frequency hearing, I found that accentuation unpleasant. WIth tracks that had lisping issues with female vocals for example, the DS DAC made that a lot worse."

For $100 DAC, I would do you one better with a $99 DAC from Schiit:

Schiit Modi 3+ Review (Stereo DAC)

Here is how it did in noise+distortion:

It nicely lands in the excellent category of blue.  For noise, it nicely clears 18 bits:

Does the same in multitone:

No spitting of distortion in low frequencies as the PS Audio DAC did.

See? Not hard at all.  Give me a bit more budget and I can get you balanced output, nice display, etc.  But if sound you want, the Schiit at $99 is much more performant than the $6000 PS Audio DAC.

"I am interested in fundamentals about human hearing, and this fundamentals demolish your claim to equate measurements of gear and qualitative hearing perception..."

Then you better hang around ASR, watch the videos I post, etc. and really learn the topic.  Don't go hanging your hat on stuff you don't understand and put them forward as proof of anything.  These papers such as Kunchur's have been discussed extensively and he has been shown to have no relevant knowledge of audio.   Join us, ask questions and we are happy to explain and discuss.  Otherwise you are not really interested I am afraid.

"https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf

«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion
levels, sound different. It is to be expected that ten (10) different designs will produce ten different responses to music signals and thus receive a different perceptual qualification.»

This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊"

I read through it.  There is little there to comment about.  Your audio gear does NOT have memory in it.  He creates a simple circuit that does and shows trivial scope simulations of it.  Enough to fool a layman into thinking there is some measuring going on.

He also makes other dubious comments:

". Another well-known example is the upper frequency hearing limit: as humans cannot hear above 20 kHz, the reasoning is that there is no use in reproducing higher frequencies, as these will not contribute to the signal, reaching the brain. This argument has often been brought to the table to disqualify high-resolution audio. However, many high-end enthusiasts claim they can clearly hear the difference and even seniors, with an upper frequency upper limit of 10 kHz (like the author) can distinguish the difference."

First, this has nothing to do with fourier transform.  Second, I post ABX tests of high res that I did pass.  But I am confident none of you can, including the author or said paper.  You never throw such random claims in a proper paper.  If what he says is true, you need to show it in controlled listening tests which he has none.

Really, none of what you post has anything to do with ASR and value of what we are doing.

"Amir claims trashing all listening experience if not based on his measurements is MEANINGLESS  by psycho-acustic science..."

Totally wrong.  Listening tests are incredibly valuable.  But they only create value if they are conducted properly.  If not, they produce noise, not data or knowledge.  

Above has nothing to do with whether you believe in measurements or not. 

"Amir, you kicked me off your "Audio Science" forum for being "too objective", because I insisted only valid listening tests mattered, not "SINAD" and "ETC" many of your cult worship. "

As your language here quite demonstrates, we banned you from ASR due to being the most obnoxious person I know on these forums.  Heaven knows how many people you have alienated from audio science with your hostile posting and attitude which conveying next to no knowledge. 

The above, and refusal to practice anything you preach to subjectivists was the reason we let you go.  When I asked you for blind tests of your speakers, your tap dance would have earned you a seat at Julliard.  Here is quick example:

 https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-do-listeners-prefer-for-small-room-acoustics.286/post-9179

"

amirm said:

Last I checked you [AJ/soundfield] don't do any blind acoustic tests either.

[AJ/Soundfiled:] For what conflicts with what objective evidence exactly Amir? What am I to blind test for specifically? Red Herrings?

As if that were not enough, you have now turned into speaker salesman looking to protect your pocketbook by appease to this membership. In a thread where people are attacking audio science, blind testing, engineering, etc. you are not only completely silent, but rather have a fight with me.  I say your transition to subjectivity is complete.  Thank heavens as we don't remotely want someone this miserable in our camp.

I once asked JJ (my chief audio architect and one of audio luminaries) about people like you.  He made this wise statement: "an unreasonable advocate is worst of both worlds!"   

@laoman 

"Curt, I am certainly not against measurements. What I find absurd is to say that equipment that measures the same sounds the same. So many on Amir's site have said this."

No one has said this.  You all keep making stuff up and then complain about it.  Members frequently say the opposite.  That superlative measurements of something doesn't mean it sounds better than something with lesser performance.

"The fact is that there are some very rude people on ASR"

What a tone deaf comment to make.  In a thread with hostility shown from a dozen or more members toward me, your fellow audiophiles, audio science and engineer, you have the gall to talk about rudeness?  

We have very low tolerance for rudeness.  I just commented above how we let AJ go because he was so obnoxious.  It didn't matter that that he talked about objectivity.  

Yes, if you show up on ASR and make wild comments that you can't back, you will get strong pushback.  Get rude and we will show you the door. 

"It's pretty arrogant to think we know all there is to know about electromagnetism."

It is even more arrogant to think that because we don't know everything, we know nothing.  Your doctor diagnoses what is wrong with you without knowing "all there is" about human body.  Somehow for a hobby like this, you demand to know it all or else lets forget about it all....

All I have wanted answered from @amir_asr is how he can claim to allow Erin’s video, be open to the discussion, call something that innocuous click bait and then close the thread so no more information can be had from it.

I answered you already. You claimed I censored Erin's video in that thread.  I had not.  The thread was open for a long time and people said what they wanted.  You can still go and watch the video as many times as you like.  Heck, post it here and see what people think of it. The man said what his top 5 speakers are.  Go and post in his youtube comments what you think.  You have no cause of action to demand that I open that thread on ASR. 

I think that measurements should be an important consideration, but in the right context. I am quite impressed by the measurements and explanations that JA gives to most of the Stereophile reviews. 

JA's measurements are invaluable.  But you have to *very* careful about his conclusions.  In almost all cases, if the measurements dispute subjective results or company reputation, language is used to cover up all that is shown in the measurements.  Here is an example:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/luxman-sq-n150-integrated-amplifier-measurements

Let's start with his conclusion:

"As with other Luxman amplifiers I have looked at, the SQ-N150 is a tube design you don't have to make apologies for. It is well-engineered and offers excellent measured performance within its limited power envelope.—"

Let's look at that measured performance:

This is atrocious performance.  As soon as half a watt, distortion takes over from noise and rises massively as you go to higher power levels.

Here is the frequency response:

High output impedance means highly variable response that will change with load. 

There is not a single measurement in there that remotely comes close to showing proper engineering.  

Now here is my assessment of the identical amplifier:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/luxman-sq-n150-review-tube-amplifier.34964/

Look at at the FFT on top right showing copious amount of noise and distortion.  Combined, the SINAD lands at less than 50.  Putting that in perspective you get this:

It is the second worst amplifier I have ever measured! And I have measured over 200.

Multitone shows huge amount of intermodulation distortion which is going to stomp on any low level detail in your music:

None of that "grass" should be there.  What is left above it is just 7 to 11 bits of distortion-free range!!!

Here is my power vs distortion graph:

Notice how I show you two reference graphs in dashed lines: one with horrible performance and one that is superb.  You can instantly tell this amplifier in the former category.  JA's measurements didn't show this, right?

