We all thank Amir for his measures verifying market sellers specs...

We dont buy the procustean testing by blind test and rejection of subjectivity as the basis of audio...

I prefer to train in acoustic my subjective ears/brain filters instead of calling them myself "delusions"... It would be like calling his wife a necessary hardship...

Amir pass acuity test and he is proud, i tuned my room and i am proud... 😊 Guess which is the more useful and gratifying test?

Objectivist and subjectivist focus on GEAR... Not on acoustic and psycho-acoustic and that is the reason why they quarrel... We need our ears even more than the welcome measures of Amir... But Amir dont like it...

I tuned my room and he called me "deluded" for doing so...Because i dont measured all the process and publish it... Imagine the job ? it take me one year non stop to tune it by ears , imagine that i would have computed all , the only way to do it with 100 helmholtz resonators would have been to measure not only my room but my ears HRTF and inner ears canal ... i never intended to tune my room by ears ...I did it each day with each day small task, as an incremental play and learn...Not as a doctorate in acoustic of small room .. There is not many books about that, because there is no man with enough time to do it... Pro acoustician will design a dedicated room esthetically but think about 100,000 bucks... it is easier to kept all in the living room.. i could not... My wife love silence only... 😊 It was my luck too... i quit the living room...

I will never had the obligation to do it again to this extent, i will buy one day Choueri BACCH filters for my tremendous headphone ... But i am very lucky to had no money at the times , i learned a lot in the process without that i would have never catch immediately Amir fallacy about subjectivity and hearing theory... ...

@mahgister

What is the impact of a photon of light when you hear an informative qualities perceived from two singers whose tone interact ?

None i know of...

That's right.  Sometimes the simple is the answer.  We don't need to dabble in philosophy or obscurity to analyze performance of something as simple as a DAC, audio cable or amplifier. 

You asked questions about the papers you presented.  I answered them simply and clearly together with proper back up. You keep saying I didn't and go on posting about philosophers.  No one is engaging you on the topic from your camp because stuff you are writing don't make sense or are relevant.

Instead of writing more, come back with the results of any controlled listening tests you have run that disagrees with measurements and are basis of your theories.  That is all that matters, right?  The sound we hear.

  A Simple answer is not  a SIMPLISTIC answer...

I never "dabble in philosophy" ... Remember Magnasco and Oppenheim are PHYSICISTS... They work this experiment in psycho-acoustic... But there is consequence for the philosophy of acoustic science : ears/brain is not a Fourier computer.... This sentence which present essential aspect of this article is not PHILOSOPHY but had philosophical consequences yes for hearing theories... Do you catch the nuance ?

Now i will present  the Amir fallacy... 

After that i will give an exemple in audio engineering with a physicist who work in plasma physics and acoustic ( as Van Maanen was a physicist in fluid mechanic and acoustic, you qualify his article about "Often disregarded Conditions for the correct Application of Fourier Theory"  as a leaflet sellers with NO SHAME...)

Amir fallacy :

Among all subjective qualities perceived the more objective one is transparency ...

Transparency in the audiophile vocabulary does not have the same definition than for a software engineer though...

---For an audiophile transparency means that the audio system let the acoustic trade-off choices of the recording engineer to be heard optimally as they were intended..

---For a software engineer now from wikipedia :

«In data compression and psychoacoustics, transparency is the result of lossy data compression accurate enough that the compressed result is perceptually indistinguishable from the uncompressed input, i.e. perceptually lossless....

Transparency, like sound or video quality, is subjective. It depends most on the listener's familiarity with digital artifacts, their awareness that artifacts may in fact be present, and to a lesser extent, the compression method, bit rate used, input characteristics, and the listening/viewing conditions and equipment. Despite this, sometimes general consensus is formed for what compression options "should" provide transparent results for most people on most equipment. Due to the subjectivity and the changing nature of compression, recording, and playback technology, such opinions should be considered only as rough estimates rather than established fact.

Judging transparency can be difficult, due to observer bias, in which subjective like/dislike of a certain compression methodology emotionally influences their judgment. This bias is commonly referred to as placebo, although this use is slightly different from the medical use of the term.

To scientifically prove that a compression method is not transparent, double-blind tests may be useful. The ABX method is normally used, with a null hypothesis that the samples tested are the same and with an alternative hypothesis that the samples are in fact different.

All lossless data compression methods are transparent, by nature.»

Anybody here reading this wikipedia definition of "transparency" will recognize our Software engineer Amir...Now keep in mind that the audiophile definition of transparency and the definition coming from the software engineering meet somewhere but are very DIFFERENT...I will explain why they meet and why they differ...

Now the Amir fallacy:

All perceived audio qualities by a listener for Amir   if not  subjective illusions or artefacts are SUBORDINATED to the transparency in the sense of the psycho-acoustic of data compression engineering...

And this software concept itself serve and meet  the audiophile definition of transparency, the audiophile  transparency here being the optimal translation of the recording engineer trade-off choices through the audio system/room for some specific  ears/brain...

 The Amir fallacy is transposing this software definition of transparency in the verification by a small set of electrical measures  in electric design measured component and disregarding the audiophile definition of transparency as secondary instead of being primary why ? Because it subordinate the subject experience to the material design and to the software concept of transparency...

First the audiophile definition refer to the trade-off  specific choices of the recording engineers which must be translated by the specfic  audio system...The audio system for exemple the amplifier, class A, class A+B,classD, tubes amplifiers, S.S. amplifiers etc  all these design are different variaion types and all are designed with trade-off choices which will deliver  different QUALITATIVE perceptions... The vocabulary of audiophiles, very subjectively describe these sets of trade off choices in design and in the recording engineers choices ( timbre imaging soundstage holography immersiveness etc)They PERCEIVE these trade-off and qualify them for them..

THe Amir fallacy is eliminating all relation between trade-off choices at the recording level and resulting also from the design qualities to reduce all of them to his own concocted notion of transparency as  for a circuits,  for  components able to not interfer  but translate and convey the "transparency" of  the digital files...it is a software engineer prejudice established as a DOGMA by eliminating all perceptible subjective qualities are pure illusion or indesirable artefacts...Amir called this "transparency"... it is not audiophile transparency not the recording engineer relative "transparency" born from his trade off choices either,  but an other concept of transparency born in the software design and applied to circuits and components..

i already explained how  psycho-acoustic demonstrated that the ears/brain dont work  as a Fourier computer but non linearly and in his time domain...( Magnasco and Oppenheim article )

The Amir fallacy is the act of throwing under the rug all Qualitative perception as subjective then useless if not measurable by the set of Amir Fourier tools and mapping...

But  these qualitative perceptions by a subject are the ESSENCE OF AUDIO...Not the electrical measures assuring us that a circuit behave well or give a low noise floor or a good ratio signal/noise ...

One of the greatest revolution in audiophile experience is the virtual room system of dr. Choueri the famous BACCH filters...

What did Choueri did  to implement these filters correctly ?

He measured , not only  an amplifier, or a dac, or speakers specs  ONLY and MAINLY but way more, he measured the  specific HRTF the head related transfert function of the specific  listener  , he measured the ear canals  with a tiny in ear microphone to create a cross talk cancellation filter forc this SPECIFIC EARS , he measured acoustic information about the  SPECIFIC listener room ... Now you begin to understand that this specific subjectivity and ears/brain perceptive physiology of EACH listener ,being always different from each person is the BASIS of this experience of TRANSPARENCY in the audiophile meaning of the word and not at all in the software engineer inspired meaning of the word transparency...

What is the difference between the Dr. Choueri concept of transparency and the recording engineer concept of transparency ?

in the two case there is trade-off , these trade-off are the basis of PERCEIVED TRANSPARENCY... Choueri use our subjectivity associated to our different HTRF and different inner ears filters to achieve transparency in audio experience... Choueri dont negate the value of the listener subjectivity , in the opposite he used it in his design... As Van Maanen used the non linear working of the ears/brain and the time dependant dimension of this working as a rule to guide him in the designing trading choices of his amplifier...

The Amir fallacy is the reduction of subjectivity  and specific qualities of the listener to be useless, illusory and something to eliminate by blind test  and isolate to reduce all concept of transparency to the software engineer concept...a pure mathematical equation with no relation with physical acoustic and the psycho-acoustic of the human ears/brain... he based all his reviews on a small set of measures in a Fourier window...The non linear working of the brain in the time dependant domain which is crucial matter and positive basis for the design of Van Maanen and Choueri  is for him only an IMPEDIMENT to put aside...Audiophile definition of transparency is illusory because audiophiles had PREFERENCES , and audiophiles favor this trade-off over this other trade-off etc... All this must be standardized and all listeners put on the Procustean bed of blind test to cure him from his BIASES, trained ears of musician or acoustician  this does not matter, they are all deluded subject who must be REEDUCATED by Amir small linear set of measures in the Fourier window... The ears /brain dont work as a Fourier conmputer but Amir dont give a damn... Only him know what is transparency and what it is not... Vinyl lovers for example are deluded... Tube amplifier lovers are deluded... Many designers will never dare to say what they think about Amir fallacy, they want to sell and not create enmity... But any designer is an artist creating his own trade-off set of choices , inspired by psycho-acoustic non linear working of the ears/brain and the relation between tone and harmonics and how to use them for a better "transparency" trade-off choice...Amir fallacy is reducing anything to his definition of transparency... All the others are deluded..

