Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.

chayro06-24-2023 12:04pm

Showing 50 responses by mahgister

mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 02:49pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Amir and prof if you read this article what does it means for the possibility you claimed erroneously as a FACT : the reduction of the non linear non symmetrical time domain ears/brain way to extract information to simple electrical linear modeling tool in the symmetrical physical time domain ? Do you think it is possible ? No it is not.... Human ears/brain non linearities structure and internal "tools" beat the Gabor limit if not in resolution in precision in the time domain...... Then why claiming that your tools can decide what is perceived and what is not "a priori" by someone listening chorus music in an acoustically controlled room ? How can you claim A PRIORI, with your simple measuring specs tools designed for gear standars verification, that no change will be perceived at all by changing some materials parameter, some gear component, or some acoustical modifications ? How can you claim this using electrical tool working in the electrical linear modeling symmetrical domain, if the ears is able to extract "precise tracking" information and change in the non symmetrical time domain ? Here is the original non vulgarized article beginning : «Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo O. Magnasco∗ Laboratory of Mathematical Physics, Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10065 (Dated: March 13, 2015) The time-frequency uncertainty principle states that the product of the temporal and frequency extents of a signal cannot be smaller than 1/(4π). We study human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Our results establish a lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing transient sounds, rule out simple “linear filter” models of early auditory processing, and highlight timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing. PACS numbers: 43.60.+d,43.66.+y,87.19.L- Fourier transformation turns signals “inside out”, in the sense that low frequencies dictate what happens at long times, while high frequencies create fine temporal detail. This property is demonstrated by Fourier’s un- certainty theorem, which states that considering the ab- solute value squared of a signal x(t) as a probability dis- tribution in time, P (t) = \|x(t)\|2 ∫ ∞ −∞ \|x(t′)\|2dt′ (1) and the absolute value squared of its Fourier transform ˜x(f ) as a distribution in frequency, P (f ) = \|˜x(f )\|2 ∫ ∞ −∞ \|˜x(f ′)\|2df ′ (2) then the product of the standard deviations ∆t = √var(t) and ∆f = √var(f ) (3) is bounded from below [1]: ∆t∆f ≥ 1 4π (4) whence it is inferred that short signals require many fre- quencies for their representation. The theorem refers to the original signal and its Fourier transform. In time-frequency analysis one attempts to describe a signal in the two-dimensional time-frequency plane, akin to a musical score where time is the horizontal axis and frequency the vertical axis. Here the uncertainty principle begets the Gabor limit [1, 2]. This remapping emphasizes the uncertainties as a property of the trans- form itself, rather than the the signal. In time-frequency analysis, it has been proven that linear operators can- not exceed the uncertainty bound [2]. Nonlinearity does not by itself confer any acuity advantage, and in fact most nonlinearities are merely distortions and thus dele- terious. However, by the above theorem, any carefully- crafted analysis that can beat this limit must necessarily be nonlinear. For instance, precise frequency informa- tion can be obtained about a sine wave by measuring the time between two adjacent zeros of the waveform, a clearly nonlinear operation. The nonlinear distribu- tions can be classified in families according to their de- gree of nonlinearity or history-dependence, such as the quadratic (Cohen’s class) distributions like Wigner-Ville [3] and Choi-Williams [4], and higher-order ones, such as multi-tapered spectral derivatives [5, 6], the Hilbert- Huang distribution [7], and the reassigned spectrograms [8–12]. To understand how they differ we need to make an important distinction between resolution and preci- sion. Resolution refers to our ability to distinguis two objects, while precision refers to our ability to track the parameters of a single object, given prior knowledge it is only one component. This distinction is well-established in optics, where it is known the wavelength of light limits resolution: two glass beads cannot be resolved as different in a microscope if they are closer together than a wave- length. Precision is not limited, since a single bead can be tracked with nanometer accuracy. All the above distribu- tions achieve higher precision than the Gabor limit when applied to isolated signal components, yet give interfer- ing results when two signals are closer together than an uncertainty envelope. Our experimental test is designed to directly measure precision, not resolution. A key goal in neuroscience is to establish which algo- rithms the brain uses to process perceptual information. Psychophysics, by establishing tight bounds on the per- formance of our senses,may rule out entire families of perceptual algorithms as candidates when they cannot achieve the expected performance [13, 14]. We shall show below that human subjects can discrim- inate better, and occasionally much better, than the un- certainty bounds. This categorically rules out any first order operators, such as the standard sonogram, from consideration, and puts a stringent bound on the perfor- mance of any candidate algorithm, demonstrating that the nonlinearities in the cochlea constitute are integral to the precision of auditory processing.».......... «A key goal in neuroscience is to establish which algo- rithms the brain uses to process perceptual information. Psychophysics, by establishing tight bounds on the per- formance of our senses,may rule out entire families of perceptual algorithms as candidates when they cannot achieve the expected performance [13, 14]. We shall show below that human subjects can discrim- inate better, and occasionally much better, than the un- certainty bounds. This categorically rules out any first order operators, such as the standard sonogram, from consideration, and puts a stringent bound on the perfor- mance of any candidate algorithm, demonstrating that the nonlinearities in the cochlea constitute are integral to the precision of auditory processing. The conclusion of this article : «We have conducted the first direct psychoacoustical test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hear- ing, by measuring simultaneous temporal and Our data indicate that human subjects often beat the bound prescribed by the uncertainty the- orem, by factors in excess of 10. This is sometimes ac- complished by an increase in frequency acuity, but by and large it is temporal acuity that is increased and largely responsible for these gains. Our data further indicate subject acuity is just as good for a note-like amplitude envelope as for the Gaussian, even though theoretically the uncertainty product is increased for such waveforms. Our study directly rules out many of the simpler models of early auditory processing, often used as input to the higher-order stages in models of higher auditory function. Of the plethora of time-frequency distributions and au- ditory processing models that have been studied, only a few stand a chance of both matching the perfrequency discrimination. formance of human subjects and be plausibly implementable in the neural hardware of the auditory system(e.g.[6, 7, 12, 28], with the reassignment method having the best compara- tive temporal acuity. Elucidation of which mechanism underlies our subjects auditory hyper acuity is likely to have wide-ranging applications, both in fields where matching human performance is an issue, such as speech recognition, as well as those more removed, such as radar, sonar and radio astronomy.» https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4611.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 03:44pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Quarelling will not solve this...Nor insults... Objectivist as subjectivist tribes focus on gear, one tribe use electrical tools mainly the other his ears... But it is NOT THE GEAR electrical properties measured or not , verified or not, which is the key in audio; Psycho-acoustic basic knowledge in a room is the crux and key of audio improvement... Nothing else... But for sure my sympathy goes to those who learn how to listen with their EARS... so useful measures of gear can be useful information, they dont say as much as Amir claim they said about all the aspects of sound qualities for a human ears... Psycho-acoustic hearing facts will solve this debate... Read my article...I posted it 4 times waiting an answer...To no avail... Amir did not answered it nor prof... Are they not scientists? We will see... 😊😊
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 04:25pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete My claim studying this article above is not FIRST AND LAST to justify subjectivist trusting only their "taste" hearing for gear, NOT AT ALL, it is about deconstructing the DOGMATIC techno babble inference used by Amir to predict on the electrical measures in the linear and symmetrical time domain modeling what humans will hear from their non linear and non symmetrical time domain historical standpoint of observation and to infirm the Amir conclusion about what they cannot hear on the basis of these electrical tools used for verifying gear specs... Amir and prof where is your answer ? Do you have a better hearing theory unknown to physicists Oppenheim and Magnasco ? Do you think they will take hearing claims of ASR seriously ? 😊 Who read this article ? It is not a review in stereophile, or technological babble about hearing, it is a pure scientific article in the frontiers between physics and psycho-acoustic ? As i said multiples times, i am not subjectivist nor an objectivist because i focus on acoustic and psycho-acoustic not on gear pieces...I tuned my room WITHOUT need for a blind test... Acoustician used measuring tools for rapid efficient practicalities but their ears works also to the beginning till the end... There is a reason why...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 12:23pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete In a word: human hearing is neither linear nor time-invariant... Measures based on Fourier linear and time invariant tools cannot be qualified as describing real human hearing impressions nor to predict them...