This is the my listening test results and conclusions:

"Luxman SQ-N150 Listening Tests
My lab speaker is an infinity R253 which has a sensitivity of 87 dB. I connected it to the SQ-N150 and started to listen. I had to immediately acknowledge the lack of power as the volume control not only maxed out but there was so much distortion as to cause crackling noise. I backed off to moderate listening level and the sound was OK but I noticed boominess in the lows as if you have more room modes than you do. To confirm, I switched to Topping PA5 amplifier on my bench and boominess was gone. Likely the harmonic distortion of the amplifier is hitting on more room modes causing extra bass/boominess. I can see if your speakers/setup lacks bass that you experience a bit more of it.

The volume control had to be kept below 12:00 o'clock. By 1:00 o'clock distortion would start to set in and sound would start to get grungy and rough. Past 2:00 o'clock it would be rather obvious and beyond that, unusable. There was usable volume with me sitting 5 feet from the single speaker. With two speakers you could double that but it is still not enough power for me with this speaker. If an audio reviewer can't hear this level of distortion, they should give up testing audio gear. Sadly none of the reviews I read made a remark about the distortion. 

It is the classic case of paying a lot more and getting a lot less fidelity and enjoyment.

Conclusions
The high level picture here is very clear: wonderful looking, and presumably well built amplifier. The problem is using tube technology and producing so little power. I see no advantage to it, euphonically or otherwise. But it is possible for some people the bass impact is a positive. But at what cost? So much spent with so little dynamic capability due to lack of power.

Needless to say I can't recommend the Luxman SQ-N150."

See the stark difference?  You didn't get what you said from JA.  He was highly diplomatic, hoping that few people would really understand his measurements to think otherwise.  But if they were, they would know what the reality was.

I can be direct and frank because a) I am not beholding to companies like this to send me product as owners already do and b) I am not able to hide what my much more clear graphs and measurements tell.

Better yet, we have a number of  highly skilled tube amplifier designers who commented in the review thread.  They were surprised how poorly this amplifier is designed.  Here is one of them: 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/luxman-sq-n150-review-tube-amplifier.34964/post-1219115

"The high second tells me that either the output stage is pretty unbalanced or the loading on the input 12AX7 is too low. Or both. The 10 dB difference between channels on 2nd suggests the former is a major factor.

My PP EL84 amp is in the 0.03-0.05% THD range at this power, and that was not optimized for lowest measured distortion. Lux can do better in this form factor and price point."

The problem I have with the 'less technically' able amateur who brings his measurements and concerns to the fore, either via his web portal or other means, is that these concerns have to be considered in regards to where they originated and the experience level ( along with the access to the appropriate testing equipment) that is evidenced. Most times the credentials really just are not there, but never questioned..

I sure hope given the fact that you have known me for years, that you are talking about someone else than me.  Here are my qualifications that are linked in my signature on every post on ASR Forum: 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-bit-about-your-host.1906/

If you were talking about me, take a look above and tell me what in there tells you I am not qualified to do what I do.  For now, until recently, my Audio Precision analyzer was newer than John's (I have an AP for 3 decades now!). My $100K klippel NFS speaker measurement system is hugely superior to JA's manual measurements.  I recently bought a $22000 reactive load to better stress test amplifiers.  All in all, I have probably $200,000 invested in measurement gear.  Combine this with decades of experience with analog, digital electronic design combined with signal processing, psychoacoustics, networking, computer technology, etc. and I say I know a few things in this domain.  :)

@laoman 

"No one has said this. "
You seriously say this? I am calling you out on this. You clearly have no idea what is said on your own site. Do not come here and post crap.

You made a claim about what we say regarding measurements directly translating to better sound.  I challenged you and this is all you have to say?  That it must be true?  No, it isn't.  It seems every other day someone says the opposite.  Here is a thread from this week:

A SINAD of 80 or SINAD of 100 Can You Really Tell The Difference?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-sinad-of-80-or-sinad-of-100-can-you-really-tell-the-difference.45960/

First answer: "I very much doubt it. All the results I've seen indicate human ears are good for 70dB max, usually much less."

You claim I jump in there telling people better measurements = better sound after others say so.  You don't see me saying anything there.  The only "crap" here then are empty accusations you can't back.

Per usual you not pick the one thing I didn’t mean literally. I didn’t mean brick and mortar in the sense you sell speakers out of a store front I meant more it’s a physical service and product you sell. Still I’m dubious you’ve never made money off it. You did buy your own admission say that you sell speakers from traffic you get on your website.

There is no "per usual" here.  You are taking shots at my reputation with reckless abandon.  Reason is obvious: you are projecting. That if you were in my shoes you would put making money ahead of serving a community with high ethics.  Makes sense.  Many people are hungry for money that way and let that cloud their judgements. 

But I am the exception.  I have been fortunate enough to have had a successful career and the rewards I seek through this work are not monetary.  When walking around Pacific Audio Fest a week ago, I could believe the number of people who a) recognized me and b) said how helpful my work has been in the way it has opened their eye to truth in audio.  They have saved money and getting better performance to boot.

If I wanted to make money from my activities, I could flip a couple of switches and easily bring in $100K in revenue without even trying.  ASR forum has 2+ million visitors a month which is three times more than stereophile.com!  ASR youtube channel has 40K subscribers.  I am choosing to not go there to keep the type of accusations you are making at bay.  It doesn't work when someone has a different agenda though so here we are.

And no, I did not say "I sell speakers from traffic of ASR."  I said in a handful of occasions, people have come to us to buy some speakers.  The few dollars there are a drop in the bucket of what Madrona makes.  And frankly, it is business that my team rather not have.  The opportunity cost of handling sales of a speaker is quite high for us.  They do it because I ask them.

@amir_asr I’ve lost count at this point how many times you’ve avoided answering me. Last time I will ask. Why did you close down the thread for the top 5 if you don’t care about money? A thread you torpedoed. It was going fine until you said you “hate” clickbait titles which is a laughable label. 

I have answered you multiple times. The thread was open long past the time I said it was a clickbait.  As to it being laughable, all of a sudden you don't care about people making money from their videos.  As long as you think you can score a point in an argument, all is well now.  So think what you want.  I am not here to keep answering people who don't want to listen.

"Apparently you want to be biased before listening. I thought blind testing was scientific?"

Did you not watch the video I post?  It is entirely about this topic.  So no, I want to be informed when I perform listening tests.  People who are not informed and are not professionally trained, produce entirely unreliable results.  Here are the professional reviewers did: 

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html

Look at the reliability of professional audio reviewers.  They are even worse than audio sales people! 

Again, this research along with much more detail is covered in my video.  I create those videos so I don't have to keep answering the same question over and over again:

https://youtu.be/_2cu7GGQZ1A

It is entirely wrong to assume that if you don't see measurements in sighted listening, you are generating more correct results.  You are still completely biased due to using your eyes and prior history to judge audio products.  And without the measurements to guide you, you are produce totally unreliable observations.  

Finally, the main reason for my listening tests of speakers and headphone is not just to give you an abstract impression of the product.  The purpose is to look at impairments found in the measurements and verify their audibility.  This cannot be done without seeing the measurements.  I post an earlier example in how I used frequency response of products to a) correct them with eq and b) provide that correction for all to use (and to verify my compensation).  Neither would be possible with simply listening.

I am probably banned from ASR, not sure, but I’m banned from so many of these sites, I have lost count, lol! I actually consider it a badge of honor, because like most folk, I don’t always agree with the forum admins, and as such they pull the ‘holier than thou’ card and censor/ban anyone who has differing opinions, or goes against their little TOS. 