As i said we thank Amir for his measures verification... it is useful... But his reductionist conception of electrical measures as the basis of  the experience of transparency  inherited from software engineering, not from physical acoustic and the  psycho-acoustic of sound perception is a techno-ideology with no relation with the real psycho-acoustic trade off from the recording engineers to the designer of audio components and to the listener trade off set of choices in his body and room... 

 Amir is not the Pope of audio...only someone who discovered a way to market his site through a specific technological  ideology ( software engineering )  not science ... If anybody read the concept of transparency in wikipedia he will recognize Amir...

The Amir fallacy is throwing the baby ( subjective listening psych-acoustic  experience value) with the polluted waters ( linear signal noise ratio measured as bad or not optimal  in components etc )   The Amir fallacy resulted from the  confusion of hearing theory with  an electrical set of measures then the erasure of hearing theory from the audio equation...Dr. Choueri and Van Maanen made the exact opposite choices for their design, they subordinate their material design to hearing theory and  to the subjective  specificity of the human ears/brain because their goal is not debunking audio components and audiophiles  but creating higher optimal design for subjective experience  ...   

Your point is good...

I never contested the usefulness of measures or of others opinions with or without measures...

Measures set are useful information and we all welcome them ( if we have a brain able to read them for what they are) ...

The point on which i disgree with Amir is not his measures set usefulness,  is exclusively  about extending a set of measures as synonymous with sound perceived qualities because this set of measures is ANYWAY limited and based on an uncomplete hearing theory : the Fourier frequencies based theory... ...

This time i go by myself...

My best to you mapman

I have a little Fosi integrated Amp in one of my setups that I have posted about here in that it cost a pittance and turned out to be a huge overperformer driving my older kef ls50s very well which is not a trivial task. I have had some highly touted much costlier amps fail miserably at that in the past. I saw a review of a Fosi amp on asr site. Amir measured it and gave it a thumbs up. So we both agreed at least about Fosi amps in general. No minds changed

As a human being i appreciate politeness...

Even in a rude discussion...

I appreciate everyone especially those with who i disagree if they are respectufull...Because i am able to learn from them...

The irony is i disagree with Amir And i agree with some point that some idiot make but are not able to articulate...This idiot ask me to shut up and go, unable to realize that i am on  the same side as him : listening cannot EXACTLY correspond with measures..

If it was the case it will be a solution for the central problem in psycho-acoustic..

It is not the case now in this science .. Amir dont know it...He pretend he know it...

Good day to all...

Here you use against me an argument that miss the point i made in my posts and reveal that you did not have understood them..

The point i made with the ecological theory of hearing, which is a real theory of hearing, not something i invented for this debate, the point this theory make is precisely what you just said and this theory is based on what you just said without explaing it in the precise hearing/measures scientific context ... But you dont explain why your point is right,, the ecological hearing theory, begiinning with Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment precisely do it, and i explain why this is so here in my long posts..

Then i NEVER oppose to your Analogy, an anology is not an argument... All my posts if you had read them EXPLAIN why your analogy is CORRECT... Then why not reading my posts ?

Yes they are too long, but these posts were not HERE for all to read, i WAS DISCUSSING AND CORRECTING AMIR faulty theory about his measures and the relation with hearing theory...I discussed with Amir disagreeing with him... Nobody here is in the obligation to read my posts TO AMIR... And no idiot can order me to stop and go...

Those who did not understand the discussion goal ask me to stop and go ...

@mahgister your points are valid to state. I’m not as savvy on audio science. I admit that. I also admit that science is really important with audio gear. Just as it is with medicine and improving peoples vision for example.

My analogy isn’t scientific but is based in fact. You cannot strip out the subjectivity of audio. Just like you can’t do it with food or anything to do with taste. You can’t measure taste. You can’t quantify it but it is there. And in some cases it doesn’t translate from culture to culture. One dish might be revered in some culture and detested in another. The environment the experience and the way the food is prepared all matters. Same goes for audio. It doesn’t occur in a vacuum.

The fact that my posts were clumsy stylistically and too long is not the crux of the matter at all in this debate...

@mahgister calling everyone idiots isn’t helping get people to listen to your repeated long winded exclamations. You aren’t listening to why people are tuning you out.

First i respect you and never call you a name because you are RATIONAL... This must be clear..I called idiots the one who ask me to shut and go... You are not one...Then putting in my mouth the false fact that i called everyone idiots is a claim i dont like... You can apologize...

Second i answered your last post because you say that you can RATIONNALLY argue SUCCESSFULLY agaisnt Amir position..And put him in a corner where he will only be able to babble only ad hominem attacks with no more a rational argument .. I did it...

Third i ask you on what basis you arguments will be better than mine ?

Now you say :

I already explained with my donut analogy. You can look at and test food for composition all you want but taste will always be subjective. And tasting food is the whole reason it’s made. We don’t make donuts to watch them and study them.

Then basically your ANALOGY is only that an analogy... It is USELESS to argue against Amir with ONLY this analogy...

In my too long posts, i used10 articles and i appeal to the logical epistemological FACT that no MEASUREMENTS tools can be read in acoustic OUT OF A CONTEXT : a hearing theory...

i put Amir in a corner because save by ad hominem attack against Van Maanen, and childish simplification of the result of Oppenheim and Magnasco experiment and without adressing their CONCLUSION and the MEANING of this experiment in the context of hearing theory , he could not logically sustain the idea that his measurements can PREDICT qualitative perceptions from the human hearing as described in the ecological hearing theory which anyway encompass the Fourier hearing theory and correct it...

And you think that my long posts explaining this complex subject with Amir and criticizing Amir is useless and your Analogy is enough to put him in a corner ?😊

Thanks for not asking me to shut up and go cas the idiots who ask for it ... Your analogy is not an argument and Amir will live well with it... But he cannot OPPOSE any argument against ecological hearing theory and he cannot oppose any argument to Magnasco and Oppenhein analysis of human hyperacuity and his meanings for understanding the power and limits of linear Fourier measures set in psycho-acoustic...

Why do you think my posts were long ?  No one can resume a complex matter and arguments in few words and analogy... I dont harass people... I think... Some others harass people here and they ORDER  me to go...

If you think anyone can repeat shortly a one line analogy and win a debate ...You are naive...

it is not AN ARGUMENT...It is a only  that an  analogy Amir will smile at, he will not babble without words save ad hominem arguments with a mere analogy ...

By the way my style can appear rude sometimes by me i APOLOGIZE when i am wrong... i Stay polite... But i dont accept to be bully by idiots.. You are not one for anybody who read my post correctly...

my very best and total respect to you...

Then do it and we will see if Amir will be put in a corner by ARGUMENTS ..

let the donuts wait..

A demonstration as i did ask for ARGUMENTS, no ad hominem attacks even if the ad hominem attacks may be true THEY COUNT FOR NOTHING ... And to be successful the rational attack must be IMPOSSIBLE to be answered RATIONNAlly.. then Amir will be put in a corner... Case closed..

I did it by appealing to HEARING THEORIES...But idiots dont know how to read and ask me to stop and go away..

Go with your method we will read ...

I can demonstrate how he is wrong.

The big brains who ask me to stop talking disagreeing with the weak and unsustainable arguments of Amir about the Maggies and why he measured and how he measured , the big brains who answer Amir by ad hominem attack against him ( true or not i dont give a damn about ad hominem attacks in a deep conversation ) DID NOT ANSWERED HIM AT ALL ON THE CRUX OF THE MATTER AND FROM PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC and ARE UNABLE TO DO anything save hating in short posts😊... You like them enjoy them..

My posts are perhaps long and not well written but at least i argued about the essentials and Amir did not ANSWER well on that and he could not...

Any measures in audio answer questions in the context of some hearing theory... PERIOD...

Enjoy the empty arguing of the empty harassing brains... I do not...

They cannot read a two pages aerticles and understanding it...

They believe so idiots they are that my discussion putting Amir in a corner did bad service to audiophiles.. Their insults for sure do great and better services to audiophiles in their childish minds...