( They are not even enough to capture all amplifiers design essential specs for the human hearings as described by Dr. Hans Van Maanen in an article on fourier conditions on his site ) Then Amir verifying gear specs of brand named and falsifying them "may be" useful, yes or pehaps... But his attacks on experimented trained listeners impressions as non valid goes too far... It is one thing to measure and another thing to claim that this set of linear and time invariant measures will predict audio qualitative impression... I summon 4 physicists to express that on different perspective... Papers are there to be read... No one can accuse me to insult him doing so... But i am able to read... And my conclusion is Amir goes to great lenght to disqualify any trained listeners because of his linear and time invariant set of measures which can in no way predict qualitative hearing impressions... Measures dont convey all there is to say about the qualitative perceptive impressions of an audio system in real acoustic conditions, especially linear and time invariant set of measures because human hearing power is non linear and time dependant... By the way disqualifying listeners with blind test protocols is preposterous, because the qualitative impressions must be verified by long term listening of trained listeners as musicians, acousticians or experiment audiophiles... Short term memory testing on subtle on selected acoustic factors are not enough at all... Blind tests is almost useless to test components because long term memory and long term listenings are necessary... I conclude that Amir use these blind test protocols to deconsider any serious listenings tests...Then only his set of linear and time dependant measures can be valid and any "subjective" expert listenings contradicting them is eliminated at the start... But Audio is not based on gear measures or gear impressions, it is based on psycho-acoustic real life long term memory trained listenings experiments and on a set of measures able to capture all aspects of the non linear and time dependant human hearings impressions.. ... As any acoustician knows already or any good amplifier designer ... By the way in audio as in philosophy, ad hominem attack disqualify anyone from the debate... Period...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 07:04pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete I will not post for a fifth times the article proving that we cannot deduce from gear measurement tools what human hearing is about and able to do... We can debunk cables or gear alleged specs yes with the tools Amir use or help a room acoustic embeddings nothing else, especially not predicting the perceived quality of an audio system with electrical measurements of gear specs... It takes few minutes to understand this article neither Amir nor prof make a comment.... They answered to insults but not to science it seems ... 😊 I am the only one i think in this debate to argue with a HARD psycho-acoustic science argument , no technological babble about hearing and measures and blind testing "golden ears" and debunking them etc ... The problem is that Amir cannot at all prove any relation AT THE END between gear measures and listening experience... He will never be able to prove it because it is impossible to do it with his tools... The ears dont work as our tools works...Period... If it was not the case the article of these two physicists will be proven wrong... here simple remarks about Fourier method conditions of application by a Physicist, Hans Van Maanen: «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf Now imagine Amir with his linear modelling gear measuring tools saying to us WHAT WE MUST HEAR... Amir thanks for debunking gear, but stay there; dont try to judge people from your DOGMA and tool prejudice and stop debunking people hearings experience, history or even alleged "golden ears" ... You cannot do it with your tools if someone read any science ...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 07:54pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete «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 ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf His bio resume : Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen was born in Arnhem, Netherlands where he attended primary and high school. After finishing his high school education, he started working at the Shell laboratories in Amsterdam. As it was clear to him that he would need more education, he studied at the University of Amsterdam in the evening hours, from which he received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Physics with Mathematics, Information Science and Chemistry, both with honours. At the Shell laboratories, he worked on flow measurement techniques, fluid mechanics, chemical engineering and turbulence, resulting in several publications. Then he worked on the application of small computers in experiments and the related data-processing. He applied his experiences to the dataprocessing of Laser-Doppler Anemometry data, which he laid down in his Ph.D.-thesis for the Delft University of Technology. In 1997, he moved to the Shell laboratory in Rijswijk (Netherlands) and worked on multi-phase flow rate measurement in the upstream sector of the oil and gas industry. He was heavily involved in wet-gas measurement, for which he extended the work of Rick de Leeuw and others for horizontal Venturis. This resulted in a mathematical model for the multi-phase wet-gas flow in Venturis. After leaving Shell in 2010, he became an independent consultant for Hint Europe and in that position he extended his modelling to vertical upward Venturis. He presented his work on many different conferences and published numerous papers. His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems and riding a motorcycle in a touristic way.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 08:13pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete The conclusion of another interesting article by a physicist: The result presented here has relevance for the perfor- mance requirements of audio components and digital en- coding schemes. It is known that the bandwidth require- ment for sonically transparent audio reproduction is higher than the 20 kHz: in the coding of digital audio it has been noted [57] that listeners show a preference for a 96 kHz sampling rate over the CD (digital compact disk) standard of 44.1 (i.e., a 22 kHz Nyquist frequency). It is sometimes thought that this may be due to the less drastically sloped cutoff of the digital filter and the reduced disturbances in- troduced in the audible pass band. The present work shows that the bandwidth requirement into the ultrasonic range is more fundamental and not just due to artifacts of dig- ital filtering. It is also commonly conjectured in the au- dio literature that the time-domain response of a system (e.g., temporal smearing caused by capacitive and other energy-storage mechanisms in cables) is a key factor in determining the transparency of reproduction (see, for ex- ample, [58]). However a search of the literature revealed an absence of a controlled blind experiment comparable to the one conducted here. The present work thus contributes toward a better fundamental understanding and provides a quantitative measure for audio-reproduction standards.» ...................................................... Temporal Resolution of Hearing Probed by Bandwidth Restriction Milind N. Kunchur Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 09:02pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Now the nail in the coffin of Amir debunking audiophiles hearings by DOGMA with his electrical linear modelling tools used to verify the gear specs: This dude is a physicist i will not reproduce all 33 pages of his article of 2023 , Amir can read it himself...He wrote also about human hearings beating the Fourier uncertainty limits... There is a section dedicated to audio application which is very interesting... Only a short extract where this physicist seems to think the opposite of Amir about the "super" hearing abilities of human : «Claims that differences in upstream components (e.g., source or amplifier) can be heard even when the system is bottle-necked by a mediocre downstream component (e.g., speaker) shouldn’t seem surprising— given that the NEP ( neurals excitation pattern) can resolve 1 part in 10 at the 40 power » Millind N. Kunchur http://file:///C:/Users/Utilisateur/Downloads/SSRN-id4437822.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 09:11pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You dont get it Amir... No one with a brain had problem with your measurements information... 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 ... have you read what i posted ? So once again, measurements are your friend, not your enemy. Don’t try to convince yourself otherwise with an argument like that.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 09:17pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete I speak about human hearings and abilities, i cited his article and you answer that his protocols in cable listening is not good...😊He is a physicist then i aqm not surprized that his protocols for cables measuring and hearings may be criticized... This dont invalidate all of what he say about the capacities of human hearings... What about what he say about hearings ? What about Oppenheim aqnd Magnasco article about human hearings in the time domain ? I DONT SPEAK ABOUT CABLES PROTOCOLS... I speak about citing these articles of 4 different physicists, about the impossibility with simple electrical me3asures of gear components TO PREDICT QUALITATIVE HEARING IMPRESSION IN THE TIME DOMAIN .... The ears is non linear... it is impossible as you claim to correlate human perception of qualities in a linear correlation with your measures of gear... thats is the point... You can debunk gear specs by falsifying them , but pretending to inmpose your TOOLS over human listening experience is DOGMATIC cultist ideology not science... And what about the human ability to beat the Fourier uncertainty in the time domain ? Kunchur has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to matters related to audio. His expertise is in physics and has nothing to do with this domain. I have done a full video on his last paper with totally incorrect test protocols: Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 09:30pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » 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 ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf Instead of AD HOMINEM ATTACK about the physiciss i cited ( as they know nothing in high end audio) debunk this last one who say the same as the one you attack as ignorant in Audio matter.... Are you serious? ANSWER about time domain and the Fourier uncertainty and the impossibility to reduce human hearing to Fourier tools and frequencies analysis..TIME domain is fundame4ntal and the relation between hearing and natural sounds impose a time symmetry breaking and the brain non linear tools...