I seemed to recall you left on your own on ASR.  If you give me your alias there, i can look it up.

But do remember that I invited you back to WBF when I was the admin there.  You were reluctant to come back at first but I promised to take care of the issues you had as best as I could.  You came back but then quit when Myles came back to the forum.

With respect to ASR, most days I am engaged with people there who disagree with me.  It is so routine that I sometimes wonder why I do this!  Yet, almost all remain until they repeatedly get rude and obnoxious. 

@laoman 

It took me 2 minutes to find the following quotes:

However, the vast majority of DACs will sound the same.

[...]

So what is it Amir? There are 2 possibilities
1) You are not telling the truth or
2) You have no idea what your supporters post on your forum.

It is option 3:  you have forgotten what you claimed and what I objected to.  Here it is again

. What I find absurd is to say that equipment that measures the same sounds the same. So many on Amir's site have said this."

Nothing you quoted says those DACs measure the same. Indeed no two audio products measure the same!  There are always differences.  The question then becomes matter of audibility.  On ASR people have varying views on that point.  Most vocal members believe after certain level of performance, transparency is achieved so better measurements while nice and welcome, won't improve the sound of the audio product.

This is the third time I have corrected some factual statement you made that was completely wrong.  Please don't keep making stuff like this.  You are doing disservice to your fellow audiophiles who subscribe to audio science/engineering.

@mahgister

When he disparaged any trained listeners to be meaningless in favor of his set of measures only to be confirm by his own listenings and listenings protocols putting all experienced listeners in the trashbin,....

Nothing remotely like this was stated. I have said the opposite and will say it again: properly run listening test is superior to measurements.

And no, what I say is not my views. It is the consensus view of audio science. That a listening test must be controlled to have value. Otherwise it is just noise. BTW, you don’t get to self-claim to be trained. As I showed earlier, audio reviewers who I am sure you would claim to be trained, can’t tell the performance of a speaker reliability in blind tests!

Watch this video I did on what a proper training means:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk

The rest of your posts I am afraid are too verbose for me to read and respond do. So please don’t take lack of response as agreement with anything you are posting. or refusing to answer. I just can’t keep up with you. :)

@soundfield 

Exactly! There was a perfect opportunity to clearly state that most of your measurements fall well below audibility thresholds AND, even if they are perceptible, there is no clear evidence one is preferred over another.

And how do you know if some product falls in the "most" category or the other?  By measuring!!!  You don't just sniff the box, look at the price or reputation and decide that.  You measure.  Then you know.

Of course you are just waiving your hand on that "most" bit.  You have no background in psychoacousts, measurements or even electronic design.  You have never participated in a single blind test presented to you.  So what you are spitting out are just claims.

Here is the good news though: superlative measured results cost next to nothing.  So if you are purchasing something new, there is no reason to settle for "just enough fidelity."  You can get to what I call provably transparent.  There, we compare the measurements to threshold of hearing (which is determined by listening tests).  If the equipment has less noise and distortion than this, then those factors are simply not in play and we can prove it!

The moment you go above that level, then it becomes shades of gray which requires interpretation.  A skill that our soundfield friend does not remotely have.

You do ZERO valid listening tests. Yet you not only "Rank', but routinely "Not recommend" products based solely on measurements with zero listening test correlation.

I have post numerous blind tests that I have passed.  We ask people to run blind, level matched tests.  And when they do, backed by training and skill they have, across countless such challenges, you jump up and down claiming they must have cheated.  Well, you are dead wrong and have no proof of it.  In the video I post on listener training, I actually explained how I passed Archimago high res challenge.  Ah, you don't like the fact that I knew what impairment to look for.  Well, that is how a proper listening test is done.  We want listeners to know what to listen for.  We don't want to stick our head in the sand by removing that skill and hoping to get negative outcome, the reality be damned.

Yes, it is inconvenient for likes of you to see someone like me disprove your ideas of inaudibility.  Tough.  Next time learn the topic itself and not just repeat talking points that nothing can sound better than something else.

Finally, I looked at your website.  There is no measurements of any speakers except for one random one with no documentation.  Surely you don't claim that speaker measurements are of no use, are you?  You are not that deep into subjectivity, are you? 

Then I saw this bit of absurdity on your home page:

"Our products reflect the philosophy that loudspeakers should strive to sound like the real thing. "Hi Fidelity" once meant exactly that. If you know what live acoustic music sounds like, you will appreciate our products."

Oh really?  How does a speaker convert a microphone recorded content into the sound of the real thing?  Magic?  You have some scientific research to link to that states anything remotely like this?  Or is it that when it comes to selling speakers, you are just as bad as the next guy in ignoring audio science and engineering?

@mahgister 

Proper listeningt tests are LONG TERM MEMORY TESTS using musicians, acouswtician or trained music lovers...

That is a myth and insult to many audiophiles who don't consider themselves any of those.

Nothing about a controlled test says you have to do short term testing.  You think a cable sounds different?  Spend a month listening to it and another month listening to another.  As long as you don't know which cable is which when listening, and repeat the test enough to know you are not guessing, you are performing a valid test.

Now, we encourage you to not rely on long term memory as it is an extremely lossy system and sharply reduces your acuity when it comes to hearing small impairments/differences.  This is backed by medical science (look up echoic memory), and controlled listening tests.  Please see this summary of an AES paper on this topic:

AES Paper Digest: Sensitivity and Reliability of ABX Blind Testing

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/aes-paper-digest-sensitivity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

The results were that the Long Island group [Audiophile/Take Home Group] was unable to identify the distortion in either of their tests. SMWTMS's listeners also failed the "take home" test scoring 11 correct out of 18 which fails to be significant at the 5% confidence level. However, using the A/B/X test, the SMWTMS not only proved audibility of the distortion within 45 minutes, but they went on to correctly identify a lower amount. The A/B/X test was proven to be more sensitive than long-term listening for this task.
 

I have done a ton of such tests.  The longer the switching time, the more sensitivity I lose.  Again, this is due to our short term memory being almost lossless compared to the highly lossy long term listening.

Once more though, you are welcome to take as long as you want in comparing products blind.  

As to you putting your fait in certain group of people, that again is false.  I showed example of how audio reviewers did so poorly in blind tests of speakers. 

As to Musicians, while they hearing does get trained in certain areas (e.g. detection of reflections in a room), they do no better than general public when it comes to matters related to audio fidelity.  If they did better, then they would mostly be audiophiles which they decidedly are not.  My piano teacher for example just gives me blank looks when I talk about anything related to audio fidelity!  Musicians listen to music from a spot in the performance venue that is different than us as listeners anyway.

As to those "trained music lovers," when tested in any kind of blind test, they do very poorly.  Most would not dare taking the same tests that I have taken and passed.  It is entirely too convenient to declare yourself as trained with no proof point whatsover.

@somethingsomethingaudio 

@texbychoice not only that but Amir himself profits from it by constantly promoting revel products. How do I know this? Well I once early on before I knew better was interested in his company and thought maybe I’d grab a pair of revels from him. He does exactly what he forbids others from doing. Allegedly. 