Not one of them is able to answer Amir save to say a childish non motivated answer OR A PERSONAL ATTACK ; we listen we dont measure THEY SAID... then why and how ? they cannot answer that save to say they will buy an upgrade... Consumerism idiocy replace arguments..

Amir is wrong on what he claim about listenings but at least he is polite...

i am fed up by idiots...Not by Amir... I can demonstrate why he is wrong... Idiots cannot..

«The mathematical demonstration about why some people are stupid fail miserably🤓 »--Groucho Marx

«But the schematic depiction of stupidity  motives succeeded greatly»--Chico Marx 😎

«Is not because the mathematical theory of stupidity  dont work, but an ecological theory of stupidity  work well ?---Harpo Marx 🧐

«You know what i means»--Yogi Berra

Enjoy, the 50 pages book is free and shortened here:

An ecological theory of stupidity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla

Good evening...

Anybody who can read can think for himself...

Anybody can read the articles i proposed... 10 articles at least..

Anybody can be respectful even in disagrement... I dont think that ASR is useless on the opposite there is there many interesting discussions...But i cannot imagine because i prefer human relation to discuss only measures... 😊 But Floyd toole had an interesting discussion on ASR and i think Dr. Choueri too...

Anybody can know and think by himself why we cannot predict all aspects of sound qualities and design ONLY by linear set of measures... Good design dont equate superior sound qualities..

Thats all ...

i say it i will repeat...I dont focus on gear as subjectivist or objectivist... I focus on acoustic and psycho-acoustic ...And here subjectivity and measures complement and are inseparable from each other.. . Gear is secondary in audio , acoustic and psycho-acoustic is fundamental... it is my opinion... audio industry is now a mature industry, pure science matter more than ever... basic technology has passed a minimal threshold of quality...

@mahgister : I understand why Amir is doing this but I totally fail to understand why YOU keep doing this. You must know this is simply another platform for Amir’s propaganda. Please stop. And if you ever wander whether you can beat Amir in audio arguments in audio forums and audio social media (and I am not saying audio truths), you are mistaken. You cannot. He invented them

Very good point... it is one of the reason i like my headphone, i felt the bass with my body by bones resonance... I never felt that before with headphone..

Btw extended bass is mostly felt not heard.

Note that good sound reproduction is different than good sound. One is objective the other subjective.

Good point and simply put...

I find much of the content of this thread pretty useless.

My posts may be useless but not the articles i recommended sorry... it is a counterpoint to some Amir claims about hearing theory and listenings illusions and/or power...

What interest me philosophically , and very much so, is the ecological theory of hearing...

This is very deep...

i know being technologically inclined, that it will not interest you... You will perceive it as "mere philosophy"...

But the reason why Magnasco and Oppenheim claim that this is one interesting road to go, is simple: we cannot asssign the reality of sound phenonmenon only to the computerized model of the brain... The history of evolution put real vibrating sound sources at the center of our survival , socially by the importance of speech/music  perception , and individually by the importance of natural sound perception...

This nature training of our species was a hearing training , and it is the reason why our ears/brain dont work as a computer algorythm reconstructing sound qualities of real physical sound sources by calculus of the elementary abstrast factors from The Fourier theory : frequencies, amplitude, phase, duration... our ears works not in a time independant dimension as our mathematic but in a time dependant DIRECTIOn where we were trained to hear natural and speech/musical sound qualities and natural sounds... Our survival depend for example of the way the tapping on a fruit indicate that the fruit is ripe or not...The sound quality here is OBJECTIVE information... And it is a subjective pleasurable impression.. and it is directly perceived as a WHOLE... 

Van Maanen use the same Fourier tools as any designer, but he used new idea for components design parts... How can he prove that his design is good out of a listening test ? 😊

 I dont need a proof to know that our fourier hearing theory dont tell all the story , it is in psycho-acoustic books... There is MANY hearing theories..

But i dont need proof to know that we must verify the design basic quality by measures but ALSO listening... And i trust trained listeners...

It is our disagrement here... You ask me to prove what is evident : it takes listening test not only meassuring test to evaluate gear... You even said it yourself and you do it..

Our disagrement is simple: we cannot reduce hearing to Fourier theory and we cannot extrapolate our design abstract measure to real hearing test predictivity... We must listen to improve the design... All audiophiles are not the same, some are deluded, some are less deluded, thats my point...  

You read me wrong...

i trust that Van Maanen is competent in audio design... As i know that you are competent in your specs review...

but my point citing Van Maanen is because he was INSPIRED by the non linear aspect of hearing and the time dependant domain where the act of hearing take place ... He used this in his tought experiment and real experiment with his design..

But so competent he could be i have no idea about the quality of his design...

I used it to complement my point about the ecological hearing theory...Van Maanen is conscious of that... You have heard many more high end components than me, buy one and review it... I will love that... 😊

Test yourself his design and i will read your review...i will never be able to buy his product anyway...😊

I dont belive in the Van Maanen design theory...I cannot evaluate it by listening anyway... And i am not competent in amplifier design... BUT I KNOW THAT VAN MAANEN IS RIGHT about hearing theory and the way the ears process sound in relation to sound source.. this is why i read it...

There is mystery when you state a theory you have believed with no evidence in reality. You have not presented any data points related to performance of audio amplifiers. You just want us to read a few lines of text written by a company designer. So no, it is not evident in the least.

All audio design is based on Fourier tools

Yours included and Van Maanen too...

But for Van Maanen some other aspects of his design are inspire4d by his hearing theory ideas... Then he used music real test  also and very importantly..

I thank you for your informative set of measures ffrom tghe beginning... Why ? because this useful...

But i disagree wi5th you vabout the importance of hearing theory and listening test...I disagree with the idea that we can predict more than the behaviour of the electronic compobnents but also their sound qualities... Sound qualities is a set...In this set each sonic character production cannot be predicted as human hearings will perceive it and judged it... 

In a word Fourier is reliaqble for circuit design not for predicting all aspects og hearin experience..

The point of our discussion is simple :

Is a measuring tool set is enough to predict the linear well behaviour of circuits ..,.Yes... But it is not enough to qualify and determine the ultimate  sound value...listening is necessary..

i added to this that we must enlarge and added to fourier theory an ecological theory of hearing to understand what we hear... Magnasco and Oppenheim say that...

 Where is the mystery ?

My basic point is simple...

Your information is useful,  but you cannot qualify all amplifier only on the specs measured... listening test arenecessary...

It is useful to have a hearing theory... No one can object to that...

This is why the Magnasco and oppenheim experiment is important as the final note of many other experiments in the same direction revealing the limites of Fourier tools for understanding hearing..

There is no mystery in what i said... this is evident

He does not used ONLY fourier tool but his hearing theory ideas then musical real music too and mainly...

Are you kidding me?

the testing of the design oprocess included Real musical burst and sine wave... All designer use Fourier tools.. I dont understand your point... you seems desesperate to put me in a box with a contradiction..

I am not the expert on design... But all designer Use Fourier tools... There is NO AUDIO DEESIGN WITHOUT FOURIER TOOLS...

but hearing theory is impossible to understand with only Fourier tools and theory..We need other more ecological approach because sound phenomenon CANNOT BE RECONSTRUCTED as the ears produce them with ONLY FOURIER TOOLS...

I say WE SHOULD NOT USE ONLY FOURIER TOLLS AND SINE WAVE AND TONE BUT ALSO REAL MUSIC AND LISTENING AS  ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DESIGN...

You want to put in my mouth an absurdities...Fourier theory is essential to design... No designer can trash it..

You are not able to contradict me about hearing theory and then you resort to absurdities and put them in my mouth ..

😊

only an idiot will say that Fourier theory is useless in design... But Van Maanen use real musical test and his psycho-acoustic knowledge and LISTENING as essential... Thats my point

Is it diffucult to understand ?

I apologize Amir but i dont understand, precise your question..

Thanks

@mahgister 

In a word we must train and trust our ears... Measuring is not enough...

Do you agree if such a test doesn't exist, or that it used more than the ears, the claims are invalid?

Title: "Tone burst response of amplifiers to determine some properties of their dynamic behaviour"

Tone sine waves are used by all designers.. they are part of the design process.. . The ultimate test is by musical real music...

Please explain to me why it is OK for him to run such tests when you claim any such test is based on "fourier theory" and therefore invalid.  I remind you that this is your expert witness.

Are you serious? Fourier Theory is the BASIS of circuit design... I never said that it must be put in the trash bin... 😊

but as a basis to hearing theory Fourier analysis alone dont work... THIS IS MY POINT  and Magnasco and Oppenheim point... Van Maanen know that and use the time dependant way the ears works to imagine his specific parts design... I use Van Maanen here as a PROOF for you that Fourier based theory essential for linear predictive beahaviour of components must be used also with an hearing theory which is not Fourier based...The first article i cited of Van Maanen is about :"Often disregarded Conditions for the correct Application of Fourier Theory" did this title suggest to throw out Fourier theory in the trasbin ?