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 09:40pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete I myself thank you for the information provided by your measures ABOUT THE GEAR...I did not thank you for your assault on human listening experience with mere few electrical tools used to measure GEAR ... I dont insulted you and i dont played with you..... dont play with me and ANSWER ME ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THESE ARTICLES ... But you never answered what i spoke about with 4 articles... All saying that human hearing abilities and perceptive experience cannot be predicted by the kind of measurements you provide... Debunking gear and fetichism of audiophiles DONT MEANS THAT ALL THEIR LISTENING EXPERIENCE IS ILLUSORY... The heart of audio is psycho-acoustic... Not gear mesures so useful they are... ANSWER this physicist who design high end audio as a hobby without ad hominem attack this time... DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » 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 ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 09:52pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete WHY DONT YOU ANSWER ON THE MATTER ABOUT HEARING ? I dont neeed gear measurements here... I never doubt that they are USEFUL to know... What i dont accept is you pretense and claims to debunk hearing experience with these simplistic tools... Ears brain work in non symmetrcal time domain in a non linear fashion and cannot be explain by Fourier Methods algorythms... Then YOU CANNOT LAUGH AND PUT ALL AUDIOPHILES LISTENING IN THE SAME TRASH BIN... do you understand? You can give your gear measures information yes we thank you for that ; but you cannot mock human hearing experience with your claims about gear and your tools to measure it... REAL PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC SCIENCE debunk your claim here...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 10:00pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete i believe you ON YOUR WORDS that perhaps this physicist is not knowable in high end audio... HAVE YOU NOT OBSERVED THAT I CITED ANOTHER PHYSICIST WHO WORK IN HIGH END AUDIO ? answer him... AND IT IS NOT ABOUT CABLES PROTOCOLS HERE I am not interest to listen a cable protocols debunking by you ...I am sure you are good at it.... This does not means that your claims about hearing and gear measurements are right... I am interested in fundamentals about human hearing, and this fundamentals demolish your claim to equate measurements of gear and qualitative hearing perception... 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:s cientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review https://youtu.be/a0p3D_Gv6IYI 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. DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » 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 ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 10:11pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Amir dont answer to true scientific question...It seems... I will repeat : Amir information about gear is USEFUL.... But Amir claims trashing all listening experience if not based on his measurements is MEANINGLESS by psycho-acoustic science... I cite 4 physicists saying the same thing on different perspective... He never answer them nor the question ... Save for one which is supposed to be ignorant in cables protocols and measurement...😊 Ok then answer the OTHERS... The crux of the matter is not CABLES here, it is the relation between hearing which work in the non symmetrical time domain and non lienarly, then Fourir methods are not enough to describe human hearings... Then the allegation to related gear measurements to be the main factor for predicting qualitative audio perception is FALSE...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 10:20pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete First, this has nothing to do with fourier transform. The crux of the question is precisely about the fourier method and the impossibility to work with it in the time domain... YOUR TOOLS WORK measuring gear components not hearing abilities... YOU PLAY WITH ME... It is not polite... The article by Oppenheim and Magnasco is about LISTENING TESTS... And they demonstrate the human hearing abilities beating the Gabor limit and the Fourier uncertainty... Then your measuring tools are adequate for gear measurements components not for establishing the value of hearing experience... You act as a GURU equatiing measuring gear components tools with hearing experience...You refused to discuss the meaning of the Oppenheim and Magnasco listenings experiments... Your tools dont works in the time domain analysis and work in a time symmetrical domain... The ears /brain dont work as that... Answer this physicist who works in high end audio ABOVE , and state that clearly the ears /brain works in the time domain and your tools cannot measure hearing experience only the specs accuracy of gear ...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 10:28pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » 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 ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 10:32pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Incredible! It is impossible to discuss with you Amir... You are here to recruit? I am here to discuss... You answered BESIDE my points completely... You cannot equate your measures of gear components as replacement for hearing experience and you cannot even claim that this is better than hearing experience... This is IDEOLOGY not science... Your measures of gear are useful to inform us about some claims and truths about their specs THATS ALL... Anything further is no more credible scientifically... You never answered... And i am among the few one here giving FACTS FROM 4 DIFFERENT PHYSICISTS ARTICLES PDF , ALL SAYING THE SAME THINGS, i did not give you insults... I know believe that your motives are less desinterested than what it seems or what you claims ... Yes i am naive... i am too serious to be cynical... 😊 By the way i taught reading analysis...Then english is not at all my spoken language, i almost never spoke it and learn it in philosophy books or science books, i express myself then in a clumsy way... ...But i am able to read .... «The emperors may be had no clothes but my wife had many» -- Groucho Marx 🤓
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 11:16pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Blind test are useful for short term memory verification of subtle audio cues... You dont pick gear choice by blind tests and measures numbers only... Trained ears in acoustic or musicians dont use blind test because they work with long term acquired acoustic cues perception habit... Amir negate this and claim it to be ONLY delusion because he think his measuring tools are adequate to replace the ears natural long experience and in some case trained in acoustic and music ... but the way psycho-acoustic reveal how the ears/brain work in non symmetrical time domain and with non linear hearing strctures and methods contradict his llinear analysis time symmetrically dependant tools ... A pair of ears is no electrical tools...Fourier methods are no more enough to understand human hearing, then it is preposterous to reduce human hearing to gear measuring tools... Only ignorant people can believe that... Not one of the 4 physicist articles i proposed contradict my stance, it is the opposite and Amir was unable and unwilling to go on that road... His goal then appear to be a circle around him not truth...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-02-2023 at 11:20pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Do you undertand what is the time domain ? Do you understand that hearing is related to the long history of decoding natural sounds meanings then hearing works in a non symmetrical time dimension and non linearly at all ? Amir never answered about that and about the 4 physicist i summoned all saying the same things.. Then i am here to discuss...Why did you claim i am not for discussion ? who else here proposed 4 articles for the discussion ? Where are Amir psycho-acoustic science backing his claim about hearing experience not so valuable as gear measuring tools ? You are so naive to believe posting a tool analysis of an amplifier is a proof in psycho-acoustic and an answer to my 4 articles ? Answering my point in psycho-acoustic by proposing chart analysis of amplifiers or cables is NOT AN ANSWER... Before judging my posts have you read the 4 articles? What means for you the fact that human hearing beat the fourier uncertainty? say to me what this means please ? i wait... By the way you said i lack comprehension about Amir... Sorry but i thank him about the measures information about the gear... I cannot accept his stance about hearing experience to be replaced by the listenings methods he proposed based on his gear measuring methods and then the bashing of any OTHER hearing experience... Perhaps you did not understand the points discussed in these articles? the human hearing limits are not those Amir claim they are... What did they said these articles ? Try yourself to understand BEFORE JUDGING ME ... You are patently not. I’ve followed your discussion with Amir. And while you make some interesting points, your rush to express your opinion betrays your interest in trying to comprehend what Amir is saying. So, instead you badger him for answers to questions he has adequately answered more than once. Are you able to read this : ( why amir did not answered about this article physicist ? I discuss here, not him ,because he refused to answer about fact... The ears dont work as his measuring gear tools... And nobody can predict how an amplifier will sound only with measures of some specs... This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » 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.»
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 01:00am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Amir claimed he is right about the relation of measurements and audio perceived qualities by dogma and inquisitorial blind test and banishment of any subjectivist... All the four physicists with their 4 articles are morons who know less in psycho-acoustic than him it seems ...Even the one designing high end audio systems and contradicting him... Human hearings trained abilities are worthless and only Amir measuring gear test say all there is to say about gear experience and even in psycho-acoustic... In the meantime not a word from him about the fact that human hearing beat the Fourier uncertainty barrier with his non linear methods in the time symmetry broken domain...What does it means that trained musician can extract information over this barrier up to 13 times in some case ? Nothing for Amir, gear measuring tools say all there is to say about dac, amplifiers and audio experience... As i said already, yes welcome to the measuring gear information and gear specs debunking, but suggesting that all subjective audiophile listenings is the same bullshit ready to be thrown in the same trash can because only measuring tools used by him is the ultimate truth this is going too far... Human hearings, especially trained one are more trusty than measuring tools in many cases... Because the gear response to measures cannot either be read as always a warrant for audio qualities... Anyway Amir do business not science...It is my opinion now... Measuring gear is informative thanks for that ... All the inference made about hearings deduced from that are ideology not science ...