Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

You did the right thing, experimenting and you learned...

i did as you...

A bit more foolish though... 😊

Most people who focus on gear or on toy, negliging acoustic dont know anything...

In my living room the two easiest acoustic tweaks I made were to experiment with the angles of the wooden louver blinds that covered big glass windows. There was a certain angle that broke up chaotic reflections but did not deaden the room. The other effective tweak was to distribute small throw rugs over the wood floors between my speakers and the listening chair. This was not a total blanketing of the floor. There is a mix of throw rugs and unobstructed floor. A little creative orientation of the rugs brought an obvious improvement to the sound. To allege that this treatment is ridiculous is well...ridiculous.

What do you talk about..

For sure the debate with you was not about acoustic...

it was more deep and more fundamental but you never answered my points about hearing theory and the different meanings associated with different measures...

The debate was : how could someone predict sound qualities and their perception based on a finite set of linear measures of the design of pieces of gear ?

How could he dare seriously promote it as predictive of  audible Qualities ? it is non sense in psycho acoustic basic..

you fail the audiogon discussion  exam...😊

By the way i dont claim expertise, Toole is expert...

Me i only at no cost tuned my room... Thanks to him and to those who spell me the basic to experiment with...

Asking measured proof is like imposing the same question for any problem and imposing blind test is as imposing an answer for all problem ... It is ridiculous ... An answer cannot be at the same level than the question save for children puzzle book of algebra or for car seller ...In psycho-acoustic, the Fourier method is one of the question the answer it pose reside out of the Fourier frame... Using the two hearing theory in complementary experiments is the road to go, especially a road already studied in hearing impairment research...

psycho acoustic is based on fundamentals questions... This interest me not your marketing of toys as replacement for listening...

By the way Amir thanks..

You make me think and i learned in the process... I cannot say that i make you think ...  😊

I will read some of your reviews... Try Dr Choueri BACCH filters...

i go back to my hole...

I dont like attacking personality... Amir acted as a gentleman at least...

The way he answered with specific USELESS measures for the debate , about some products instead of adressing my questions and articles,

The way he NEVER gave even the beginning of an answer to the relation between measures and hearing theory,

The way he asked for proofs confusing measures with proof, whereas the problem precisely is to RELATE our set of measures to what we CAN hear from them and with them and to what we CANNOT hear with them and from them ...

The way he answered never as a scientist because ignoring ALL psycho-acoustic facts i presented CLEARLY with 4 physicists , two he attacked ad hominen, never on the ground of their perspective in psycho-acoustic,

The way he drowned the fish of the psycho-acoustic fundamental question about the relation between electrical linear measures and audible hearing qualities, by teleguiding others questions and debate toward measuring this product or this product so and so and then coaching others in the dead end alley of THIS product debate or THIS one, and inviting others to quarrel about these products value measures INSTEAD of his claims about hearing...

The way he ignored even basic physical small room acoustic and feel confort ONLY around equalizer and measuring toys...

All that spoke volume...

I lost my trust even in his measures not because they are not well done, i cannot know that nor verify, but because i noticed clearly what he knows ( limited measures) and what he dont knows ( psycho-acoustic) , and when someone dont want to learn or even knowing anything about what he does not know because it does not suit an agenda, it is a bad omen for what may come after...

it is clear that he is a crafty seller...not a narcissist sorry, nobody here is a psychologist and anyway no diagnostic done in this way reflect any reality, just a seller with experience with a limited set of measures, useful to falsify market gear specs NOTHING ELSE ...

But Amir want to sell his measuring toys as the first and last truth in audio experience, he want consumers listening to his reviews and only to his reviews... Gullible people will...His measures cannot predict audible  musical qualities..

As i said reviews means something only in a statistical numbers and are indicating of value for past or vintage products,... few reviews means little.. Measures only cannot indicate in a direct way the values of audible qualities; these qualities only exist when a component is coupled with others, in a specfic room, for specfic ears... it is why only statistics about each acoustic factors separately from few dozen of reviews can guide us... lIstening in person is the best way but not possible in most case for most of us...