You know how to read i imagine..

As a hearing theory Fourier theory is unsufficient to describe the real hearing workings.. Thats my point suggesting an ecological theory of hearings qwith not only Magnasco and Oppenheim but many other researcher in acoustic....

It isn’t though. People here want to know what gear to buy that gives them the best audio performance.

You put forward a paper that uses artificial tones to see if the listener can detect simultaneously the time and frequencies of those artificial tones. Nothing in that research included or involved testing amplifiers.

You and the Van Maanen’s brief write up which you keep quoting have theorized that this research gives the ability for people to tell two amplifiers apart which are pristine as far as measurements. Not a single listening test of such amplifiers has been presented by you or him. You expect us to make a massive leap from a test of artificial tones to accepting this.

And no, appealing to authority in the case of Van Maanen being a "physicist that knows what he is doing" means nothing. Physics education doesn’t teach you anything with regards to audible differences between amplifiers. By that notion, any physicist audiophile could say anything and we would have to believe it which is obviously wrong.

Cartoon dont replace brain work...

You dont know it but He called me to go on...

I am very friendly and i decided to speak so as to put his claim about listening biases in a good setting...

i work for him free.. 😊

The problem is that he does not like my hearing theory... 😊

I dont know why ...

@mahgister Amir just called and he would love it if you posted ALOT more on this topic over on ASR. He thinks it would add great value and everyone would welcome the spirited debate.

Great post...

We are not afar from one another... I regret my first "rude" post toward you...

By the way , what you called very wisely "ambiance" in acoustic is called ASW/LV ratio: it is Immersiveness the way the listener feel included in the sonic event...

It takes me one year non stop experiments in my room to create this... As you wisely said , it is not soundstaging...I like the "ambiance" word...It include immersiveness with something more... I discovered that acoustic device are not all Helmholtz resonators or diffusive and absorbing or reflective materials ... But also secondary artefact that ADD to the "ambiance...

I used to believe a lot of things that I now accept are not true. I used to think I knew a lot of things that I really did not, especially how we hear. That was an eye opener, and helped a lot with my first problem. The final piece in the puzzle was much harder to put in place because both ASR and the people that use it, and sites like Audiogon and the people that use it are both somewhat wrong at least in my opinion for putting that last piece of the puzzle in. Both ASR and Audiogon users think they are trying to extract every last bit of musical information they can get from a recording, and here is the important point, and nothing else. ASR users approach this very literally and analytically. Audiogon user’s think they are doing the same, but are often adding things that were not on the recording, but have convinced themselves they are getting more of the information out.

That last piece of the puzzle was accepting that enjoyable sound from speakers is not just about hearing what is on the recording, but using your system to create a simulation of what a live event may have sounded like. Not did sound like, but may have sounded like. Amir often says, look, these two things sound exactly the same. I accept those conclusions. Amir often says this level of distortion is unacceptable. If you are only trying to extract exactly what information is on the recording, he is correct. If you are trying to simulate a live environment which I think many audiophiles are doing without realizing it or accepting how they are doing it, then I don’t think this conclusion is correct.

 I never said that Amir mesures set is unable to catch errors in the material design of the gear... YES AMIR CAN DO IT... And we all must thank him for it...

You read me as it suit you it seems.. 😊

I said that Amir cannot claim that his set of measures are able to PREDICT all the musical REAL impressions any human listenings can pick... Calling them "illusions" because his measures are supposed to taught us everything about our  qualitative listenings ,  it is wrong... Fourier linear tools  are not enough to understand and predict what is real or not and MEANINFUL FOR US  in our perceptions of any sound event ... I only state what hearing science verify by experiment... And Van Maanen say the same as me... I am a nobody... Van Maanen is a top physicist and a designer...

 A weel designed piece of gear does not means that it will suit all needs and be perfect...Nobody can give with a limited set of measures  and predict all qualities related to all future  design... Nobody can claim that human hearings is always illusory when we analyse musical quality of musicians or of a piece of gear... We need measures and human qualitative evaluation... because saying that gear design measures qualities are necessary for musical perceived quality is right but it is not ENOUGH for predicting it in all cases and for all needs ... Design is also a creative enterprise not fixed once for all... Hearing theory evolve...  

It's all just a bunch of words unless you can concisely state what is wrong with the stereo equipment being developed and how Amir's tests do not catch these perceived errors.

😊 It is not false but it is not completely true..

One of my profs once said , "The problem with philosophers is they are enamoured with thinking but have no interest in knowing.'.  He went on to discuss how many philosophers love to discuss a problem philosophically but don't like to be encumbered by the often very real and very hard facts and limits associated with the problem. 

Because  knowledge is a bigger concept and a larger one    than the concept of science ... it is the reason why scientific revolutions are possible... And anyway science cannot pick values for us or dictate which value we will pick first... Knowledge is free in a way science is not, this is the reason why all great scientists claim that we need philosophy IN and FOR  science thinking .  

Some larger knowledge correct a scientific paradigm...And science is a larger notion than just  technology... It is the reason why we cannot reduce our experience of hearing to our actual Fourier technology , we need a more complex context to understand hearing than just the Fourier context...This is what Van Maanen and Magnasco and Oppenheim called  with Gibson : the ecological theory of hearing..

A very precise technological measurements sets by Magnasco and Oppenheim make them thing about hearing science... They philosiphically concluded that we need a new paradigm in hearing theory to complement the Fourier paradigm.. It6 is called a scientific revolution in hearing science...

You see, it is not a secondary unimportant measure about a common place fact; human hearings is limited ... As said Amir, to keep afloat his pretense about  his sets of measures and his claim that all sensible musical qualities dont exist or derived from his meassured set, nothing else..

Perhaps i did not wrote very well and not long enough posts... 😊

Here is a simple question for you @mahgister . Answer it in a paragraph. If all the tests that Amir does measure how accurately a signal passes through a system using a defined metric, and he uses the same metric for all equipment, and that metric provides an accurate, repeatable, and valid data point about the integrity of the signal, and Amir is only using that metric as a relative comparison while at times relating it roughly to experimentally established limits of hearing using the same metric, how is that wrong?   

Do you remember that i thanks Amir for his service about measures ?

From post one till today...

All the measures set used by Amir to  VERIFY the design integrity of gear pieces is not only welcome but must be THANKS A LOT...

Once this is said, infering from these set of measures that all that can be said about gear is in this set of measures is FALSE...

For two reasons: Amir dont measure aqll there is to be measured to begin with..

And Nevermind the measures, they are all interpreted in a Fourier context , and human hearing dont work captive of this context... We need to listen ...Even Amir say he need to listen and he did ..

Where is the point of disaccord ?

Simple, we can pedict by measures if a piece of gear is designed as it must be  by we cannot infer from this  and predict the "musical qualities" of the gear..

Amir say no, all these musical qualities are in the meassured set i used.. I disagree because not only he does not measure everything, but everything cannot be predicted by a set of Fourier linear  measures  Ecological theory confirmed by Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment say audible qualities exist  and are not reducible to our tools... They must be perceived by our ears because they are meaningful for our ears FIRST not to our tools.. But Van Maanen say  we must design better circuits answering more to our ears needs than to our fourier linear tools only...

I am not in anger at all...

I discussed about a very precise point...

Subjectivist negating the value of measures are wrong, objectivists claiming measures of gear can replace listenings are wrong...

They are wrong BECAUSE they focus on gear, not on the psycho-acoustic context , correlating measures and listenings..

Amir defend the idea that audibkle qualities are ell reducible to his set of measures..

I oppose it on the basis that his limited sets of measures applied to gear specs, which cannot regulate all there is to say about human listenings, because hearing theory cannot be based ONLY on Fourier linear tools... the qualitative informative perception of some sound sources event as three sopranos singing together, can be accurately described by a musician in a way unexplanable by time independant set of linear measures..

Magnasco and Oppenheim then concluded that human hearings is not only a brain computing activities based on Fourier analysis but ALSO an ecological event, a real perceptive event of a discontinuous set of qualities that cannot be reduced to Fourier modeling... This is the crux of the debate...

No need to be angry with facts... Correct me if i am wrong... But i am passionnate speaker in a debate and i answer an argument by another one..

If someone read this experiment to be only just about measuring hearing limits, then this person dont understand what is at stake : the fundamental of hearing theory... because these hearings limits are out of the Fourier domain, and called HYPERACUITY , a perceptual power linked to a real set of qualitative events in the real worl...This is called ecological theory of hearing ... This theory complement the Fourier theory of hearing by what it lack in it : qualities in the natural world, what Gibson called AFFORDANCES...

what did you want ?