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 10:44am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Take a look here and listen what this physicist had to say about high end design he created himself...Compare it to the simplistic case of Amir dogma about the measures he use and the idea of what is human hearing impact in audio...And why we must ALL OF US renounce to our hearing history and obey his simplistic protocol of measures as hearing truth... Measures dont convey all there is to say about an audio system in real acoustic conditions... There is plenty of articles and videos here...This guy, Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, is a real scientist not a cult leader deciding what people will hear and must hear in audio... There is what he say in an interview about listening tests : «Many designers look at the figures, based on measurement signals. They do not use music ? “Correct, they don’t have ears on their head. No problem but let people who do have ears listen to your product. Hire people with a background in music. Don’t drive me mad with those so-called ‘scientific’ listening tests. Very tiring and very unreliable. I listen to music I know very well and during extensive periods of time. Then you discover things. You won’t find those with short-time AB comparisons. Also, human memory has its limitations.”» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/en/reviews Hans van Maanen design high end audio, amplifiers and speakers... Read his bio and decide if this scientist is an ignorant as Amir toss it away in no time... His bio resume : Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen was born in Arnhem, Netherlands where he attended primary and high school. After finishing his high school education, he started working at the Shell laboratories in Amsterdam. As it was clear to him that he would need more education, he studied at the University of Amsterdam in the evening hours, from which he received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Physics with Mathematics, Information Science and Chemistry, both with honours. At the Shell laboratories, he worked on flow measurement techniques, fluid mechanics, chemical engineering and turbulence, resulting in several publications. Then he worked on the application of small computers in experiments and the related data-processing. He applied his experiences to the dataprocessing of Laser-Doppler Anemometry data, which he laid down in his Ph.D.-thesis for the Delft University of Technology. In 1997, he moved to the Shell laboratory in Rijswijk (Netherlands) and worked on multi-phase flow rate measurement in the upstream sector of the oil and gas industry. He was heavily involved in wet-gas measurement, for which he extended the work of Rick de Leeuw and others for horizontal Venturis. This resulted in a mathematical model for the multi-phase wet-gas flow in Venturis. After leaving Shell in 2010, he became an independent consultant for Hint Europe and in that position he extended his modelling to vertical upward Venturis. He presented his work on many different conferences and published numerous papers. His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems and riding a motorcycle in a touristic way.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 11:36am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete It seems measuring amplifiers in real dynamic musical input conditions is necessary: Tone burst response of amplifiers to determine some properties of their dynamic behaviour Author: Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen (Temporal Coherence) Date of issue: 14 February 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A major issue with amplifiers is their difference in perceived quality, which often does not relate to the specifications. The question is why? One major aspect, in our view, is the dynamic response of an amplifier. When measurements are made to obtain thespecifications, it is common to use signals with a constant amplitude (e.g. to measure the frequency response or the distortion figures) or with a gradual change of the amplitude (e.g. to determine the distortion as a function of the output power). However, music is highly dynamic, meaning that the signal strength can vary rapidly. How an amplifier reacts to such rapid changes is hardly, if ever, subject of analysis, but it could be of prime importance for the perceived quality. Note that there is no generally accepted specification for this aspect, even though it is trivial that the behaviour under dynamic conditions is of crucial importance for the perceived sound, and thus the quality, of the amplifier. The above mentioned neglect is probably caused by the common misunderstanding that the response of an amplifier is fully determined by its frequency response and its distortion figure. This, however, is incorrect, as has been shown in ref. 1. This would only be the case when the amplifier is a linear and time-independent system. It is neither. So it is necessary to study the behaviour of amplifiers under more realistic conditions. An option for this is to use tone-burst signals as these include a rapid change at the beginning and at the end of the tone-burst. Although it is, of course, still quite far from the complexity of music, it can reveal undesirable properties of amplifiers. The rest of the article is there : https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/DynamicResponseAmplifiers.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 02:21pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Am i the only one to defend psycho-acoustic and trained listenings over linear and time-independant set of measures ? https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15002. Subjective and Objective Evaluation of the Acoustic Vacuum-Tube Amplifiers The subjective and objective evaluation of five high-quality vacuum-tube audio power amplifiers is presented in the paper. As the reference, a professional transistor amplifier has been used. The subjective evaluation has been done by a team of judges, as well as using a computer-based psychoacoustic model in accordance with PAQM protocol. The amplifers’ sound quality assessed by the listeners is consistent with the one evaluated with the use of the psychoacoustic model. It was found that the best sound quality is obtained by vacuum-tube amplifiers, the worse – by the reference amplifier. The results of subjective evaluation are inconsistent with quality assessed by measurement of objective parameters: all amplifiers have comparable quality but transistor amplifier is the best one due to the lowest THD+N level.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 03:08pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete When Amir proposes his set of measures, basic linear and time independant measures, as falsification of marketer specs design, then i had no problem... 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, proposing short term blind test instead of long term listening test, but more than that ignoring psycho-acoustic basic science about non linear and time dependant Ears/brain decoding and pushing his simplistic electrical sets of measures over the head of anyone, this is not even technology over science it is worst, it is ideologically motivated stances...I will not speculate about his motives i dont like ad hominem attacks... The 4 physicist i summoned he disparaged two BEFORE reading them as ignorant...Two of them are author of the papers about hearing beating the Fourier uncertainty, he never adressed these two experiments...And the last one Hans Van Maanen, he disparaged him on the spot, but not only is a working physicist but he design amplifiers and speaker which are based on his studies of the non linear working in the time dependant dimension of the hears/brain... This dude is not phony, it is simple to read his papers...He know much more about audio than Amir who play with technological and computer tools but did not created his own components design as Van Maanen around psycho-acoustic fundamental facts in hearing theory... By the way Van Maanen asked and praised long term trained listeners to improve audio design, especially musicians, acoustician and trained music lovers ... He did not favor blind test as a cure for all needs which are always anyway used for very limited and special utility in a narrow phase of the design window or for marketer fun and publicity ... An amplifier is not a drug , we dont test it the same way with blind guinea pigs with their short memory window... And as @mahgister as adroitly pointed out, is this science? The assumption calls into question the use of label "science review".
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 05:12pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Distortion level detection is not what the human ears do well ...We do not perceive distortion in itself we perceive natural and musical sounds WE RECOGNiZE... This is precisely the problem... You use blind test to confirm your linear measuring tool and design in the symmetrical time domain... The problem is human hearing dont work in this way and in this time dimension, human hearing is non linear and time dependant , he is sensible to natural sounds, and music not to distorsion "per se" as an electrical measuring tool ...We dont listen sine wave function in real life... We dont speak the same language... The physicist Hans Van Maanen explain it completely i dont expect you will read it... You are on your technological blind crusade...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 04:35pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You play with words here.. Proper listening tests are LONG TERM MEMORY TESTS using musicians, acoustician or trained music lovers...( not sellers and reviewers as you say) Short term memory test are good for SUPERFICIAL debunking ...The basic of psycho-acoustic is not founded on blind test , they are SECONDARY tool... Why long term memory for test ? Because hearing is better in long term memory span than seeing, it is the opposite for seeing which is better in the short memory window... And BECAUSE Human hearing IS based on time dependant evaluation and non linear means , time independant measuring linear tools as fourier tools cannot capture his tracking and resolution power adequately... It is the reason why the main tool of acoustician cannot be blind test and it is the reason why Fourier modelling does not describe human hearings.. ...As Oppenheim and Magnasco demonstrated in their experiment where human hearings beat uncertainty of Fourier method and the Gabor limit... You use blind test to confirm your biases about your own limited set of measures linear and time independant one...ThaTS ALL... This physicist here contradict most of your claims in these videos: And he designed his OWN components speakers and amplifiers.. Will you claim he is incompetent ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW74J7CxqDo Instead of answering my points about the importance of this discoveries by Oppenhein and Magnasco about the non linear and dependant time ears/brain working and his relation to our perception of audio qualities and the way the perceptive abilities of humans beat the Fourier barrier uncertainty you said that my physicists were phony... In the same way you attacked AD HOMINEM 2 of these physicists and now you attacked me for being "verbose" as your LAST argument... Listen this one demolishing your approach in twenty minutes.. Debunk him... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW74J7CxqDo 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!