I do zero promotion of Revel speakers.  Every year, a handful of people reach out to me asking if we can sell them Revel speakers.  I quote them a price.  Half the time they get it from us, half the time they go and buy it elsewhere.  My company's business is NOT retail audio.  We make our living designing million dollar whole house (or commercial building) lighting, security, shades, etc.  Our clients are not audiophiles and the most they want is a whole house sound with invisible or nearly so speakers throughout their house/estate.  

I run AudioScienceReview.com as a separate venture that has nothing to do with Madrona.  Every review of a product that may bring even appearance of conflict of interest comes with a clearly note:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-c763l-in-ceiling-speaker-review.42029/

Note: our company, Madrona Digital, is a dealer for Revel speakers. So feel free to read any level of bias in subjective comments from me.

And this was my conclusion:

"Many are thinking about using these speakers for Atmos height speakers. I don't see them being optimal in this configuration given the narrow usable angle."

You think that is going to result in more sales? I don't think so

Yon keep throwing these innuendos all you want.  At the end of the day, I conduct myself with highest level of ethical conduct I know how.  That you think money speaks more than anything else should be reason to avoid the work of many others who chase the same.  It is not a motivator for me as I have repeatedly explained.

We dont listen sine wave function in real life...

Well, if you did, you think your system will refuse to play it?  It doesn't know the difference between that sine wave or music, right?  So if it screws up sine wave, it reasons that it also screws up music.  BTW, I test with many other signals.  I already showed you multitone:

If you listen to this signal, it will actually sound like organ music.  You see that "bad stuff?"  Measurements are telling you that they are stomping on your low level detail.  

@laoman 

 I can say it is a good thing that so many realise your site is a joke and that the number is increasing. 

Knock on wood, you are absolutely wrong on this.  ASR has had an incredible growth now being neck and neck for top audio site on the Internet.  Your fellow audiophiles see the value that the site brings.  Top people in the industry and luminaries in audio science and engineering are regular members and add incredible amount of value to the site.  And of course there are almost daily reviews of new products.  I tested a new Arendal speaker which I posted today that the company had sent me.

At the end of the day think what you are doing for your fellow audiophiles.  I am doing my part to bring people together and have robust discussion of audio science and engineering together with new data on daily basis.  If what floats your boat is rude arguments like this, then, yes, we are not for you.  Or your fellow posters with similar angst. 

If you don’t care about money which I again don’t believe or one millisecond, and it’s not a motivator then why do you care if a video from YouTube is on your website. It only gives you more users and traffic. Puzzling.

I don't care about the traffic or more users at the cost of setting a precedence that you can use our audience for commercial purposes.  You seem to not understand the concept of having core principles that you stick to.   I suggest you move on.

@amir_asr Didnt see the question and I still dont but I, unlike you, will answer. I dont need to post it. The thread has been linked many times on here and this post is about you and your practices.

So you finally agree that the information was there courtesy of ASR and all this time you had other intentions as opposed to merits of having that thread open.  This much was obvious but was to get that out of  you, albeit after repeated questioning.

 

"You mean to tell me you have never earned a single penny from a commercial or residential contract for your brick and mortar business that was referred by ASR. I find that highly improbable."

We are not "brick and mortar."  Madrona is has an office space and we rarely if ever meet with customers there.  Our typical customer is an ultra high net worth individual who has no idea what or who ASR is.  Or care one bit about this hobby.  I don't recall a single instance of someone from ASR asking us to handle their custom project.  Part of the reason is that Madrona just doesn't do smaller projects.  

There are some customers of Madrona by the way who also read and appreciate ASR.  But they predate my creation of ASR Forum.  There may also be customers we have gotten as a result of my reputation/ASR work but without my personal knowledge.

2-channel audio is just not our thing at Madrona.  It is a cut-throat business and something we don't know how to do so we don't go after it.  Kudos to other companies who know how to make a living out of it.  We sell one lighting system and the cost can be as much as $100,000!  We know how to do that.  We don't know how how to sell a Wilson speaker for the same amount.

I suggest you cut back on these accusations.  It is totally improper to keep making things up that has to do with my reputation based on what is "improbable" to you.  Not everyone does things in this industry because they want to make money.  Learn that and move on.

Amir, can you share what constitutes a "properly run listening test" from your perspective? What characteristics are you listening for, specifically?

It wildly varies depending on class of product.  On say, a power tweak, I listen for any difference regardless of what it is.  If I can distinguish it from not using the tweak, then that is major news by itself.

For testing of distortion, it is best to hear it exaggerated first, and then dial it back.  So if you have a low power/high distortion amplifier, first crank it way up and hear the distortion clearly.  Then back down the volume control and see at what point that same artifact is no longer there.

For things like speakers, single speaker testing doesn't make sense.  Ultimately we don't know how a recoding is supposed to sound like.  Research relies on paring at least 4 speakers together and compare them.  That way, the bad speaker will stand out as an exception to the rest.  Such tests are outside of the means of most audiophiles but a few have tried as I linked to yesterday.

In all cases, deep knowledge of what you are testing, including measurements, is a great help to focus your listening tests.  This is very important in hearing lossy compression artifacts for example.

Back to speaker (and headphone listening), selection of content is paramount.  You want broad spectrum content that is mostly invariant.  That is, it doesn't keep changing.  That way you can do comparisons without the content itself changing on you.  This is incredibly helpful when I am developing EQ filters to correct response errors.  I want to be able to turn the filter on and off and hear the effect.   But if the content changes from dumbs to vocals and then the piano, I can't do this.  

Something very useful in testing lower powered amplifiers and speakers/headphones is to have a mix of bass and high frequencies.  This way, when the bass notes come and demand power, you can listen to not only how they get distorted by the impact on the rest of the spectrum (e.g. brightness as a result of too much harmonic distortion).

Another key is to stick to the same set of tracks and only use them no matter how tired you get listening to them!  You learn what parts of them are revealing, saving you time and effort.  Throwing a new random piece of music at every new piece of audio you are testing as some reviewers do, is just wrong.

Hopefully this at least partially answers your question.  :)

@amir_asr 

"Ultimately we don't know how a recording is supposed to sound like."

Such an unprepossessing sentence and yet one that threatens to undermine the entire audiophile industry.

It is the reality unfortunately.  Take video production.  It has strict standard for luma and chroma (black and white and color information).  Content is created using that standard.  So as long as you calibrate your display to the same, you get the identical colors as was seen by people who reproduced the content. This has enabled displays to become incredibly accurate in the last few years.

In sharp contrast, no one knows the tonality of anything produced in creation of music.  That brightness in music may be part of it, your may bey our speaker.  You don't know.  Dr. Toole calls it circle of confusion. I call it "broken architecture."  Here is a survey Genelec did of their customers in high end production suites (for film sound):

See the incredible variations?  And this is with Genelec speakers where each unit is measured and fully calibrated to neutral when manufactured.  

There is some hope here.  As long as we all rally around neutral speakers, then we can reduce the level of confusion and lack of consistency.  This is slowly happening as even low cost speakers are striving for this now.  Sadly, many high-end speakers go their own way with at times abominable tonality.

but the most important is that the tool you use to measure a design are not appropriate to the human hearings pasycho-acoustic basic science and not even appropriate to amplifier design...

That is not what we do with the tool.  The tool gives you data.  A human interprets it against psychoacoustics research which is based on listening.