Who must move on, me or Amir ?... We discuss IMPORTANT things together ... Hearing theory and audio interpreted facts are related..

Those who are not interested by these matter can move on... Me i wait for arguments...

There is more important matter in the world for sure: war, medical crisis, economical crisis... But discussing tthese subjects here will become more IRRATIONAL, because they are more complex that just the hearing Fourier based theory and ecological hearin theory and their relation for assessing audio qualities.. After all it is an audio site...

The war between subjectivists and objectivist is meaningless division about the evaluation of the gear piece...

I try to solve the problem by STATING it more clearly where measures encounter perceived sound qualities : psycho-acoustic and hearing theory context... ..

Very comical that people believe i want to win a debate...

Nobody can win a rational debate...

Facts speaks by themselves...

I posted many articles anybody can read...

instead of acting as if we were two empty heads quarrelling in a brawling match because you dont understand what is at stake in this debate... STUDY AND THINK by yourself ... Dont insult those who discuss in these debate but explain to us with arguments WHY you favor the perspective of Amir or the other, the perspective of Magnasco and Oppenheim and of Van Maanen and of those who defend an ecological analysis of perception and not only a Fourier frequencies based perspective...

Qualities exist objectively as AFFORDANCES   and are not mere  ghosts born from the brain computer...

This is how j.j. Gibson became one of the most influential psychologist of the last century for the visual perception analysis...  The same perspective is needed in hearing analysis to complement Fourier analysis..

I am not perfect... But you are right and i apologize...

But think in my shoes... you dont read my posts at all and you did not understand anything about my fundamental points...I reacted perhaps a bit rudely...

i apologize...

I wish you the best and bear no grudge... Thanks...

@mahgister ,

 

You exude much hostility when being challenged. I will take my leave of you now and return to my previous belief of spam.

The main point was about the tools used to takes measurement, all applications of Fourier theory and his fundamental linear nature and his time independant basic nature...

The ears did not work in a linear manner at all and live in a time dyssimetric dimension for our fundamental perception...

All the measures taken about amplifiers and dac are tools of a linear nature in the frequencies domain basically... But How to use them to serve the non linear nature of our hearing abilities an his time dependant nature ?

We must not use Fourier analysis then with a naive idea about distortions coming from components and complete ignorance about the way human hearing perceive them...I cannot cite him about distortions it will be too long post...

Dr. Hans Van Maanen explain it better that i can here...

Here is a gist of his ideas :

«The temporal resolution of human hearing is at least an order of magnitude better than derived
from its frequency response, so it is very likely that especially metal percussion instruments

larger the contribution of artefacts to its output signal will be. As several of these cannot be detected using continuous sine waves, these differences may not show up in the specifications.
This can explain why amplifiers with similar specifications give significant differences in the perceived quality.

Then Any ASR review of amplifiers will not be a warrant of "musicality"... Then Keep your ears open... Measures and especially some limited set of measures dont tell all the story there is to tell....

Thanks Amir for the falsification of the Gear market specs ...

Keep for yourself your theory that all there is to say about sound qualities is relative to your limited set of measures...

Subjectivist are not in the obligation to stay ignorant about measures and hearing theories and fact...

Objectivist must learn psycho-acoustic science behind technology and develop humility....

By the way i am perhaps the only one posting deep scientific reason why Amir ideology about hearings and all perceptive "musical" qualities correlated by him to a narrow set of linear measures is just that : a marketing ploy, an ideology but not science...

Amir do a great sercvice by informing us , i thank him for that many times, the problem is that he really think the information given is absolute truth about perceived experiences musical qualities...They are not... And there is no more and no less deluded subjectivists than there is deluded objectivists... Psycho-acoustic is a too deep matter to be reduced to a limited set of linear measure on the gear based on Fourier theory or to be based only on gear  fetichism ...

Where this distinction between objectivist and subjectivist come from in audio and why there is now a complete DIVISION ?

it come not from science but from the efforts by technology and audio market , divided about the GEAR marketing PUBLICITY complementary strategies: is our piece of gear the best well measured by technology, or is this piece of gear the best loved one by all listeners ?

Well, I have great news for you: we at ASR use science for both because they are actually quite interrelated. Science is our friend and not our enemy as is the case for subjectivsts who care about nothing but "what my ears tell me."

Back in 1967 a PhD graduate of Imperial College in UK with specializing in psychoacoustics named Dr. Floyd Toole joined the new National Research Council in Canada to investigate what made a speaker more appealing to listeners than another. At that time, it was thought that everyone was different in their preference so there was room to build any and all speakers with whatever response.

He organized controlled blind tests and tested multiple speakers against each other. You know what popped out? That there was strong commonality in what listeners preferred. With no reference to what is "real," listeners agreed with what was good sound and what wasn’t. That this was no wild west.

What was even more fascinating was that measurements could, to a high degree explain and predict listener preference! That a speaker which had flat on-axis and smooth off-axis correlated quite well with listener preference.

The above was quite reassuring. That even in absence of a reference, we prefer an uncolored sound. The coloration is obvious when viewed in a special set of measurements called Spinorama. And reflected in US ANSI CEA/CTA-2034 standard.

Dr. Toole has risen to the level of top luminary in audio science for his incredible contribution to the field of sound reproduction rooms. His work (and that of his team) have hugely impacted how speaker are designed. Look at the response of this Genelec 8361A for example:

See the comments about flat on axis and excellent directivity? That is complying with this research. In case you don’t know who Genelec is, they are the top 2 or 3 brands in studio monitors (and likely the largest). Here is their German competitor, Neumann in the form of KH150:

See the similarity in the form of flat on-axis and controlled directivity?

These companies are no joke. The know the science and follow it. They know that a neutral measuring speaker is the right approach.

We are here due to generosity of Dr. Toole and his team in publishing everything they found in peer reviewed journals of ASA and AES. On the latter, AES bestowed the title of AES Fellow upon Dr. Toole. From this bio:

Dr. Toole’s research focused primarily on the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction. Most notably, he established methods for subjective and objective evaluations which have been used to clarify the relationships between technical measurements of loudspeakers and listeners’ perceptions. All of this work was directed to improving engineering measurements, objectives for loudspeaker design and production control, and techniques for reducing variability at the loudspeaker/room/listener interface. For a papers on these subjects he received the Audio Engineering Society (AES) Publications Award in 1988 and, with Sean Olive, another in 1990.

So no, there is no dichotomy as you state it: " is our piece of gear the best well measured by technology, or is this piece of gear the best loved one by all listeners." Maybe not "all" but we know how to please vast majority of listeners with speaker measurements as a tool to predict that.

Now, if you haven’t been exposed to this science -- and i take it that you have not with that commentary -- I can see why this would be all a surprise. So I suggest getting started by buying Dr. Toole’s book and really getting educated in science of audio and preference:

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents)

It costs only $60 and will give an education that a million forum posts won’t. I suggest you put down those two silly papers on FFT which do nothing but confuse you and start reading this book.

We at ASR follow this science because we not only understand it, but also experienced it. I have attended the double blind test of speakers not once but twice at Harman. Dr. Toole is a personal friend and teacher. People who buy speakers like I show above have incredibly positive experience and satisfaction.

Snake oil refer to any deception AND self deception, deception and self deception are TWINS... as Feynman said the easiest person to fool is ourself for this REASON... ..

Buying a 15,000 bucks piece that did not do  the job intended is not less ridiculous that buying am amplifier who did not sound as we asked for ...

i dont see the difference Prof...

By the way i described how today i read  on ASR attacks on a well known designer  ( i will not name him because i dont want to drain him in the swamp of this debate ) because he used his knowledge about the non linear way the ears perceive sound to design his amplifier using harmonic distortion in a wise psycho-acoustical way... Few people as  "wise" and less "wise"  as amir attacked him about any aspects of his work, and i say attack , because they suggested multiple times that this "distortion" business is if  it is not fraud it is for  useless deluded ignorance of audiophiles..

The designer was a gentleman and answer them politely... I had the EXACT same discussion here with Amir about the way the ears hear, NON LINEARLY IN HIS OWN TIME DOMAIN... Then no one can equate a limited of linear measures in the time independfant domain with AUDIBLE MUSICAL PERCEIVED QUALITIES. Claiming otherwise is not psycho-acoustic knowledge but ignorance...

No set of measures about audible qualities can be reduced to measures about the linear well behaviour of circuits ... Oppenheim and Magnsco experiment demonstrated why... they even suggested why we do more experiments in the context of ecological hearing theory...

Amir answered with ad hominem attack against Van Maanen and reduce the lesson of Oppenheim and Magnasco to be trivial experiment about mere hearing acuity limits , forgetting how the experience illustrate non linear behaviour of the ears in his time domain... This is BAD FAITH motivated by his business : selling his set of measures as ABSOLUTE truth about musical qualities...