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 05:22pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete They were no mere "tweaks" as you sarcastically claim.. They were mostly a balance between absorbtion/reflection/and diffusion materials for my room.. I used a grid of Helmholtz resonators of my own making and my own method to increase and inmprove my speakers soundfield performance ... It was not perfect but there was no comparison between before and after... Then instead of mocking my experiments successful for me in acoustic at no costs, why not answering me about the Magnasco and Oppenheim experiments about hearing and the uncertainty limit and his implication for audio improvement... Why not answering the articles and video of Dr, Hans Van Maanen? You resort to ad hominem mocking me as arguments ? Do you think when i post these photos that i was afraid of idiots mocking me on apperance ? 😊 my room was unesthetical but very revelatory about the power of acoustic treatment and control... other interesting post of you ? Loosing my house and room, i was sad but i modified akg K340 headphone and i am very happy listening music again thanks to Dr.Gorike for this amazin successful hybrid headphone.. @mahgister I’m curious: what happened to the photos of your virtual system on Audiogon? The...uh...very interesting layout of your tweaks?
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 08:31pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Thanks prof... I must apologize to you because i thought that your questions was a sarcasmm My only excuse was that someone, a seller of "tweaks" who did not like my homemade no cost experiments mock my for many days... I take off the photos because i add a new system... More economical... But more performant because my speakers so good they were did not go under 30 herts as my actual headphone... I was very sad loosing my room and house and quit audiogon, because i did not have anything to spoke about... I came back after my 6 monhths of optimization of the K340... I as astounded and no more sad.,.. T?hanks for your kind words... We may differ of opinion but you are a gentleman... @mahgister I'm sorry to hear of the circumstances that led to the change in your system! I'm glad you can still enjoy audio.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 08:55pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Amir you are completely lost...😊 Discussing with you enlightened me a lot ... I must thank you for that sincerely... But you dont understand the relation between psycho-acoustic of human hearing and amplifier design nor the relation with music...If i can see that myself being in no way a specialist in this audio matter anybody reading a true scientist as Hans Van Maanen will see it in an hour.. I posts many articles and even an hour video of him... If you dare to listen the video and read the papers of Hans Van Maanen , he will explain it better than me... 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. The system will not react the same to sine wave or to a variable dynamic strong burst of music sorry...You forgot that you implicitly supposed that the tools you use with the Fourier method as background for hearing theory are truthful to human hearings but tthis is FALSE and they are not truthful to human hearings ... Hans Van Maanen dont design amplifier the way you measure them he explain way... Study it if you look for truth... But if you read it your ASR is dead as it was with the measurements you used as SCRIPTURES absolute truth... If i can understand it in one hour anybody can... Any ASR member reading Hans Van Maanen will be lost for you... 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... You must listen and read Hans Van Maanen... He is not a clown if you read his bio and what he do.... his explanations are so clear anybody can read it , even you... You are lost in tour technology... This physicist will explain it to you or to anybody of ASR reading my post if he dare to read Van Maanen... I am no more surprized now about the reason why you did not comment about this extraordinary experiments by Oppenhein and Magnasco... i learned a lot researching about your post and methods and why uour are completely wrong... i will not repeat Hans Van Maanen... anybody reading him and what you claim will debunk you easily if he was well versed in audio.... I dont think you will read my "verbose" arguments,... You have a blind spot easy to identify: Electronic audio components mus be designed for human EARS not for the measuring tools practice... WHY ? Because your tools and the way you use it put you the head down and the feet over for PRECISE PSYCHO_ACOUSTIC FACT you dont rexcognize, because recognizing them will destruct your ASR site...you act as a sellers not as a scientist... You did not responded to psycho-acoustics arguments and you cannot see the link with amplifier design and the FLAWS related to your fourier tools and linear time dependant measure in a domain , where non linearities and time dependant RULE.... Hans Van Maanen explain it, and i ask to anybody to read him... He designed speakers and amplifiers and is a succesful physicist in field related to acoustic mathemahically... You cannot dismiss it as a clown sorry... I am not a scientist but i can read and undertand text...and i am not afraid of equations.. A distortion do not exist if we dont have a reference point to begin with , from which the distortion will be described as a negative pertrubation or as a positive addition, the DIFFERENCE will depend if you use a linear time independant tool as your first and last gesture OR the non linear time dependant ears/brain as your first and last gesture ... Alas! you live in a techno babble where psycho-acoustic facts about human hearings means LESS FOR YOU than the results of your measuring tools... They are these tools USELESS to determine what is GOOD SOUND...I am sure you are desinterested and not motivated by money thyough, but by your ideology... Thanks to you i understand that better now...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 12:23am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete We live in an era where men decrease themselves smaller than their tools, calling it progress and the new norm, in ancient times it was called idolatry : obsession with some tools transformed in new gods... Myself i try to think by myself, and i am allergic to cults, ideology and groups... In philosophy we differentiate the means and the ends without confusing them...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 09:08pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete it take me 2 year to design my room and tune it... I was in sonic paradise at no cost.. I loose it and music too in an abrupt way... I was very sad and depressed, but you know it is NOTHING, compared to what fate do to others... Anyway i tell you that because you can know how i was feeling and why without any audio system nor music i did not came back for 10 months... I came back here, because this fateful loss was a turn of luck... I studied my headphone 6 months non stop , did 6 modifications, and believe it or not it rival my room in his own way and improve on it on bass and high frequencies... The K340 is an electrostatic with a dynamic driver... I even study the patent of Dr. Gorike to understand what i nmust do to improve it...It is the first headphone i love, i dislike all other 9 one ...So much it is the reason why many years ago i come back to speakers but this time experimenting with acoustic... I was so excited by my sucess with the K340 i came back here ... I like most people here, even if we disagree... I like discussion.. I miss my students... Thanks for your kindness ... @mahgister I’m also sorry to hear of your loss. I hope it wasn’t as traumatic as it sounds.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 09:37pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You answer is upside down again... 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? You are so lost you did not even understand my point... But i cannot rival Dr. Van Maanen explanation.. I will take your hand ,Read me: measures in INNOVATIVE amplifier design are GUIDED by the designer EARS and psycho-acoustic fact to realize more musical design ... As Van Maanen do... And the point is that the use of Fourier method ,in electronic design and with this specific measuring tools, had a psycho-acoustic cost , the Fourier tools are linear and time-independant... Human hearings and musical sense come from non linear ears structure and non linear reading in the TIME-dependant domain... Then if in the way we design our amplifier we dont take these facts into account, then our amplifier will not sound "musical"... It is why many piece of gear you measured perfect can sound non-musical at all for many listeners ... Amir you SERVE YOUR TOOL , the goal is that the tool must serve the designer... But you DEBUNK with your tools, you dont DESIGN amplifier, as Van Maanen did... It is the reason why yourself with more, way more deeper experience than me in audio, you dont understand this basic psycho-acoustic facts...and you read anything UPSIDE DOWN... I learned it myself thanks to you, because i reacted to your arrogant dismissal of human hearings as FIRST RULER in audio, instead you put the MEASURING FOURIER TOOL as first ruler .... It is the reverse for a designer, knowing that the ears/brain use non linear time dependant methods the measures are used IN THE DESIGNING PROCESS ITSELF to serve better the pleasure of the human hearings not to be on the optimal spot of the measuring dials or graphs for some debunking work ... Do you catch where you are lost and why ? Van Maanen will teach you the technicalities... Myself i am not in your field and you cannot take me seriously... Except if you read Van Maanen and the meaning of Oppenheim and Magnasco experiments... Thanks for your patience with me...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 11:18pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Your site is well designed and Interesting Amir... I appreciate design and observations from various corners.. The fact that it draw many people talented in audio dont surprize me... It does not means that your basic measuring and debunking philosophy is right... In audio, in medecine as in politic, unanimous crowds are most of the times deluded...Ideology and technology are not science at all... It is not simple matter to understand something... Especially basic audio debunking ... basic medecine debunking and basic geopolitic debunking ... Imagine psycho-acoustic debunking now ? «My tool are better than your ears, it is simple , they measure distortion at level that you even never will dream to detect » -- Groucho Marx audio engineer 🤓