He used blind test to eliminate any contestation about his limited set of measures and any contestation coming from human hearing.. he analysed human hearing only about his acuity and resolution in HERTZ and DECIBELS nothing related to the Fourier context and the measures of human hyperacuity in the time domain and in a non linear way, why ? Because it will shatter his false science relating his electrical linear set of measures as a predictor of REAL AUDIBLE QUALITIES in music , in speech or even in pure acoustic...

Any other critic of him will miss the target and being stated on his CHOSEN ground you will loose or there will be no conclusion ... In the psycho-acoustic debate with me he lost because he was UNABLE to contest any of the facts i surmiss..NONE...

The point i indicated are so fundamental that the way he refuse to adress their validity and never even reference nor any concepts i proposed or any names with the exception of Van Maanen , because being not only a physicist, van Maanen is an audio designer, he could then dismiss all his facts as seller marketing leaflet... it is here i lost my respect for Amir audio knowledge... i read van Maanen and nothing Amir said about him is valid and touch the heart of the matter... He could not anyway, because Van maanen as a designer and physicist work in audio around the fundamentals facts of psycho-acoustic for his design : the time dependant domain and the non linear working of the human hearings... Van Maanen searched for improved design and is able as other designer everybody know did explaining for us psycho-acoustic elementary facts used in their own design in the past...Van Maanen is not ALONE...I pick him because being a top physicist in fluid dynamics he know acoustic physics and was a hobbyist designer all his working life and at full time after his retirement as physicist..

Very good mapman... You are even right...

The problem is that some called "distortion" a bad name something that is used to ease the Ears/brain working when listening music... second and third hamonics are not distortion in a negative sense it is a positive tool based in acoustic...

Some designer use them for long time ago... In S. S. or tube amplification...

Distortion must be CONTROLLED not always eliminated or masked...

but i am not an electronic engineer ... I will shut myself here...

As said Amir i am a philosopher... 😊 It is not false... Even if for him it is almost an insult... For me it is not at all... 😁😊😎

I learned that some people think distortion is overrated.

Very good last words!

OK everyone stop now so that I have the last word.  

Wise and right on the target...

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

Some might argue that, if a specific listener claims to expect a difference between, say, a hi-res and lo-res signal, that an ABX test with him is "testing the listener." But that’s mistaken. Such a test could only reveal whether that listener could distinguish a difference under the conditions of the test. Again, this why is why multiple tests yield more useful information.

It’s rather odd that Amir is so preoccupied with conducting measurements that he sometimes doesn’t bother to listen to the devices he tests, and yet on the other hand issues such proclamations about the tests he’s claimed to have "passed."

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected. When they are improperly conducted, such a test has no advantage over a sighted test and can yield misleading results.

Pick a component to test an upgrade , in your own system room, let say an amplifier...

Let say you are not a fool you read the specsof the seller before buying to know if this amp, will pair well with your dac and speakers...

Let say you are not a fool and you read before buying Amir measures just to be sure that the specs about this amp are confirmed by an independant tester...

Let say you know well your dac, your speakers and room and your old amp working BEFORE replacing by the amp you just bought ...

Let say you know the definition of timbre in acoustic...

Let say that not only you know this definition of timbre but you are able to improve it or degrade it by just playing with the materials passive treatment in your room and the ratio absorbtion/diffusion and their optimal location and the timing of the reflective surfaces...

For those who dont know HOW COMPLEX the acoustic definition and perception of timbre is here the main factors :

"For example, J. F. Schouten (1968, 42) describes the "elusive attributes of timbre" as "determined by at least five major acoustic parameters", which Robert Erickson finds, "scaled to the concerns of much contemporary music":^[4]

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration" WIKIPEDIA

---- DIFFERENTIATING IMAGING....It is the way sound sources are differentiated one from another laterally and in detph...

Blind test had nothing to do directly with a training of the ears in music , or in acoustic implicating an incremental thousand listening experiments all INTERRELATED to give at the end an acoustic room , not a perfect one, but an incredible one able to give me all factors of a good musical experience...