Now prof, if some of the ASR crowds treat a well respected designer this way, contesting him ,and asking for PROOF , and almost insulting him; imagine how they will treat me ?

they will never listen to me a second and they will not be polite at all..

I listened politely to Amir thanks him 15 times. oppose my arguments, but instead of answering, he use any means but NEGATE the central problem in hearing theory as it never existed..

i lost complete trust in Amir...

i am naive but one thing i know : i learned how to analyse any text scientific or not... i know what is a valid argument or when someone drown the fish..

That’s not the same and you know it.

You know very well that "snake oil" is a reference to products that do not do what they are claimed to do.

That TacT Amir owned did what it claims to do: perform audible corrections to the sound.

That something breaks doesn’t make it "snake oil."

That’s just a disingenuous attempt at some "gotcha."

Seriously...and you guys are up Amir’s butt for the style of HIS posts?

Prof this is my post above reduced to the essential part :

«Then this quote means this : for being able to not fool himself a man must LEARN when it is right to trust himself and not others and vice versa when it is right to trust others not himself..Not knowing that TIMING MOMENT explain why we are the easiest person to fool... "

This is my exact sentence above...

Any hypothesis/experiment must be created by ourself and with trust in ourself to BEGIN WITH , then dont fool yourself, think if it is about time to go with your trust in yourself or to go with some trust in other advice, ideas, hypothesis or new experiment... The hard task is KNOWING if it is the time to trust you or others... If someone dont learn that he will always fool himself because we are the easiest to fool when we dont know better and never learn to listen the TIMING signs around us ...

I did not contradict Feynman claim AT ALL about the fact that human fool easily themselves...

You use this in a Barnum simplistic way to criticize Rodman about his ideas...

I dont like the way "objectivist" mind or tool obsessed people use this sentence OUT OF ANY CONTEXT...

Feynman never intended his public to doubt themselves or loose confidence in themselves or stop to trust themselves...He means that we fool ourselves any time if we dont LEARN if it is the time to trust only ourselves or the time  trust an other... THIS TIMING  MUST BE LEARNED THE HARD WAY...It is the reason why people fool themselves easily , they did not learn this timing  lesson...Feynman dont means common place fact he means serious thinking by his sentence ..

Any other interpretation is meaningless because instead of being a serious advice it will be reduced to a simplistic evident  common place fact as a Barnum motto : a sucker is born every day... A genius is born everyday too mr. Barnum ..

We can fool ourself in two way : trust only in ourself but also trust only in others... The difficulty is to learn if the moment is right to trust ourself only or right to trust instead another advice.. Anyway it takes more faith in ourself to listen other that to go always in our own way... But there is no creativity without absolute faith in ourself...

We are the easiest person to fool because we dont know why it is time to go alone or to listen others... Simple...

You cannot fool wise man... Why ?

And wise man dont fool themselves .. Why?

They had learned to listen to the MOMENT, but also to others and to themselves , what is this MOMENT about in my life, hypothesis, experiment etc is for, ?

Why are we the easiest to fool ourselves ?

Because we dont want to learn and listen the MOMENT ...What this moment is for ?

Any other interpretation is trivial... A common place fact...

Feynman was not in the gear debunking market and his advice is not for a customer 😊 and he learned how to trust himself or his fellow physicists when it was the right time to do as a bull or the time to listen as a owl...If you dont learn that your fool yourself ALL THE TIME...

i dont see how my interpretation diminish his sentence... Why wise men never fool themselves ? It is because  they listen not only themselves and others they had learn how to listen and READ the MOMENT in time...

The best example ever of someone who never fooled himself and was never fooled by others  is Salomon judgement about the two mothers and the only one baby... What did Salomon did ?

Instead of fooling himself in picking what seems to be  the more trustful mother by questioning them but risking to be fooled by the most crafty of them; he decided  suddenly to cut the baby in two and look at the mothers face  and spontaneous reaction ..." Give him the baby Majesty said one "... The real mother for sure...

Salomon did not fool himself ever, he listen the MOMENT and acted the right way letting the moment speak instead of deciding the mothers quarelling speech..

Feynman is like Salomon character in physics not a Barnum character especially if we read the story of his path integrals ...

«Let not fool ourself, there is no difference between you and me, we must just pick the right one at the right time »--Groucho Marx 🤓

That’s literally NOT what Feynman said. He wasn’t saying "doubt others" and "trust yourself. His point was very specifically about YOU...the person with the hypothesis/experimenter.

Try actually addressing SPECIFICALLY what Feynman said in that quote:

FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself

Why would that be the first principle? What are ways we can fool ourselves, mahgister?

and you are the easiest person to fool.

Why is Feynman so concerned to point out that YOU are the easiest person to fool (that is, fooling ourself)? WHY are we the easiest person to fool? What do you think Feynman means by that, and why it is so important to account for it in our method?

 

A living room is not a dedicated small acoustic room ... Toole dont need to experiment with acoustic in his living room, but that does not means that living room are ideal for musical soundfield... Some buy 15,000 costlier electronic piece... Some other experiment with room acoustic at no cost..

But how do you know that my acoustic room was screwed because it was only dedicated to my ears nothing else ? I dont need esthetic... for sure... i need immersiveness a good ratio between sound sources and my listening position..Speakers which disapear for ever and dont exist at all... We can tune a room for any relatively well design speakers of any type by the way and we can optimize them for our ears .. I cannot do that in a living room...😊 For sure we can have a good sound in a living room modulo some wise installation... but there is level of immersiveness...A living room cannot be a dedicated acoustic roomno more than a dedicated acoustic room could be an anechoic chamber..

You may be satisfy by a living room...i was not...my basic system is 600 bucks not 50,000 bucks...

And your claim reflected complete misunderstanding of acoustic : it is the ratio that matter, the ratio of reflected /absorbing /diffusing surfaces and volumes...This ratio exist already in ANY room ,but is different in any room , with or without acoustic tuning; the acoustic controls will only change it for the best and for your own ears filters...it is an INCREMENTAL process that take TIME... it is why a professional acoustician will charge you 100,000 bucks and it will be esthetical and more perfect than mine...but mine was astoundingly better after compared to before... At banana costs..

And this ratio between diffusion/absorbtion/reflection change from one room to another function of geometry, topology acoustic content and dimensions and time and timing and this ratio must be adapted to your ears..

I just go on ASR and read a discussion between a designer speaking about the non linear nature of the ears then he adressed that by the way he used second and third harmonics in his design , and ignorant and arrogant people attacked him immediately because as yourself they think that the ears process sound linearly ... It is incredible to be so ignorant about hearing theory and pretend to be a specialist...Their ears only like NO DISTORTION it seems ... very comical... the psycho-acoustic of their ears is different from us ordinary mortals...they have "golden ears" affected by distortion negatively... Us the great majority of human kind we are affected positively if the design is good... it was comical to read...

The soundfield we listen to for you come from gear with no distortion at all in a room with preferably no ACOUSTIC installation .... It is incredible for me it reflect ignorance about the psycho-acoustic basics, the soundfield is created mainly by the speakers/controlled Room/ ears acoustic TRINITY...And amplifier designer know that the ears listen non linearly then some harmonics matter more than others.. Consult non linear in wikipedia to guess why...

You are completely deluded by the gear design being so called "transparent" with no distortion, hypnotized by a set of linear measures who masked your complete ignorance of what human ears hears and how it decode it non linearly, meaning distortion at some levels are positive reinforcement at other level negative... And the fact that the ears live in a time dependant domain KILL all your pretense to reduce what we hear ONLY AND MAINLY to linear set of Fourier measures on the electronic chips...We need room acoustic too... Or a Choueri dac filtering system based on our personal ears filters measured to eliminate the room acoustic problem ... Guess why Choueri measure EACH PAIR OF EARS ?

i prefer Audiogon... Even if ASR is informative because all participants are not arrogant as many there ...

By the way:

Did i invent the ears non linearity working to win an argument ?

Did i invent the crucial observations about natural sounds qualities from ecological theory of hearings to complement Foourier theory of hearings and the advantage of this ecological theory suggesting different set of experiments  in research about hearing impairment for example  ?

Did i invent the concept that the laws of acoustic being the same UNIVERSALLY ; in Great Hall, audio studio, living room and small dedicated acoustic room, their APPLICATION differ completely ? They are specialized acoustic research field...Guess why ?

Did i invent that the way the ears process sound in his time dependant way had an impact on what we call "musical qualities" especially if by ignorance we reduce them to some narrow set of measures on some piece of gear  ?

Did i invent the concept that there is only one center and one focus  for  audio design and audio experience : acoustic and psycho-acoustic, not ONLY AND  MAINLY  the gear market of those who measure it as you, or those who design it ( with wise level of distortion for the benefit of our hearings) ?