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-03-2023 at 11:48pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You are always upside down... You know nothing about psycho-physics it seems... or better said, you dont want to know... Because it will destuct your Fourier linear and time independant ideology... 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? The human ears dont listen abstract measures, but in the time domain the ears brain non linearly decode information so complex none of your tools can describe it...It is not measured in decibels, or in hertz... Etc... it is called Qualities... these qualities are investigated RIGOROUSLY in psycho-acoustic for example in the work of Oppenheim and Magnasco , you never commented about and i posted it 5 times.. We listen music, speech and natural sounds and we RECOGNIZE them we dont listen to level of distortion and we dont perceive it in isolation as your tools can in their linear and time independant way ... You listen to your tools first , we listen music first ... But read Hans Van Maanen... Debunk him... if you are able to debunk him... And i invite your audio disciples to read him too... Explain to me where he is wrong...Go and do it... His work in speakers and amplifier design called " temporal coherence" because it is founded on psycho-acoustic hearing basics... Not on Fourier linear and time independant tools as your debunking tools ... The tools you use to debunk... He use other tools measuring scheme to DESIGN his own works in amplification and speakers after studying psycho-acoustic real discoveries about hearing.. You may convince yourself that using these linear time independant tools will give you hints about "transparency" as you call your fetish acoustic concept...But timbre accuracy and musical sense live in the time domain and are more fundamental because they are determined more by the ears acoustic than by electronic chip well "measured" by you and well scored by you ... Measuring Dac is one thing... Measuring amplifier another things, and measuring speakers another things... as you know already for sure ... BUT measuring all that at the end is BY THE EARS/BRAIN not by Tools working linearly in the time independant domain...designing business is not debunking business at all ....
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 01:22pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You dont get my points... I am not against blind test...They are the norm in some psycho-acoustics experiments and in some design process ... I am against posing blind tests as replacing ears training in acoustic and in progressive and FINAL evaluation.. I am in favor of rigorous tests as you are... 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... I dont "put my trust in the wrong person" as you said reminding us of an attitude in cultist group, I THINK WHEN READING, and i read that most of what the ears does to create meaning and catch meaning , in music , in speech , in natural sound, and then in a psycho- acoustic laboratory is not only in the frequency domain but in the time domain where the brain extract information in a non linear way... 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... Then your tests are useful ONLY to reinforce your false hearings assumptions... Not about the limits of hearings, we are as you know limited indeed in the decibels and in the Hertz scale, even if we beat the Fourier uncertainty, but the meanings and qualitative physical sound phenemona associated with a system/room cannot be described by your set of measures... Saying the opposite may be ressembling a technological cult but it is not science and it is not amplifier design... It is debunking stategy nothing more... But you debunk the wrong thing easy to debunk : human earings , you never debunk the false assumptions from psycho-acoustic ruling audio design... On the opposite you try to reinforce them...Ears /brain dont work like a Fourier computer... I am not in this cult , i think when i read... I dont read only Hans Van Maanen by the way...And anyway all his work is founded on psycho-acoustic, among other thing funmdamental, the psycho-acoustic fact behind Oppenheim and Magnasco experiments you NEVER EXPLAINED NOR COMMENTED HERE EVEN AFTER I SUGGESTED IT 5 TIMES.... You could not because this will demoslish your pretense to capture the audible qualities through measurements... And you could no more bash audiophiles for their ignorance which is an half truth, because they ignore acoustic most of them but at least they trust their ears even if they go in the wrong direction ( upgrading with the wrong purchases) by lack of information...Anyway even your "disciples" trust their ears at some point... Your analysis of gear dont cause any unanimous acceptation for sure... It is more easy for you with dac, less easy for amplifier, and way less confortable with speakers/room... More you go near the human hearings the more difficult it is to impose your analysis tools... At the end even yourself know and you said it that hearing must be used... Then all the fuss about your ideology is bashing people and anyway you used the tools in the wrong way, instead of using it to modify the audio design accordingly to psycho-acoustic non linear workings of the ears in the time domain, you use your tools in a linear way in the frequency domain to DECIDE what gear is good and which one is bad and to as you said DEBUNK ... You debunk thinking you are right, you do not design...The proof is in the pudding, Hans Van Maanen DESIGN according to his understanding of psycho-acoustic law, "temporal coherence" is his trade mark.. By the way without naming names, there is amplifier designer who designed according to what they know about the time domain even here ...There is many Van Maanen in the world... All creative designer go accordingly of what they think work from psycho-acoustic, for example in the tubes amplifier design... It is the same for speakers design at some high level... @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.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 01:53pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You say this to me till the first day... English is not my first language ... Perhaps you must SPOKE and DISCUSS the truth and depth of the psycho-acoustic points and articles i submitted , instead of repeating that my posts are too long for 2 years now... No more longer than Amir posts here by the way... And remind this, i am not here to win a popularity contest about my posts... i submit content and ideas not short sarcasm, and short bashing... Explanations need space especially if someone must separate the frequency domain and the Time domain analysis and illustrating it with the articles which are related to this... Put you in my shoes: what will you think of someone who never DISCUSS your ideas but never stop to say that your posts are too long ? You are intelligent i think, then use it... And patronizing people even politely work few times, i even thank you and i apologize, the last time but patronizing dont work for two years... I will not change my english skills mastery nor my thinking in the next month..Sorry... i dont want to be rude but i hope for DISCUSSION WITH YOU ..Not for the same repeating useless criticizing of my style.. Discuss with me... Dont repeat the same melody about my long posts.....Do you think there is NO SUBSTANCE in the works of the 4 physicists i proposed here ? By the way these 4 posts of the same articles were for Amir who never commented till this day about the Magnasco and Oppenheim experiments and their consequences about human hearings and audio analysis .. And by the way instead of repeating this critics about my posts, WHY YOU DONT READ THE ARTICLE AND COMMENT IT HERE YOURSELF ? I mind about facts and i think now your posts are TOO SHORT and miss the point`: THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE BY OPPENHEIM AND MAGNASCO ... Not my syntax... @mahghister -- you post an extraordinarily long article, 4 times and you’re wondering about no replies? Perhaps you see that this is a medium built for brevity, not long briefs. You write, "You dont get my points..." -- my guess is that people mostly skip your posts because they’re too long. If you cannot control this, you’re going to get ignored. Free advice, not meant as a personal attack, Sir. By the way you miss my point here ... Perhaps you could have read the articles in my long posts instead of bashing my too long posts because they appear too long for your taste... The data measured and read coming from the frequency domain and interpreted from this linear Fourier perspective is not the same that the data measured and interpreted from the time domain in a non linear perspective of analysis ... The ears works non linearly... Do you catch it ? If not read the articles of Van Maanen...If i resume it all details it will take 15 pages... Then Amir is wrong and you are wrong: the tools give us data yes, this is a common place useless fact ; but the CONTEXT where these data will be interpret or not is the most important factor , will it be only the frequency linear domain or also the time non linear dependant domain ? Dont imitate Amir, who dont read them, and stop repeating his points as a parrot... My post are LONG sometimes with no reason you are right, but sometimes there is a reason... Is this supposed to be profound? Some people do multiple things. As @amir_asr pointed out, "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."
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 03:30pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Hans Van Maanen is a working physicist in fluid dynamics and a top published expert and designer in Audio with his own "temporal coherence" brand name speakers and amplifiers... Who must we trust? Someone who work with basic psycho-acoustic and design his audio components from it or Amir debunking "audiophiles" ? As i already said, thanks to Amir for information debunking market specs of gear...But the bucks stop here... His bashing of audiophiles is not based on psycho-acoustic facts but on techno babble ideology ... Debunking is perhaps a field work because someone verify specs numbers thats all; but it is NOT SCIENCE NOR DESIGNING in audio it is only some technological tools choices applied for some NARROW goal ... And bashing audiophiles is ridiculous enterprise... Why? Because there is too much difference between audiophiles themselves, and putting them in the same trash bin is RIDICULOUS... And bashing human hearing because of alleged limits in Hertz and Decibels is a common place argument ignoring the non linear nature and the time dependant dimension where the ears really work beating Fourier uncertainty principle; then bashing those who use their ears without even knowing psycho-acoustic basic facts it is ignorance and/or some marketing propaganda for some goal of his own ... Now look at the article for the context about these remarks by Van Maanen ... «Feedback seems like a miracle cure for all shortcomings of audio equipment. Yet, in the ‘high-end’ audio community, many critics on feedback can be found. It is beyond discussion that the specifications of many semiconductor amplifiers are far superior to those of loudspeakers and vacuum tube amplifiers, yet this correlates not well with the perceived quality of the equipment. How come? And why is it possible to hear differences between amplifiers with distortions two orders of magnitude lower than the loudspeakers one needs to listen to these amplifiers? Are certain phenomena overlooked and, if so, what can we learn to improve the perceived quality of equipment? This paper analyses some pitfalls and parasitic effects of feedback and gives directions for improvement of the perceived quality. This was confirmed by designing amplifiers, derived from this analysis, using unconventional lines in which listening by music experts was regarded as more important than measurement results. It showed that parasitic effects occur in amplifiers with global feedback, which are often disregarded, because these do not show up with the usual derivation of the equations for systems with feedback. These parasitic effects lead to the introduction of artefacts, which are specific for systems with feedback. This is surprising, as the common