An acoustic concept as holography, listener envelopment or timbre cannot be perceived only for the reason young ears are able to take an audiologist test...The young person must learn the concept before perceiving the complex object , being it timbre or holography, acuity is not enough at all...

These concept must be understood by EXPERINMENTS in a room and then to be under the control of the ears/brain imposing the right acoustic constraints to create them or controlling them... A room is like the varying lense of microscope, it is the variation of the acoustic conditions that make you able to FOCUS on the right aspect of the phenomenon... Then imposing blind test to an acoustician or a musician is a valid test in experimental psycho-acoustic , but the way Amir use this valid test is a kind of abuse against people And his bragging about audiology test resemble a teen bragging...... Not science... When i did my room acoustic and tuning i was already old, and my ears was not the same as 40 years ago... But my ears are healthy for a man of my age and i learned and created the room acoustic so imperfect it was, i created it FOR ME , not as a MODEL IDEAL room for all ears and PERFECT... But so imperfect it can be i can aussure you that there is no relation with the same speakers inside the room between before and after the completion of the process... This was the goal... LEARNING ACOUSTIC was the goal too... And in this i learned why audio is based on psycho-acoustic , not on the electrical measures of Amir...

Mapman you dont seems to realize that anybody with a brain can only welcome the measures set Amir gave and say thanks... No problem here...Because i have a brain i thank Amir ...For the 17th time...

But you seems to forget that Amir dont present them as only useful measures faisification and verification but as AUDIBLE TRUTH and more than that the ONLY AUDIBLE TRUTH , anything else being subjective illusions with no value ...

Thats the problem... A falsehood submitted as truth to promote an ideology and a site..

Just saying ...

So what we have is people standing up for individual choice and saying I don’t care about measurements, I’ll do it my way. Ok fine! That’s how it should be.

But then you have a guy who tries to scientifically measure things and that’s his way. He also has a website to publish the info and many choose to value that because they value metrics.

But now the guy who chooses metrics is chastised for doing it his way He can do more than most anyone in this area and collect technical data that can help people make decisions but the “libertarians” can’t handle THAT guy deciding for himself how to do things because they don’t like the way he does things. They’d like him to be silenced

This is a common phenomena that we witness everyday on the internet, talk shows etc. people want the right for themselves to be free and do it their way but not the people they disagree with. That’s being a hypocrite with a capital H .

The fact is many who want freedom for themselves can’t handle when others who are different want the same freedom. They think they are right and other guy wrong so he should be stopped.

Take note. Hypocritical libertarians are everywhere. Politicians know this and take full advantage.

Just saying.

I am not against the value of Amir measures...

I thank him remember ?

I am against his way of interpretating them and imposing them as all there is to say about hearing qualities in audio...

I apologize mapman

i get your post wrong then...

I am a bit less serene and calm than you... 😊

@mahgister I didn’t say you were anti science.  Why did you infer that?

You wrote too long post prof... 😊

How about the techno cultist bias equatiing a set of electrical measures designed to verify the well behaviour of circuits and components as the ONLY VALID PREDICTION about the STATUS and VALUE of audible qualities as described in psycho-acoustic experiments and in ecological hearing theories as more than just Fourier maps made of linearly related abstract concepts as frequencies, amplitude, phase and duration ? All these abstract mathematical factors are not able alone to explain and describe why and how the brain work in his time dependant domain ( rise and decay not decay and then rise ) and with his non linear QUALITATIVE and evaluating perception ?

No bias here ?

Are you able to read an article ?

Read Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment and explain the meaning , we will se if you understand it...

It is not always our bias who fool us, it is some adopted bias we borrow from someone else... by the way we cannot suppress ALL of our biases... We can only became conscious of some of them... our personal history is the history of our biases for the best or for the worst.... You read Feynman as if when he spoke he was a schoolboy thinking only about a blind test ... Biases are not all bad, we must train our mind and perception with the right set of biases... Biases can be acquired... Acoustician for example and musician are trained "golden ears"...