And what is the alternative?  Not measuring?  Then how do you know your listening tests are accurate?  Just because you say so?  I can get 10 audiophiles and get 10 different answers as to the impressions of a speaker.  One guy likes Wilson and the other Magico.  How do you know who is right?  Answer is that you don't.  You are relying on ad-hoc evaluations devoid of the very science you mention. 

This is all demonstrated and fully documented in peer review research.  So nothing I am telling you is my opinion. 

Why is this one allowed then?

And this one

Annnnd this one

How are all of these allowed but that one is not? 

I give members wide latitude to post what they want even if it is linking to monetized content.  This is why Erin's content was allowed to be posted and still remains to this day. 

You didn't answer me: why are you not posting Erin's video here and discussing it?  

 

I will take your hand ,Read me: measures in INNOVATIVE amplifier design are GUIDED by the designer EARS

His ears?  Why on earth should I trust his ears?  What training and qualifications does he have when it comes to his hearing?  Can he hear to 20 khz?  What level of noise and distortion can he hear?  Is he not influenced by wanting his own product to sound better?  

But let's say all of that is true.  Don't you think we should verify?  If a manufacturer says their amplifier has incredibly low noise, don't you think we can measure that?  What it he says it produces 200 watts; should we not verify that?  Let's look at an example in the form of Bob Carver.  Many people are his fans and think he has incredible abilities just like you are vouching for your hero designer:

Carver Crimson 275 Review (Tube Amp)

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/carver-crimson-275-review-tube-amp.29971/

It sadly is a noise and distortion factory:

But let's put that aside.  As the name indicates, the amplifier is supposed to produce 275 watts.  This is what it did instead:

Yup it blew its fuse after just producing 29 watts!!!  I replaced the fuse and tested again:

Even burst power to the right produces 75 watts, far short of of claimed 275 watts.

At 20 Hz, power drops to just 14 watts:

And look at the level of distortion, it is off the charts!

You see the power of measurements?  We are able to reliably and convincingly show that the famous Bob Carver who could do no wrong, indeed and done a lot wrong.  He had misled his customers by a mile.  And I say this sadly as someone who bought his receiver back in 1982!

I suggest you put less trust in people's claims and seek out independent analysis of audio technology.  This is what your fellow audiophiles are doing.  Resist the temptation to ignore science and engineering where it can generate so much useful information.  

" ASR has had an incredible growth now being neck and neck for top audio site on the Internet."
Did you measure that scientifically in a blind testing comparison or is this your opinion only? Show us the evidence. Can this evidence be verified independently? This site is based on science and not opinion.

Sure.  Go to Similarweb.com and create an account. Then you get get this kind of statistics for any website you want:

ASR is the top line in navy color.  Orange is this site.  And teal at the bottom is stereophile.com.  ASR is far newer site by far yet we have overtaken both and created a huge gap.  It is proof point that vast number of your fellow audiophiles see the value in ASR and visit it.  

BUT measuring all that at the end is BY THE EARS/BRAIN not by Tools working linearly in the time independant domain...

@mahgister 

Sure.  Make sure you conduct such listening tests with rigor and report back.  Don't tell me you like the story from the guy who designed something.  That is putting your trust in the hands of the wrong person.

Here is a story for you.  Read what happened when Dr. Olive arrived at Harman:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

"

A Blind Versus Sighted Loudspeaker Experiment

This question was tested in 1994, shortly after I joined Harman International as Manager of Subjective Evaluation [1]. My mission was to introduce formalized, double-blind product testing at Harman. To my surprise, this mandate met rather strong opposition from some of the more entrenched marketing, sales and engineering staff who felt that, as trained audio professionals, they were immune from the influence of sighted biases.

[...]

The mean loudspeaker ratings and 95% confidence intervals are plotted in Figure 1 for both sighted and blind tests. The sighted tests produced a significant increase in preference ratings for the larger, more expensive loudspeakers G and D. (note: G and D were identical loudspeakers except with different cross-overs, voiced ostensibly for differences in German and Northern European tastes, respectively. The negligible perceptual differences between loudspeakers G and D found in this test resulted in the creation of a single loudspeaker SKU for all of Europe, and the demise of an engineer who specialized in the lost art of German speaker voicing).

So be very careful in believing what a designer claims.

And once more, listening tests are wonderful.  Demand that your supplier show such controlled listening tests.  If they don't have one, clearly they are not valuing listening as you say.  Instead they want you to be believe written words with no verification.  Caveat Emptor!!! 

 

@mahgister 

Then there is a high cost to pay if we TRUST the Fourier linear tools and if we work ONLY in the time independant and frequency domain... The price is we loose contact with the basic of human hearings...

I don't know why you keep bringing up Fourier transform.  Most of my tests don't involve any kind of fourier analysis.  Take the dashboard I post earlier for that Carver amplifier:

See those THD+N and SINAD numbers?  They are computed *without FFT*.  The analyzer simply filters out the 1 kHz tone and what is left is noise+distortion.  It then simply reports that sum energy of unwanted signal as a ratio to the test signal.  No FFT is needed or used.

The problem with that one number, as bad as it is in this case, is that it is not diagnostic.  So the analyzer in addition to that shows the fourier transform on top right.  Now we see the problems.  We have tons and tons of power supply noise and hum which better not be good in any audiophile's mind. 

We then look to the right and see copious amount of third harmonic distortion -- not the beloved 2nd harmonic people think tubes output. Using psychacoustics, we can overlay a graph on both the noise and distortion and assess audibility, again based on listening test research. 

Fourier transforms then are an invaluable diagnostic tool to assess audibility because much of our knowledge of psychacoustics is in frequency domain, not time.  In time domain, we are relative quite deaf.  This is by design.  When you listen to someone in your home, their voice gets bounced around the room, gets delayed (timing changes) plus attenuated and then mixes with the direct sound creating a "phase soup."  So the notion that time matters is non-sequitur in most part.

But again, a lot of our measurements are independent of any kind of Fourier transform.  This measurement that I post again has nothing to do with that:

Output power is varied and THD+N extracted per above explanation.  It shows that this amplifier is a distortion factory, overlaying its own signature on *everything* you listen to.  It is against the very word "high fidelity." 

You also keep saying we only use sine waves.  We do not and I already explain to you that 32-tone, multitone signal is just that, 32 tones and if you listen to it, it sounds like organ playing.  Its waveform in time domain is quite complex looking as well.

My jitter test also uses dual squarewaves which by definition have infinite number of sinewaves:

It looks like a single sine wave but it is not.  Everything above other than the 12 kHz spike is unwanted noise and jitter by the way.  Using psychoacoustics though, you arrive at what I say above, "not an audible concern."  Without the FFT you could do that analysis.

So really I would not keep repeating that the problem with measurements is some random claim about Fourier transform.  Plenty of tests don't use them.  And when we do, the FFT tells us the very thing we want to know: "how audible is that noise and distortion?"  The only people who don't want to see such an FFT is because they are afraid of the story they tell.  

They want to claim their gear sounds great despite the flaws found in measurements?  That is cool.  Just show a controlled test of half a dozen audiophiles with levels matched and blinded.  Post that and we can talk.  Don't keep writing essays.  Essays don't make music.  If ears are all that matters, then let's do an ear's only test.  Until then, all the rest of what you are quoting is hoped to confuse the regular reader who doesn't understand the topic, hoping to get you to forego proper proofs, that is, with ears only, equipment sounds better.