idea is that feedback only suppresses undesired phenomena, but is an unambiguous result from the analysis, presented in this paper, which also shows that the commonly used equations for feedback are flawed. On top of this, several (underlying) assumptions about the properties of the amplifier are also incorrect. Suppression of these parasitic effects requires linearization of the individual amplification stages as much as possible and by designing the amplifier in such a way that other properties are as close to the assumptions as possible, in combination with a constant, but moderate, feedback factor over the entire audio range. The testing of equipment using continuous sinewaves does often not reveal these parasitic effects as these only show up in the dynamic response of the amplifier to music-like signals. The simplistic approach that the sinewave response enables the prediction of the behaviour under all conditions ignores the conditions under which the Fourier theory may be applied and leads therefore to incorrect results and conclusions. Which is why there is a great need for well-defined dynamic test signals, but as long as these are not available, human hearing remains for the time being the best piece of ‘measurement equipment’ which can be used...» ............................. «The designer should realize that global feedback can only be applied to a limited extent and that the dynamic behaviour of the amplifier to music-like signals is (far) more important for the perceived quality than distortion figures, in line with the findings of refs. 3 and 4. These probably explain a part of the audible differences between amplifiers or other electronic audio equipment, which cannot be understood from the distortion figures and has given feedback a bad name in certain high-end audio circles. Such artefacts are therefore hard, in many cases not at all, measurable using continuous sinewaves. As music is a textbook example of such a dynamic process, this is likely to be crucial for the determination of the perceived quality of an amplifier. So more complex test signals, which represent non-steady, multi-spectral conditions, as occur in music, are needed. As long as such test signals are not agreed on, human hearing is still the best “measurement” instrument available.......< ................................................................................................... It can be remarked that critical comments from high-end audio enthusiasts are often scornfully put aside by technology experts as “non-scientific” small talk from freaks who do not understand the theory. The author strongly disagrees with this view as too often critical remarks from people with “golden ears” did make sense, albeit that it was initially absolutely nunclear what the technical or scientific background was. Such remarks did help the development team to further improve the equipment, even though it would have been very hard to show the effect of the individual steps in a scientific way. But the progress over the years is beyond discussion...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FeedbackFlaws.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 03:05pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Now for the tasteful pleasure of Hilde45 my post will stop here...😊 I let Van Maanen spoke : «The discussion on the perceived quality of audio systems often lacks objective criteria. This is partly due to the subjective experience of the ill-defined property "quality", covering many aspects, partly to the lack of understanding of all the properties that influence the perceived quality. The latter is not synonymous with the technical quality of a system to begin with. Disregarding non-linear distortions, the frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz of a system is very often taken as a major parameter determining the quality of a sound reproduction system. The basic idea behind this is the Fourier analysis of sounds, in which any sound wave, no matter how complicated, can be decomposed into an infinite series of sine and cosine waves of different frequencies, starting at zero and "ending" at infinity. The, never mentioned, assumption is that the frequency components above the hearing limit, usually taken at 20 kHz, do not influence the perceived sound in any way. Although this seems a reasonable assumption at first, it is not as straightforward as one would think. Two aspects play an important role: the first is that Fourier analysis only holds for linear systems and if there is one transducer which is non-linear, it is the human ear. In non-linear systems frequencies not present in the original signal can be generated and/or other frequencies can acquire more power than in the original sig- nal. This can easily be demonstrated using a 3 kHz sine wave with 5 periods on and 5 periods off. Although Fourier analysis tells that 300 Hz is only a weak component in this signal, it is the strongest one hears. As 300 Hz corresponds to the envelope of the signal it is not surprising using the non-linear properties of our ears. It can be concluded that frequencies above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the quality experienced. The second aspect is that the limitation of the bandwidth of an audio reproduction system has consequences in the time domain, which we will discuss in the next section. The relation between the spectral response and the temporal behaviour will be discussed, followed by some examples and discussion on the perceived quality.» http://www.breem.nl/Artikelen/vMaanen/temporal-decay.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 04:28pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Rational approach in audio private installation is related to electrical mechanical and ESPECIALLY acoustic embeddings controls... Amir methods of measures CAN ONLY VERIFY GEAR SPECS as publised by the company and infirm it or confirm it... THATS ALL... Amir cannot choose the gear for your needs and for his QUALITIES... And if as a guitarist you dont trust your ears... What can i say ?😁😊 Myself i learned how to use my ears in 2 years experiments... Are they telling me always the truth ? no... Am i satisfied with my 600 bucks system ? Yes... It sound better Speakers/room and headphone that everything i listened to... and i can identify his FLAWS... Is it perfect then ? Not at all...But most people trust price tags not their ears... It is the reason why a pair of Magnepan in a living room can sound worst than my speakers box in a dedicated room... I know because i verified it... How will it cost me to make my actual headphone system almost perfect ? 15,000 bucks....Not a dollars more... I know WHERE i go and WHERE i came from... Dont trust anyone.... TRAIN your ears in acoustic...And READ articles and books... Not only ASR forum and audiogon forums ... As a guitarist myself, I think the fact that most professional guitarists run their instrument through a rack or pedalboard tuner tells you all you need to know about our so-called golden ears. Those of us with experience can tell that something is "off" fairly easily, but getting it to be "not off" by ear takes a little more fiddling and is subject to the bias of the strings surrounding them. So, scientific approaches like ASR’s can get you in the ballpark a lot more efficiently than guessing.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 05:31pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete 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. You dont get it anything right but always half truth... I never say that your measure use FFT, i indicated that 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 ... It is falseby being INSUFFICIENT to describe human hearings and DEMONSTRATED by Oppenheim and Magnasco...And Hans Van Maanen explain it COMPLETELY theoretically and for his own design ..¯Read it... What you said about your OWN mesures is RIGHT in itself and you dont use FFT... But the Context in which your interpret what is "sound qualities" and what they MUST BE , is a theory of hearing that is falsified by psycho-acoustic experiments and by many audio amplifier designer...see above... 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. You spoke like a used car sellers here... Where did i say that FFT is not invaluable in diagnostic ? Did i say that Fourier was an idiot ? I said that ONLY using it in the context of an audio theory of hearings based on linear and time dependant domain is TOO NARROW and direct us to false conclusions about audio qualities as human hearings recognize them...Musician for example speaking about timbre perception and picking each multiple timbres of instruments in orchestral recordings or playins etc... And here again you spew half truth : The bouncing of waves in a small room can create a " soup" yes,but you FORGET to mention that the difference between a "perceived soup" and a balanced ratio ASW/LV in a specific room of precise dimensions is in the PRECISE TIMING and duration.... Reverberation is not always a negative phenomenon... If the timing is not right yes it will be a soup... But all acoustic art is in the TIMING AMOUNT... I know because i created my room...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 05:53pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete 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. I think that you are not used to people able to UNDERSTAND the limits of your perspective...Or not much people dare to confront you on your site because because they are also technology fad ... I am not... And your memory is not good... I thank you 10 times already for the verification set of measures you takes for your interesting reviews among all insults some gives you... But I cannot accept AT ALL what you derive and impose on us about what is hearing and the qualities we must or must not perceive by listening in our own room...Nobody tune his room with blind test... And nobody use blind test for understanding music ...I am not against measuring tool but the context where we use tool MEANS SOMETHING... Your implicit theory of hearings, the context from what you spoke is FALSE... It is simple to read and comment 2 pages article... You never adress it for refuting it, or for commenting it and use it to prove me wrong... it is not publish in stereophile it is published in physics reviews... https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 09:19pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Amir did not read neither Oppenheim and Magnasco, nor Hans Van Maanen... Anyway he cannot read them because if he did, all his opinions about the way we listen , and the way an amplifier must be designed to sound musically will be crushes to pieces... Psycho-acoustic science is not technology and debunking is not designing ...And Dogma about the way ALL audiophiles listening are deluded is only that a dogma created on a false theory of psycho-acoustic based on Fourier tools which are linear and not in the time domain unidirectional way of the human ears...Fourier tools are useful in amplifier cdesign for example but the designer to design well must know about the way the human ears work in the Non linear time dependant domain... By the way for sure the time domain exist in the Fourier method BUT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE FREQUENCIES DOMAIN AND THE TIME DOMAIN ARE LINEAR... Do you catch ? I will not go further... Amir will never debate in details the articles i used because his perspective will be destructed... ANYBODY WITH A BRAIN CAN READ THEM... 