Again, I’m thankful to rodman99999 for providing the longer quotes from Feynman which serve so well to support the point I’d been making (as well as Amir). Let’s take this section: FEYNMAN: It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.   I think a nice example of how this can work is the infamous Opera Experiment that purported to detect faster-than-light neutrinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly The team of physicists upon finding the anomoly in their results knew how momentous it would be, and so they checked and double checked their findilngs looking for any way things could have gone wrong. They re-ran the experiment, getting the same results, and when months of doing everything they could to find errors was finished, the announced the results. However, being good scientists they understood the extraordinary nature of the results and presented it to other scientists saying basically "Look, we got these unexpected results. We’ve done everything we can to trace possible biases, influences or technical issues in our experiment...but we are presenting the results so you can double check our work, and hopefully replicate the results." Various possible flaws were suggested, and then the Opera scientists later...just as Feynman would council - reported some possible flaws in their experiment they’d discovered. Further investigation confirmed the flaws and that combined with others failing to replicate the results, dis-confirmed the initial "discovery." Just as science should work - for either disconfirmation or confirmation. Along those lines, in a much more modest level, I’ve tried to hew to these general principles when I’ve wanted to be more sure or rigorous about my conclusions. For example I was curious about my Benchmark SS preamp I’d just bought vs my CJ tube preamp, in which the sonic differences seemed pretty obvious. Well...most here would say "of course they’d be obvious." However, having done a variety of blind testing over the years - AC cables, video cables, DACs/CDPs, music servers - I’m familiar with how "obvious" sonic differences can feel under the influence of sighted bias - e.g., when you know what it is you are listening to. I’ve had "obvious" sonic differences vanish when I wasn’t allowed to know which was which. It’s very educational. It was entirely possible that I could be perceiving a sonic difference because of my perception being swayed by those wonderful "warm, glowing tubes...of course it’s going to sound different!" So, again, as Feynman would advise: the first rule is not to fool yourself as you are the easiest person to fool. And since I know sighted bias is a big variable, I attempted a blind test to reduce the possibility of "fooling myself." I took various other steps to reduce "fooling myself" - ensuring there wasn’t a way I could tell which preamp was being switched to, ensuring the switching was randomized, trying to ensure the levels were matched so as to account for loudness bias, etc. When I did my best...once again in concert with what Feynman would advise...I presented the results for other people to critique: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-test-results-benchmark-la4-vs-conrad-johnson-tube-preamp.33571/ As Feynman advised, I made sure to add as much detail about my method as I could, INCLUDING areas where I thought flaws could arise. And then I answered every question, I could about my method, took some suggestions to double check certain aspects and looked at how others assessed the results. It wasn’t a scientific-level of rigor, but I think it was in the spirit of the scientific mindset/approach in the sense of all the above. So I think I get fairly close to walking-the-walk in such instances with some of my own testing. I wonder if rodman or others can show any of their audio tests havea similar level of steps put in place to "not fool yourself" as well as presenting the results looking for others to critique? This, btw, is also generally what Amir does. He presents his results with plenty of detail about his METHOD and RESULTS so there is plenty of information given on which people can critique the method or results. It’s not just "I put this in my system and I heard X, trust me!" It’s "here, YOU can look for yourself at my DATA to see if I’m wrong." He presents it to the more general public on his youtube channel, and in the ASR forum in which he knows there are plenty of technically informed people who can help catch problems. And this is what goes on at ASR all the time.

 

It is comical to see Amir arguing about acuity test,... And bragging about it...

Acuity is useless to perceive a bird song if you dont have the concept of bird nor the concept of song... You will perceive noise not a "bird song"...

i think Amir never had a course in philosophy... Even elementary... It is a pity... Because science without philosophical basic make no sense at all...

Anything perceived by the ears/brain must be recognized, it is why acoustician and musician train their ears/brain to acquire the right set of BIASES... Acuity as sensitivity to hertz scale and decibels scale alone cannot replace TRAINING...Without this training it is not surprizing that someone in love with electrical tools claim that electrical measures are the only valid predictive way to assess audio hearing qualities...