 

Certainly, @mahgister isn’t trying to confuse the reader and isn’t obligated to provide anything to meet your definition of "proper proof."

I was talking about the author of said papers, not him.  But go ahead and summarize what you think @mahgister has been quoting and what it means.

This is a hobbyist’s website, not a scientific forum or, in the case of ASR, a quasi-pseudo-faux-scientific forum. At the very least, @mahgister has pretty good grip on logic, which is probably why his posts confound you so.

He doesn't confound me in the least.  Unlike any of you, I have been interacting and answering what he is posting.  For your part, I am pretty sure you can't even summarize let alone defend what he is posting.  But go ahead: show the respect to him and tell me in your words what he is advocating.

@daveyf 

Hypothetically, a speaker manufacturer somehow manages to develop a speaker that sounds to everyone ( including you).. exactly like the sound of real 'live' instruments in a non-amplified setting. This very speaker is what everyone believes is the best sound reproducer they have ever heard. The designer and the manufacturer take the steps you are supporting and do every measurement that you believe is appropriate, and these measurements show --- major distortions and errors in the design.

These two assumptions are orthogonal to each other.  Research conclusively shows that if you have those response errors, humans, with no reference to what real sound is like, show a dislike for these speakers.  They consider them less faithful to what they think fidelity is about.

It is like saying "let's assume that you are simultaneously sick and healthy, are you sure I am sick?"  Answer is that you can't be in both of those states at the same time.  If I examine you and you are sick, then that is that.

Now, if you are saying the speaker is that faithful and has no *audible* flaws, then sure.  For that, you would have to come up with proofs of fidelity as you stated in a controlled test.  Failing that, at least provide measurements that show that.

The problem we have, and it is where you want to go, is that someone in faulty subjective test claims this speaker is the best there is.  Then we measure and find major flaws.  Answer to this conflict is that the reviewer/tester didn't know what he was doing, not that the measurements were wrong.  Again, this is how people do in general when testing speakers:

Let's agree that we can't trust what people say in the four categories past the Trained column.

Amir methods of measures CAN ONLY VERIFY GEAR SPECS as publised by the company and infirm it or confirm it... THATS ALL...

Specs? What specs. Some of you gone so blind on asking for proof points that manufacturers feel like they shouldn’t give you anything. Have you seen the type of measurements I have been posting on any gear you bought? You have not.

So no, I wish I was just verifying things. Instead, I am having to do the work that the company should have done when designing said gear. Because if they had, they would have seen the many awful sins that they could have fixed which have nothing but negative impact on fidelity of equipment.

And you are helping them in this regard by constantly saying measurements are not important, etc. Don’t let them off the hook. We have a speaker salesman here who doesn’t even post measurements for speakers! How bad can we get? Do you really think you learn nothing from frequency response of a speaker? That it can’t tell you how good or bad it is at faithfully producing a neutral sound that is true to the recording? Check this example of the Klipsch RP600M speaker:

Look at that massive dip at 2 kHz. You don’t think this measurement is massively important to know about? If we had held up every speaker company to post measurements like this, I am pretty sure they would not have marketed this speaker. As it is, it took measurements like mine to get them to fix this in version 2 (I have not confirmed).

So no, I am not just verifying specs. I am giving you a picture of how well engineered and correct the design and execution of an audio product is. I shouldn’t have to but you all as consumer, and laxed press, have allowed it to get this bad.

I am doing my part to reverse this trend. Some companies have woken up and are starting to do the right thing by posting measurements like I do. These are the companies you want to reward: the ones that don’t hide behind essays as a way to avoid giving you information you need to know how some equipment can perform.

 

@mahgister 

I never say that your measure use FFT, i indicated tghat they are used in the usual theory context about hearings that the ears work linearly and mainly in the frequency domain, this is the inspired  Fourier theory of hearing in the frequency domain  ...

Of course you did:

But bashing audiophiles for some right reason ( you are right audio is not about Taste) dont justify your ideology: only my measuring tools linear and time independant tools in the frequency domain will say the last truth about the qualities perceived through the gear...

Just because an axis is showing a frequency doesn't mean the test is in "frequency domain."  The test is actually running in time domain.  It sends a single at at specific voltage, and measures what comes back, again as a voltage in time domain.

What I responded to clearly said that as well:

Then there is a high cost to pay if we TRUST the Fourier linear tools and if we work ONLY in the time independant and frequency domain... The price is we loose contact with the basic of human hearings...

That aside, your hearing works as bank of auditory filters, each tuned to a certain frequency:

You see all those humps? Those are the center frequencies of each filter.  See how their bandwidth changes as you go up?  This is just one aspect of why so much of understanding of our hearing comes from frequency domain, not time.

As I explained, time is not something we are very sensitive to.  I gave you example of how timing is completely smeared in our everyday life as you listen to other people.  If you were sensitive to timing you would go craze as you or loved ones moved around!  The brain has learned to filter such things.

Sadly manufacturers have figured out that by throwing the word "timing" in their marketing material, they immediately play to the lay understanding of the term and they no longer have to provide any proof that such things matter.  Don't fall for it.  Ask and demand for proof in controlled listening tests without the eyes.

@daveyf 

@amir_asr You have not considered in my example the fact that all who heard this speaker found it to be the best that they had ever heard. 

Best they have heard?  What have they heard?  Did they use their eyes as well? That kind of hyperbole and kickback is stated every day and twice on Sunday in high-end audio press.  It doesn't make it true.

Your claim was something entirely different anyway:

Hypothetically, a speaker manufacturer somehow manages to develop a speaker that sounds to everyone ( including you).. exactly like the sound of real 'live' instruments in a non-amplified setting. 

How did that morph from a universal truth in your OP to what you just said?  Was there a test where a live band played music, it was then routed to speakers and AB test was performed and people couldn't tell the original from the speakers?  If not, then your hypothesis is not real.

No way, no how microphones can record the sound of a live music in an unamplified setting.  Your two ears will hear differentially so can't be represented with a single mic.  Stereo has also no prayer of capturing and playback the full 3-D soundfield.  It is just a fantasy to think otherwise.

This is on top of no one knowing how anything sounded before it was recorded.  They were not there.  And if not, they have no business saying something sounded like live music.  You are dabbling in audio alchemy here.  These things don't exist.

Yes, we can have suspension of disbelieve if music is recorded a certain way to give us the vibe of something sounding "real."  You can get this with many speakers hence the reason the same audiophile recordings are used by many in audio shows.  It is a neat trick but anyone with an ounce of objectivity will accept that stereo on any speaker is not teleporting you to any live setting that a recording represents.

Again so useful his falsification about the gear marker can be and are welcome, his bashing of the way humans hears and listen, for the prevalence of his TOOL ANALYSIS as prescription is false and wrong..

Please cut out this "bashing" business.  I have not gone after anyone personally other than speaker salesman here who wants to prove there is no audible difference in anything.  For the rest of you, I comment on technical points you raise.  Me answering you is not "bashing."  It is a technical counter with facts, measurement and science of audio.  Please don't personalize this discussion this way. 

@daveyf 

If we believe ( and I have no idea if you do) that all appreciation of SQ is subjective; IOW one person’s appreciation of the sound of a stand up bass is another’s definition of a cello, then we have to come to the conclusion that what sounds great to one, is not necessarily the case to another.