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.. Dont belive me, compare what Amir said with Magnasco and Oppenheim and with the articles of Hans Van Maanen...There are not into techno babble , they are physicists...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 09:33pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You are right Amir... You never bashed , i confused and conflated your polite discussion with me here with some people of ASR...I am wrong here... I apologize sincerely to you ... I just answered someone else in a bad mood a post above and this is not an excuse but i was irritate...Not about you...... I dont want to personnalize the discussion too...You are perhaps wrong in my opinion but your are a gentleman... I thank you for your time and politeness... As i said i welcome your information thread, not your theory of hearing, audio qualities, and opinon about listenings and design ... We can differ and be friendly... By the way i must thank you very much ... I learned a lot discussing with you opposing your points... Really... 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.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 10:08pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete I never said that Fourier method was wrong.. You put this in my mouth... These methods are the basis of design in Audio... 😊 I INSISTED on the point that Fourier linear methods are not able to explain hearings power , and they are not enough to create musical design ... The designer must quit his tools and listen TOO... Thats the point... Bashing Fourier method will be stupid , i NEVER did that, criticizing the context of their application and interpretation in human hearings is the point... The ears works non linearly in his own time direction, that is the point which make it powerful for extracting information... We must use this fact in the creation of the design and not use our own linear and time symmetrical measure to determine the design as "perfect" because no distortion and low noise ...It is not enough...Musicality exist ... For you it may be a myth... For some designer it is not... 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. And now you distort what Van Maanen said : Any electronic circuit changes in amplitude and phase of distortion components caused by modulation frequency. Van Maanen use that fact to show the limit of Fourier method for predicting his behavior...Your three lines attributing to him the idea to made up a circuit with hysteresis HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS POINT ... Here it is in his own word...: «When we look at electronics with active components, such systems are non-linear as has been described in a separate paper (Feedback Flaws). Which is why we have to deal with distortion. So, the first condition is, in general, not fulfilled. Memory effects also often occur in electronics, which can even be enhanced by non-linear effects. The determination of the frequency response of such a circuit is next to impossible (note that nthe dynamic impedance of the diodes depends on the current, flowing through them and is therefore also dependent on the amplitude of the input signal) and it is obvious that the system is highly non-linear. The charge on the capacitor will be a clear function of the history of then input signal, so the system is also not time-invariant. In other words, the application of Fourier theory to electronics is error-prone and there is a severe risk that the properties for continuous sine waves cannot (and will not) predict the response in time domain correctly. Figure 1: Example of a circuit where the Fourier theory is not capable to predict the response, even if the continuous sine wave response would be known by measurement. The reasons are the non-linear behaviour (due to the diodes in the circuit) and the memory, created by the capacitor as its charge will depend on the input signal in the past. i cannot put the figure but anybody vcan go there : https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 10:43pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Exactly... 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 ... There is no SINGULAR ROOM for all customers too... In industrial design for big company , it is useful and desirable to STAY AND OBEY standards and their trade-off choices ... But individual creative small designer will choose other trade off, he will innovate to PLEASE THE HUMAN EARS OF HIS CUSTOMER NOT HIS MEASURING TOOLS DIALS to be regular for the industrial mass production needs ... Then confusing Industrial and small craftmanship , not only in speakers but in amplifier design, and imposing the same set of measures coming from the same hearing theory is not desirable nor doable... Hans Van Maanen will design his amplifier differently than the Fosi amplifier reviewed by Amir... So positive was his review and i trust him that this amplifier is not bad for the price, you cannot judge with the same set of measures the Van Maanen amplifier design and the mass market Fosi ... The difference in price is astronomical too.. I dont think that the pope of Audio elected will be Amir... He measure well for sure, but he negate what is "musical" for his own "transparency" technologically perfect measured ideal 😊... In sound and acoustic the goal was never and never will be "perfection" of electronical design by the numbers, but musicality even if we dont like the measures of this so called " musical" amplifier .. You can call as Hinton do, A.I. more intelligent than human, it only reflect your ignorance about what are human beings.. At least Hinton know that A.I. is a danger in our corporate dictatorship... In the same way you may call "musical" what your measuring tools reveal as "perfect" but it is human ears who will decide, in blind test or in their room BY THEIR FREE CHOICES not by design ... Why ? i will not explain it here, because Hilde45 will come and denounce me as creating too long posts.,..He dont read post he measure them... 😊 That is like saying all cookies should taste the same.
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-05-2023 at 01:15am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Then enlighten me... Or enlighten Amir... Or enlighten the two of us... 😉😊😊😊😊 I discovered the ideas of Hans Van Maanen that may interest you... His site and papers are in his site "temporal coherence"...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 11:19pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete It is a common place fact that speakers must measure neutral and good... But the design of speakers is a craftmanship too not a mere industrial process.. No one can negate the useful necessity of measuring tools... The problem is imposing our own theory of what is hearing and what is musical... The problem is infering from measures only the excellence of the qualitative results as CERTAIN... Bad measuring speakers will not sound good, it is a common place fact... Good measuring speakers, not only will not sound as musical as someone wishes but they may displease most people... Speakers design is also a trade off art... measuring well is not enough...
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 11:30pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete We have standards in video. Yes and it is a good thing... But sound is not images...The qualities of an image are easy to define in a consensual way... The qualities describing sounds are not... Yourself you dont even accept anything "colored" "musical" etc you claim they are WRONG... 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.. As i say you had your own hearing theory...Imposing it is not possible and doable anyway... Human dont hear as a Fourier analyser, so useful it is for designing ALL audio components... Than human hearing own a future and will rule future design not the reverse... By the way we dont have a singular accepted theory of human hearing... What we know is that human hearing work as a non linear tool in his own time dyssimetric dimension by history and evolution fatefulness.. Then let the designer create their own trade off choices...I am not against some regulation but i dont want society of audiophiles being ASR disciple repeating measures mantras as synonymus with good sound... 😊 It remind me of some transhumanist who are really sure that man must become part machine to compete...How do you falsify that claim ?
mahgister Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 13,335 posts 07-04-2023 at 11:47pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete You distorted Van Maanen intention above ... I corrected you by citing the text and reestablishing his intention... But it seems distorting facts to suit your gaol is an habit... All reviewers and audiophiles DIFFER all day long about anything... There is a multitude of groups and cultist about all possibilities in audio... No one IMPOSE DICTATORIALLY a theory of hearing and a normalized set of measures for all ... With the Correct and only one accepted vocabulary... Are you kidding ? or you are blind so busy to sell your salad ? 😊 Audiophiles debate without end unable to impose anything... They are FREE and want to stay free ... They dont tolerate to be imposed hearing standards through the only good measures theory by statistical and blind tests proof... Musicality for Furtwangler is not the same as for Karajan... Guess why ? A clue : it has nothing to do with "neutrality"... Wait and i will explain it in my musical thread... Hilde45 measure my words numbers post... i must watch myself... 😊 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. The fact here that you reverse the accusation is revelatory... You are the one who want to IMPOSE a unique view about the relation UNIDIRECTIONAL between measures and what we hear ...No audiophiles do that... Offering his opinions to other is not imposing it through a site with this goal ... Audiogon is not like ASR... There is no hearing ideology here... Only subjective impressions... You are the one claiming what hearing theory MUST BE... By the way i appreciate your site and your reviews AS I SAID NUMEROUS TIME... i dont accept the one way mandatory direction from measures to hearing as hearing theory...

Recent Activity

Unanswered

Related to You

Following

Insider Lobby

Start A New Discussion

Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Showing 50 responses by mahgister

Subjective and Objective Evaluation of the Acoustic Vacuum-Tube Amplifiers

More to discover

Audiogon

The world's largest high-end audio community.

Virtual Systems

Let the world see what you've built.

Bluebook

The right price. Every time.

Merch

Rep the community and hobby you love so much.

Audiogon

Virtual Systems

Bluebook

Merch

Rep the community and hobby you love so much.

Recent Activity

Unanswered

Related to You

Following

Insider Lobby

Start A New Discussion

Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Showing 50 responses by mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

Subjective and Objective Evaluation of the Acoustic Vacuum-Tube Amplifiers

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

mahgister

More to discover