About this matterc the two most influential philosopher of the last century are Merleau_Ponty, and the mathematician turned philosopher Husserl... But i know for sure that someone unable to read a simple paper as the paper of Magnasco and Oppenheim will not be able to read Husserl... it is not like reading cartoons or cartesian graphs or electrical graphs at all ...

The best way to fool ourself is when we want TO WIN A POINT in a discussion or in an experiment AT ALL COST..

Why ? because the discussion or the experiment could be based on an entire set of biases or hypothesis that are false... Then the experiment protocol can even be perfect and without any defect in his protocol and can even give more truthful and proven results reinforcing the faulty biases or hypothesis or the discussed point...

It is classical case with the faulty hypothesis of the Ptolemaic epicycles which were more predictively precise than Copernic own computation on the basis of his theory at the times...

Then here you have, epicycles, a perfect clear concept, which is computable and useful for computations, perfect experiment, perfect protocol of observation validated by more and more precise measure from observation and to go on with new observations, simple we add new epicycles to represent exactly and perfectly the more precise observations.. ... A winner game no ? 😊

But a completely false hypothesis about the center of the solar system... With his less well measured results it is Copernic who will win , time will defeat the exact epicycles by Ockham razor and improving application to measures and simplifying them making now more easy the observation with the Copernician hypothesis..

Do you catch why Feyman think as i described not as you simplify it grossly for your needs and to win an argument in this discussion ? You must read philosophy of science, if you dont you  will even be able  to set experimental protocol right but you risk to go more deeply in a false PARADIGM ( it is easy to search for many examples in the medical field and in psycho-acoustic history) ... Read not only Popper about falsification , read Kuhn about paradigm change and better, read Feyerabend book "AGAINST METHOD " and his RADICAL discussion with Imre Lakatos..

This is the same with Amir Ptolemaic measuring delusion imposed as the only basis for ascribing hearing qualitites to an audio system...He confirm his own bias or hypothesis more and more with electrical new and better measures which are not EVEN WRONG...

It is not the electrical measures- Earth but the Ears/brain psycho-acoustic- SUN the center of the acoustic- solar system... Those using electrical measures are BESIDE the essential psycho-acoustic point, and they cannot describe what is "listening" and,

what do we listen to when listening to a sound and how ?

Electrical Fourier analysis is not PSYCHO ACOUSTIC science...Only a part of it...

No. If you are going to comment on a "too long post" maybe read it first. Did you even see what I wrote about how the Opera experiment scenario exemplified much of Feynman’s advice? It’s much richer than just "blind experiment."

I’m not running experiments on fundamental physics. But as I said, when it comes to my own tests and I want to be more cautious, I adopt methods that align with Feynman’s cautions about "fooling yourself" (and like I showed, presenting my method and data to others for critique).

You either can’t admit how this fits well with Feynman’s words...or you just don’t understand Feynman (or the scientific method).

You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.

 

mapman your reasonning is based on a sophism here...

Amir is not SCIENCE incarnated...Discussing with him as i did with rigorous argument from hearing theories or from acoutic is not being against science...And it is not being against Amir...It is being against an erroneous application of electrical measure in psycho-acoustic..

You dont realize that electrical measures are not the only scientific facts here?

My point is many espouse personal freedom but only for themselves.  
 

Also it’s not a good thing when science  becomes the enemy.  

I just show you in my post above with Copernic/Ptolemaus how we can devise perfectly error free observation /measurement protocol without any errors in it and being right all the time but with a false hypothesis all along for millenia ptolemaus astronomy goes way before Copernic and improved with the time passing a lot not only in spite but because of his faulty paradigm .. it is why experiments and observations are not enough to define science... moral conduct and training of the thought process ( not only mere logical reasonning here but more ) as training of the conscious attention is more important...

You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.

 

The only way you can assure you will not fool yourself , is not EXACT PERFECT experimental protocol with the illusory goal of eliminating ALL your biases.. This is impossible...