Again, in your hypothesis you said everyone said that speaker produced the real sound including me.  So what you say above is not consistent with that.

Fortunately, it appears that most of us are surprisingly similar in our preferences when tested blind, i.e. when we don't know what we are looking at.  There, when presented with sound coming out of a handful of speakers, we agree with each other to a high degree in what makes good sound.  This is independent of any group we belong to.  From Harman research into this very topic in an extensive project:

Notice how the speaker in light green was voted as poor sounding by every class of listeners from reviewers to trained listeners.

This is a very fortunate thing.  It means that sound reproduction is not wild west.  That many of us will like a speaker that is neutral sounding.  That too much  highs or lows bothers us similarly. 

I have tested and listened to nearly 300 speakers now.  Regardless of who makes it, when a speaker is neutral, it puts a huge smile on my face!  It just sounds right.  

Above is the only hope we have of standardization in audio.  If production of music is done in neutral settings, then we can have the same in our home and for the first time hear what was heard in the production of said music.  We can always put salt and pepper on that if needed with equalization to our preference.

This is *the* most important thing to learn about proper sound reproduction in our room.  

Amir did not read neither  Oppenheim and Magnasco, nor Hans Van Maanen...

Nonsense.  I read Maanen paper and comment about it when you first post it.  I explained to you that he made up an electronic circuit that has hysteresis and then showed a couple of rudimentary simulation that says there is a memory effect.  I explained to you that he did not:

1. Show that same in any real amplifier circuit

2. There are no controlled listening tests in the paper saying any of that is real or matters with real products and listeners.

 I have shown how incredibly using Fourier transform is because we are able to then perform psychoacoustic analysis of impairments in audio.  There is nothing whatsoever in that paper to invalidate this analysis which is the standard in research into audibility of distortions and noise.

Heck, there is not even a single fourier transform in the paper you post!  He is only showing  you time domain clipping/highly non-linear behavior of a made up circuit which does not exist in an amplifier.  

A fourier tranform would have shown huge non-linearities in the circuit he is simulating showing how it is butchering the signal.  And whether that would be audible or not.

Bottom line, in no way or shape this backs your claims that fourier analysis of audio signals is a bad or wrong thing.  Nothing remotely like that.  

 

I post this video before on what it means to get trained.  In there, I show how I passed a test of high-res vs 16 bit.  Something you can learn how to do and bust the theory of people who say everything sounds the same:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk

 

The problem is imposing our own theory of what is hearing and what is musical...

Which is what the audiophiles and their reviewers do day in and day out.  Fortunately the research in speaker preference puts theory to test and has found what set of measurements correlate highly with listener preference.  That is what we follow at ASR.  Not to 100% degree but with confidence.  When challenged, we can point to massive library of research.  When an audiophile or their press is challenged what do they say?  Oh I must be right.  Well you are not.

@daveyf 

@amir_asr   In my hypothesis, I was attempting to point out that IF a speaker was ever designed that could sound like what people (including you) believe to be as close as possible to the sound of 'real' instruments in a 'live acoustic space', and if this very same speaker measured poorly; people like yourself would point to the measurements and not believe in what their very own ears were telling them! 

This does not exist.  It cannot exist.  You are saying you want to be in the two places simultaneously.  Again, what extensive research across many decades shows is that we as listeners prefer accurate and neutral measuring speakers.  

This is no top of your premise that people thinking some speaker reproduces real instruments from a recording that itself is not such a copy. 

You can't make up scenarios that are in conflict and don't represent reality and then draw conclusions from them.

But let's say what you say is true.  Then what you call "bad measurements" are the measurements we want to look for in speakers.  In that regard, those measurements would be considered good, not bad.

This is fundamentally where I believe we differ in our approach to music reproduction. You are seeking something that you believe looks right on a scope, or with the measurements say is what should be 'musical', whereas I am looking for a product that can reproduce the closest to what my recollection of the 'real' sounds like.

Not remotely the case.  I listen to every speaker I test.  I  have already said that measurements are about 80% predictive of speaker performance.  That last 20% such as directivity is not quantified. 

The difference between us is that I believe in comprehensive research into speakers says that we can easily rule out bad speakers with measurements.  That if they measure poorly as you say, we can conclude with high confidence that without other biases, majority of listeners would not like such a speaker.

As a former pro musician, I may have a bent/bias on what that is, but it also has allowed me to be exposed to numerous instruments and their sound in varying venues. If a product meets with my expectation of this sound, and still measures poorly, I have no concern on this. 

That's fine.  Have your personal belief.  Come back when you sit in a blind test and your beliefs prove to be reliable.  I have.  I found that my beliefs were NOT reliable in that situation.  I repeated it.  Same outcome.  What happened?  I voted just like majority of listeners situated completely different than me.  So I had to throw out my own personal notions of what is correct and listen to what science says.

OTOH, if the product measures well and does not meet with my musical expectation, I am not interested. That simple.

Wouldn't be mine either.  Again, this is why I listen and occasionally go against the measurements and recommend a speaker.  Again, it is OK to fall in the 20% bucket.  But don't say the science knows nothing about this domain.  We know a ton.  A ton.  Dispute it at your own peril.

The problem is Amir want to create a standard in design... It is not a bad idea in itself...But imposing it will negate creativity in a field where there cannot be a perfect speaker anyway, and there could not be ONE SINGULAR PERFECT SPEAKER FOR ALL NEEDS Why ? Because speakers are interesting by the mutiple trade off choices they offer by DESIGN ...

We have standards in video.  Has that screwed up the market for consumers? It has not.  People can still choose to buy a 40 inch TV or a projector.  The standard says produce the video signal to represent this shade of red.  We do the same at playback and we see the same shade of red.  No such thing exists in audio.  Folks can create pink and call it red.  And we play it back as magenta and go on claiming that looks like the real thing.  

The standards are not about design.  They are about defined fidelity.  

And no, a device doesn't have to be perfect.  A perfect mastering display costs $50K.  But you can buy a $1,000 TV and come darn close to it.  And we can prove that using objective measurements and subjective confirmation.

A speaker can have bass down to 20 Hz and cost $20K.  Or be one that stops at 40 Hz and cost $1K.  As long as they are both neutral sounding, that is perfectly fine and good.  A speaker can produce 120 dBSPL that costs $100K and if it is neutral, that is just dandy as well.

What is wrong with this market is that you are sold a speaker for $100k that clearly colors the sound bad ways.  It gets sold because they send a review sample to a magazine and get raving review -- guaranteed.  It is a corrupt industry that way.  Only way out is independent evaluation which is what I am trying to do.

I would think you would be in favor of all of this.  But seemingly you are not.

Neutrality is good but wanting neutrality as a perfect obligatory mandate in design will cost something... You are not God and you cannot decide that tomorrow all trade-off choices in audio will be declared unlawful and only pure abstract neutrality will be the goal and the only qualitative adjective usable for describing a good sound or a PLEASANT ONE...No more pleasure because it is illusory if i read you right... Only perfection is acceptable... The problem is by definition of what is a trade off in audio no perfection exist from recording to speakers..

No one is taking away anyone's choices in designing a speaker.  Nothing about what I or audio science stands for mandates anything in that regard.  We simply as for flat on axis response and smooth  off-axis.  You can get there a million ways.