I invent nothing of that , they are facts...

Some people want to make it their life project to screw around with their room acoustics. That is not me. I have function and aesthetic needs that they do not have.

Claiming that people should go and absorb reflections as you claimed is simply wrong advice for huge swath of audiophiles. It is misinformation that leads to people agonizing the sound of their room, wasting a ton of money and often arrive at too dead of the room.

My best friend in my teens was a completely savage male cat that will go only with me in the house...

he even attacked any other humans if they touch him...

He sleeped with me...

this documentary is interesting for me..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QadUonunflw

I know you've all been waiting on the edges of your seats...the lady down the street with the cat? Its a female.

For Amir with my dedicated room and my 600 bucks system i am a deluded audiophile...😊

Who is deluded here with a 15 000 bucks perhaps useless electronic piece ? because as someone said wisely :

Does that say more about the processor or more about your room?

And he want to advise me about audiophile fraudster designers ...😋

And he wanted to advise me about hearing theory too...😋

And he want to advise me about small room acoustic too and he never did one ...😋

He stop babbling to me because i cited too much papers contradicting his perspective which is using electronics measures of design to specificy psycho-acoustic qualitative experience or negating them if he cannot make them correspond to his techno babbling ...

I am naive, i thought he could discuss "objectively" about the difference and complementarity between Fourier hearing based theory and ecologically based hearing theory, he did not even understand the basic problem to begin with ...

You cannot discuss science and experience with someone who want to "market" you his products.., the poster who want me to shut my mouth and quit, was wrong to ask me that, but he had a point i must admit ... I am naive...

By the way the only serious people to discuss with are those ready to admit they were wrong when they are...And all begin with ourself limitations and our own admission...

I never pretend that my room was perfect... But it beat everything i listen to in any living room with any system.. At no cost it was enough for me even imperfect because i did not use measuring tools but ears.. Anyway i used 100 Helmholtz resonators manually adjusted , how do you do this electronically ? It did not work the same at all... And peanuts costs means there is no market fraud here, only acoustic learnings..

@texbychoice Didn’t even really catch that. Good eye. It’s a very subjective statement and one that isn’t even backed by Amir’s precious data. How the heck do you buy a processor and then spend that much money only to brick it? I’ve never heard of a product or company being so crappy. He must really not be hurting if he just doesn’t care about a $15,000 loss. Time to ask for more donations.

Small room dedicated acoustic for specfic system/room/ears cannot be done and automatized by many DSP with no room passive treatment and no mechanical acoustic control... E.Q. is not enough at all... Correcting some specific frequency response is not enough ...

The only way to automatize this for an optimal result without adressing the hard task to tune the room,  is using Dr. Choueri measuring tools and filters refined DSP  BACCH for creating optimal virtual room...

it is the only upgrade i need...

😊

Refreshing post with knowledge and common sense...

Thanks..

I could quote more and reference his book, but in summary, nothing is perfect, use what you want (at first lateral reflection). That use what you want is critical, as not all listeners, or even audiophiles listen with the same goals and may not even listen with the same goals all the time. In a music space targeted at casual listening or for the more casual listeners in the household, a space with more side wall reflections has a high likelihood of being preferred. For those who are into critical listening, muting the sidewall reflections can sharpen perceived imaging leading to a higher preference. Are you a casual or critical listener Amir?

but even if you are right about what you say here... In a good small room with balanced ratio between reflective/absorbing/and diffusive surfaces and volumes especially with a room under mechanical control with resonators ( i used them in specific location ) , the preference between musical casual listening and critical listening make no sense at all... We can distinguish these two categories of specfic characterized atmosphere, yes, but we can ALSO CREATED each one of THEM but more importantly we can make them converge in an OPTIMAL dedicated SMALL ROOM ACOUSTIC...This is the goal...Opposing them is erroneous even if it could exist as acoustic conditions...You know that for sure, i only add this precision for Amir... 😊

I learned that by experiments not only by reading Toole ... By the way the concept of a dedicated acoustic room do not coincide with acoustic treatment in a living room AT ALL...Small room acoustic of living room is not small room acoustuic of dedicated Sopeakers/room ....

A dedicated acoustic room , like an anechoic room, is a completely dedicated room too, but a non anechoic one, dedicated to some specfic audio system and to some specific speakers properties, dedicated to specific speakers/ears properties in a specific room with his specific , geometry or form, topology or apertures, and with his specific acoustic material content...This type of room is designed by a owner for his own structural ears filters by him...

No one teach a recipe to devise this dedicated acoustic room... There is no recipe... YOu do it by experiment and adressing all problems and solving them...

Small room acoustic is a very specific acoustic domain of studies which is relatively NEW...It does not really exist few decades ago save for acoustic recipe generalities...

Small room acoustic is not great Hall acoustic, or even studio recording acoustic.. These three are three completely different acoustic environtment for the goal we want to achieve...

These are completely different acoustical field of experience...You are wrong here, because you confuse small room acoustic and studio acoustic and great Hall acoustic ... Sorry .. Same physical acoustical Laws but completely different applications...Do you need a blind test to catch the deep difference in contextual applications ?

if i did not have adressed my small room by balance control of first reflection and diffusion and absorption, if i had not used a grid of Helmholtz resonators but only your DSP my room soundfield instead of being my greatest sound experience, so imperfect it was ,would have been horrible...

I am sure of two things just inspecting your room in a photo...Your sound potential clarity and transparency will be better than mine BECAUSE OF SUPERIOR COMPONENTS DESIGN at way higher cost , especially the speakers compared to mine...but your soundfield is probably not filling the room in a balanced way with for example in the opera recording of Kurt Weill TEST IT WITH HIS :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR33bL5aNTk&t=1196s

here the soundfield in my small room all along the album go from beside my ears as with headphone to all around me IN THE ROOM , behind and in front of the speakers, at different times , and distributed all around at some times, it is relative to each album moments...My SPEAKERS DISAPEARED TOTALLY...  This recording is TOP recording for sure by a genius ... I know you dont listen classical but we must begin someday... 😊In my room the soundfield of my 600 bucks system will beat yours  if i look at the atrocious way you treat your room acoustic ...And your speakers are better than mine with better frequencies responses.. bUt a soundfield is not created ONLY by frequencies responses, it is created by interaction with the room and the specific EARS of the owner... We dont have the same ears filters and structure and training history ,did you know that ? 😊

i am not an acoustician , i just experimented 7 days each week non stop for one year, because it was fun and it was my hobby being retired ..i learned a lot PRACTICALLY not only by reading equation by specialist and calling it done with a DSP , i experimented too ... By the way i used japanese research among books and papers,for example also Toole recommending using first reflection positively in SMALL ROOM about reflection and immersiveness to guide my experiments...

By the way it is related EXPERIMENTALLY , in each case differently, to the specific ACOUSTIC GEOMETRY (form) AND TOPOLOGY (doors+window) AND TO THE MATERIAL specific CONTENT OF THE ROOM and his acoustic properties (wood do not act as fabric clothes or animal skin etc) and it is then related after all that to TIME AND TIMING hearing and measures it is not related to your OPINION AT ALL and to your toys so useful it can be as a tool...

Contrary of what you said mocking those who informed themselves on the net ALL TOP RESEARCH PAPERS ARE ALL ACCESSIBLE FREE ON THE INTERNET for anybody with a brain...

I just argued with you about your ignorance in ecological hearing theory to balance Fourier theory and their relation to measures evaluation of qualities of sound reading among other papers an unpublished master thesis and papers i discover on the internet..

😊

In a nutshell, the most preferred treatment was no treatment

You are wrong here, because you confuse small room acoustic and studio acoustic and great Hall acoustic ... Sorry .. Same physical acoustical Laws completely different applications which must be discovered by some human ears of an acoustician and applied differently in each different acoustical environment...

If i had listened to you my small room would have been what it was in the beginning , horrible and atrocious, before i used my balance treatment with the right ratio and location between reflection/diffusion /absorption and before i used my MANY Helmholtz resonators mechanically adjustable and tuned resonators HOMEMADE distributed at critical location...... All that by my EARS..

No cost...I used garbage in my basement and i bought some tubes and cheap materials..

i am very proud of my room at the time...

i lost it...

And after 6 months of experiments and the right headphone i recreated a three D. room filling soundstage OUT OF THE HEAD, if the recording is good as in many CLASSICAL recording ... Studio recording did not gave the same spatial impressions..