To be sure, it is not my job, and should not be yours either, to make anything easy for manufactures/designers.  They have their challenges and they signed up for that when they decided to get into that business.  I am a consumer and want a performant system.  You can't deliver it?  Don't get in the market.  

We have speakers that cost just a few hundred dollars that deliver on these metrics.  That expensive speakers costing many multiples can't is no reason to relax the criteria for them.

@kevn 

@amir_asr  - hi there amir, thank you for your participation in audiogon, and your extensive replies. I have a question that is very important to me to ask, and I hope you will find my request in the sea of responses this thread has become. There is a pretty basic test I found on the internet, of listening ability based on two different digitally configured formats, one in a higher resolution. Here is the said link -

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Thank you for kind words.  I am not at all a fan of this kind of test.  They are usually designed by people who want to get a "no, there is no difference" answer.

The proper way would tell you this is the high resolution file and CD one.  Then you are presented with a randomized test to identify the samples against those two versions.  What this does is enable you to go through a training phase where in sighted listening, you can work to learn the difference if they exist.  Once there, then you can take the blinded version.  Such training is highly important and part of any protocol for such tests such as international ITU standard BS1116:

"Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems"

"4.1 Familiarization or training phase

Prior to formal grading, subjects must be allowed to become thoroughly familiar with the test facilities, the test environment, the grading process, the grading scales and the methods of their use. Subjects should also become thoroughly familiar with the artefacts under study. For the most sensitive tests they should be exposed to all the material they will be grading later in the formal grading sessions. During familiarization or training, subjects should be preferably together in groups (say, consisting of three subjects), so that they can interact freely and discuss the artefacts they detect with each other."

The reason for this is that if there are any potentially audible issues, we want to find them.  We don't disadvantage the listeners by throwing two samples and so "go."  There is no way to get trained this way as you don't know which sample is which.

Now, if our goal is to challenge someone saying they can tell the difference between high-res and CD in their sleep, then sure, you can run this kind of test.  But you better not run and declare there are no audible differences. There can very well be and you will be missing it in this type of testing.

 

@amir_asr Then what is @soundfield talking about when he says you have never participated in a blind test outside of your own?

First thing you want to learn that nothing AJ tells you is the truth unless you verify it yourself. I don't know anyone who sacrifices the truth to serve his agenda more than him.  And his agenda is that nothing in audio makes a difference other than I guess speakers.  He used to walk the halls of forums and stomp on you repeatedly if you dared to say otherwise.  I came into the picture and he repeated the same.  The problem for him was that I am a professionally trained listener in addition to knowing the technology whereas he is none of that.

He would challenge me on audibility and I would routinely show him that with tests put forward around that time that his assertions were completely wrong.  That I could, in computerized automated double blind tests, I could pass them.  That would cause him to blow a fuse and accuse me of teaching.  Those accusations were as empty as his inaudibility claims.  I explain this in detail in the video I post above.  Here it is with the timestamp:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk?t=1561

Above I show how you cannot just edit the output of these ABX programs due to cryptographic hash in the newer version.  He also accuses me of watching an analyzer while performing the test.  This is completely silly as real-time analyzer is not going to let you pass many of these tests such as the high-res one where countermeasures are in there to assure that very thing.

Bottom line, he likes to create FUD around anyone who can create these tests as to claim there is not ever any audible difference in audio no matter what.  Pass a test like this and you must be a cheater.  Well, no, he is the one that is the problem because there are reasons why one can pass these tests and not everything presents an inaudible difference.

Mind you, AJ himself has never taken a single test.  He has no training or again, knowledge of technology. So I can see why it is miraculous to him that someone can pass these tests.  But that is his problem, not mine.

BTW, I am not the only one passing these tests.  The late Arny Krueger and friends created an ABX test of amplifiers showing them to have audible differences.  

Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/double-blind-tests-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

If you don't know Anry, he was a staunch objectivists who like AJ, believed you all are wrong about hearing any differences between just about anything.  Kind of like AJ but less ruthless.

Bottom line, don't listen to AJ.  There is a reason I threw him out of ASR even though he claims to be a hardcore objectivist.  See how he doesn't even post measurements of his speakers.  When facts go against his stance, he all of a sudden pretends facts don't matter.

This is the thing, I have run into many folk who are not that much into music, and as such their interest level in this hobby is minimal, at best.

Which couldn't be farther from truth for me.  I got into hi-fi in 1960s when I was barely a teenager.  I love music and aspire forever for perfection of its reproduction.

They like other aspects of sound reproduction, maybe they enjoy the technical aspect ( like the well known gear designer I referenced in a prior post, who hated music), or maybe they like the visual aspect of the gear, but the actual reproduction of music and the ability of the gear to get us as close to possible to what we hear as ’live’ is not something they truly value.

I don't know anyone like this.  Every audiophile regardless of which camp they are in, share the love of music with interest in audio hardware.

It is my belief that you are a techie first, second and foremost...and that music really is not that high on your list, you just like the science. Maybe i am wrong about you, but to me ( as a musician and an a’phile), your ASR forum is one of the last places I would want to be, because the folk that seem to post there are absolutely into the tech side-- and really not the music.

Your belief is an insult and attempt at misdirection.  The largest thread on ASR Forum is about music we enjoy: 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-are-we-listening-to-right-now.40/

It has *930* pages currently.  It is linked to from the home page as a feature.  When I went to Pacific Audio Fest last week, one of my top goals was to gather what music was being played and share it with the membership.  Much new music was discovered and members went as far as creating playlists for them.

I assume you also like to listen music although I don't recall ever hearing you discuss that on either forums I have known for you.

What is different between us is that I am dedicated to understanding the technology that produces music.  This is enabled by me having professional experience as both an engineering and trained listener for literally decades in audio.  While you were perhaps spinning an LP, I was streaming music from cloud and reading research papers to advance my knowledge.  You sit there and hypothesize what makes a difference in sound reproduction.  I get to test literally thousands of pieces of new audio and get to talk to top luminaries in our field.

You talk about cables making a difference.  I have tested a number of them and not just by measurements but performing null tests with music.  The difference is nothing.  Not a thing.  The engineering says they shouldn't make a difference and they don't.

The fact that you hear a difference is because you are a human.  I too hear such "differences."  But just like your friend, I know that our hearing is variable and bi-directional.  Our brain can instruct our hearing system to dig in deep in music, or not.  Certainly when sitting back and enjoying music,  you are not doing that.  But when you compare things, you allow your brain to hear things differently in A vs B.  When that happens, you think there is a difference even when there is none.

We can prove the above just like you friend said: take away your eyes and knowledge.  But you didn't want to submit to that test, did you?  Fact is that you don't want to know.

Mike Lavigne whom you know, swore that he could easily hear the difference between his MIT Oracle cable and another one.  When tested blind against monster cable, he failed miserably to tell them apart.  

"in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it.""

Take away his eyes and all of sudden his ears don't do what he said they do.

You walk around claiming that some knowledge of music creation helps you with magical powers when it comes to sound reproduction.  That against incredible body of audio science and engineering, you know better.  Well fine.  Do the blind test with your friend and repeat 10 times and see if you can get 9 out of 10 right.  If you are unwilling or can't pass the test, then please spare the insults that those of us who believe in audio science somehow don't enjoy music.  

Really, I expected more from you.  Much more.