Your friend is right and it is MY EXPERIENCE not by applying DSP but by experimenting:

The second issue not readily evident in the room response though there are some indications is the strong reflections from the very close side walls that will arrive both close in time and relatively high in power compared to the direct response. Yes it is correct that your speakers are well designed with smooth off axis response hence this won’t cause any weird tonal issues making assumptions about your wall materials, but back to the precedence effect, it will affect imaging, and while side wall reflections can make the image seem more expansive and the result pleasurable, when the wall is that close the result is invariably negative. You may not trust audiophile listening reports, but in similar situations, almost without exception where an audiophile was required to place their speakers near side walls, the addition of appropriate acoustic panels resulted in a significant perceived improvement. Anecdotally, you will not find a large professional studio with speakers placed that close to a side wall without use of acoustic treatments.

I won’t say it is universal, but it is almost universal that treatment of first reflections in a small rooms is recommended by professionals. Unfortunately, there has not been extensive research on this topic to draw on and what does exist is mainly around speech intelligibility, however, Brett Leonard in his PhD dissertation did some excellent work showing effects of a rather early intense reflections on perception and even the variability of that perception across music genres. Your position does not appear to be based on the fundamental science, available research, or professional recommendation.

Only slow thinkwer will interpret Feynman Quote

FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

as if an individual could fool himself everytime he trust himself and then must put his trust externally ...

The best way to fool himself for an individual and miss the Nobel prize is believing all that is taught everywhere ... Perhaps to Kuhn and Popper you must add Feyerabend for philosophy of science course...

Doubting is not self doubting first and using blind test as childish thinking from  Amir indicate, it is doubting what is taught and experimenting with it to LEARN IT OR TO REFUTE IT by experience and trust in ourself ... We cannot do that all the time  for sure , trust in others must be there as trust in ourself, but interpreting this quote out of context as never believing in our own ears and eyes is a more damaging attitude than trusting our ability to train ourself and trust ourself first not others even when we learn...

Tesla opposed his teachers at university who taught him that his electric motor idea was impossible... he did not trusted them but himself and created it after by solving all problems...

individuality and creativity is the root of science and philosophy NOT SELF DOUBT...Science is not the market arena of a circus...Barnum is not a genius in philosophy of science...And if a sucker is born everyday on earth, a genius is born everyday on earth too...

Loosing confidence in ourself and trusting others is the Key road to technocratic totalitarism, scientism, and any deep delusion created by the techno babbling people ...The death of thinking.,.

quote means something in a context :

when Feynmann created his solutions ad hoc to particules paths integrals...In spite of others advices ...

Then this quote means this : for being able to not fool himself a man must LEARN when it is right to trust himself and not others and vice versa when it is right to trust others not ouself...Not knowing that  TIMING MOMENT explain why we are the easiest person to fool...

The quote is not a quote of a marketers as Amir or from a car or audio seller,or from Barnum saying a suckers is born everyday, A favorite quote of official "debunkers" sheeps objectivist crowds, it is from a scientist doubting himself and others BECAUSE he look for truth FOR HIMSELF first ...

Feynman for sure never recommend obedience to authorities as Amir or alleged authorities ask for , instead of trust in yourself...Thats is certain...

Prof you miss Feyerabend teachings in the philosophy of science course... 😊

I tuned my room by ear...

Material balanced treatment and active control with Helmholtz tuned resonators..

my soundfield were filling the room with immersiveness..

All is wrong because i used my ears... 😊

he may think timbre is a frequencies spectrum i guess we can measure instead of listening to it... I bet...

Anyway after my arguments unanswered... there is no discussion only bashing opposite sides...

Why people are so unable to think? because they trust gear, toys, anything but not what matter : concepts BEFORE experiments... Concepts AFTER experiments...

I like acoustic because we hear qualities and they inform us about the world and people...

Hearing is more deep than touch... Because with ears we touch inside things and at distance...

😊

The model for Tesla was Goethe... His mentor... He get the idea about his electric motor at 25 years old reciting Faust ...Goethe is on par with Darwin as a natural scientist... Jay Gould say it in his own words not me...

The room where is system is does not have the right balance at all between reflective/absorbing/diffusive materials...the soundfield cannot be optimal... 

i discussed with Amir...I thank him 15 times for his measures information by the way... Nobody can accuse me to be anti-Amir...

i provided many arguments with dozen of articles about the relation between measures and hearing theory as a context to interpret measures..*I will not repeat this because others will kill me...😊

Amir never answered to my point, use many times ad hominem arguments, dismiss anything in false pretense or go beside central point..VERIFY BY READING MY DISCUSSION...

Read my posts... I never insulted but gave a consistent argument..

I lost my respect for his "scientific" status at the end ... he play with measuring toys and give us useful measures Thats all...It is a marketer not a scientist... A scientist use method , theory and context for interpretation..not only measuring instruments.. Hearing theory is the center here... the center of design, the center of research, the context where all measures are evaluated.. Sounds are not physical abstracted Fourier waves, these waves must be interpreted by the ears brain... And sound qualities in nature are not reducible to Fourier reconstruction tool... because the ears/brain ask for more... I will stop here: we need an ecological theory of hearing to encompass the Fourier theory of hearing..

By the way the separation between subjectivist and objectivist was created by market designer or techno babbling people about the gear electronics measures ... The central subject of audio is not design, it is psycho-acoustic , because all design is based on this science not only on electronics circuits ... There is no subjectivist or objectivist in acoustic science... iT is MEANINGLESS completely stupid distinction...In acoustic any measures is interpreted in hearing context and any subject submiited to strict experiment controls.. Blind test are used yes but not to sell a limited set of measures as replacement for  hearing truth...

I’m curious if you give equal time to your "anti-bullying" crusade. It’s been my experience both in participating in, and watching many discussions, that in threads in which someone is voicing reasons for skepticism about an audio claim, that in forums that trend towards "subjectivism" all sorts of catty vitriol is thrown at the skeptic and virtually NONE of it is called out because the subjective stance is simply assumed as the default. Therefore "anyone voicing skepticism about what people might be hearing or not" is just a trolling muckraker. In fact, it’s often the "objectivist" who actually says "I’m open to believing what you believe, and here is the type of evidence that would convince me." It’s often the highly subjective-based audiophiles who have an essentially unfalsifiable belief "I can hear it, even if you can’t measure it" and they take any questioning of this as a personal affront, and then often hurl ad hominem back at the objectivist. Because in the subjective world, there is no actual other way to settle things. If the subjectivist claims to hear something, and someone else says "no, I don’t hear any such thing" then the subjectivist comes back with the usual "well then either your gear isn’t resolving enough or your ears aren’t resolving enough." That’s already played out in this thread, as it *always* does. The objectivist says "like any human I’m capable of error in my perception, so here are the ways I want to account for that fallibility in my method of evaluating audio gear and claims." Whereas the subjectivist tends to just take his own perception as The Gold Standard, all other methods of inference are subservient to the truth of their own perceptual abilities. And so, again, any statement by a skeptic that implies "I didn’t hear what I KNOW I heard" isn’t taken in the proper scientific mindset, but as a personal affront and hence name calling or derision is thrown back. And there is a complete blind spot - only the "objectivist/skeptic" is called out for making ’arrogant claims,’ where in the subjective context people make strong claims all the time and no-one blinks. Say "These new X cables I bought made a great difference to the sound of my system" and it’s "amen!" Someone like Amir says "X cables will not change the sound compared to low priced cables" and then it’s a pile on for making arrogant claims. But the claim that the cables DO make a difference (in such conditions as Amir would deny) is just as strong an opposite claim! But that slips through unnoticed, due to the operating bias of a forum. This thread started off with plenty of derision thrown at Amir and ASR before Amir ever showed up. So I’m wondering: How often do you direct your attention to the derision, ad hominem etc that come from the subjective-oriented side, those who constantly snipe at Amir or other people who propound the relevance of measurements and science to objective and subjective claims in audio?

 

In general yes...

Interesting thought. Should we start rating designers as to how much they know about art? And if they don’t, dismiss their work out of hand?

Tesla was a great amateur of Art, poetry among other thing... Edison not at all... Guess who was the real genius ?

I dont remember any great designer who is not able to relate his design idea to art experience and history...

i dont speak about techno worker, i speak about genius in science...

Do you know who created the philosophical basis of set theory ?

A mystic of the 6th century...Cantor was a theologian and take all the basis of set theory from a mystic... Ask me i will explain it to you in details...People here will kill me if i explain it from my own impulse... 😊 the "salt" and "pepper" of this affair is about the convergence of Fourier series... 😁

i will never trust an audio designer who dont love music at heart... Sorry...

You prefer blind test, i prefer musical training...

Ask Furtwangler to pass a blind test about musical sounds if you dare...say to him in his old age with a slight lost in hertz resolution and decibels perception that he can no more perceive musical timing and details... he directed till the end and was never rival by anyone..

« The ears see way more than they hears»-- Acoustical paradox from a blind kid who is also a bike amateur