The biases created by the seeing of the sun turning around us is not false... This bias is confirmed each day...

The only way to not fool ourself is to cherish truth over our own life...Cherish truth over our paradigm... cherish truth over our tools... And even cherish truth over our scientific method... truth is the ultimate Ockam razor... Truth is one eternally...

There is no recipe to cherish truth... It can be learned by the moral and ethical conduct of the process of thinking... Plato teach it as such... This is why Christ teachings, Buddha, Lao tse, are so deep and why geometry and number theory are exercise in truth thinking and contemplation ...

My job was teaching reading and MOTIVATING reading among students not at an elementary level but reading analysis between fields...litterary, poetic or scientific or philosophic...

What is language ? in the grammar of any language there is a GEOMETRY of the thinking process which is the basis of the scientific process itself... Linguistic is one of the most astounding science ever... I studied with a linguistic genius alas! not translated in english much...Nothing is really random in language... language is so deep with meanings... i even cannot imagine how human can invent it... We litterally speak with a tool more deep than we can fathom... i cannot describe why here... They will kill my long post... 😊

In language there is two completely INTERTWINNED levels : poetic and prosaic... Guess where is truth in language ?

It is in our heart and in our way to relate the poetic and prosaic mode of speech TOGETHER in a conscious ethical way ...

Truth is the brother of love...They come from the Source...

it is the reason why i advised my students to study geometry or number theory more than philosophers only ( prosaic mode of speech) and read more mystics ( poetic mode of speech ) more than theologian...

observation must be trained... Faraday set of experiments or Goethe description of plants and mammals are very powerful for training...One of the most stunning book on earth describe mammals... Reading it we fall off from our chair, because we realized that we were able to identify a lion by reflex looking at it but we realized we had never SEE a lion... because our bias of recognition of the object lion fooled us completely... We miss all evident talking signs of the lion form and metabolism by looking at the lion image without seeing ever a real lion through the image...Any mammals form tell a story through all details of the form... as we must learn how to listen, we must learn how to see... Even grown adults dont know how to see... but oftem more blind people know how to see, why ? because they know that what we see is the ECHO of the signals we throw at the object like a bat and a dolphin... If we emit truth we will perceive truth...

in all that seeing, hearing etc , there is no simple method, only the thirst for truth and contemplation...

By the way acoustic phenomena are also as music a contemplative objects in time and very deep astounding as music or painting are ...

Now being unable to answer my point about the IMPOSSIBILITY and UNSCIENTIFIC attitude which consist as you did and trying to convince others that a small linear set of electrical measures from Fourier Maps are the only OBJECTIVE way to qualify audio audible impressions QUALITIES, because if not , they are anyway "illusions" or artefacts we must eliminated by blind test, this techno babble ideology has nothing to do with psycho-acoustic as demonstrated CLEARLY not only by the results of Oppenheim and Magnasco but by the way they constructed their experimental protocol to demonstrate the way the ears/brain do not compute mere Fourier maps but perceived REAL QUALITATVE INFORMATION FROM THE REAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENT in his time dependant domain and extract this information essential for his survival in a non linear way...

What is your answer and argument AGAINST this fact ?

Instead treating me like a deluded idiot you set me a childish trap with a paradox in quantum theory...

If i explain to you the solution , you will not be able to UNDERSTAND it...

I will also treat you as you treat me, i know how to liquidated your paradox , and i will suggest to you first TWO solutions at this paradox, one in non commutative geometry by Alain Connes about TIME in this video : "the shape of music."...and i will briefly resume it :"The thermal time hypothesis has been put forward as a possible solution to this problem by Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes, both in classical and quantum theory. It postulates that physical time flow is not an a priori given fundamental property of the theory, but is a macroscopic feature of thermodynamical origin.^{" For clarity i will add this "}The thermal time hypothesis predicts that the ratio of the observer's proper time to his statistical time – the time flow that emerges from Connes and Rovelli's ideas – is the temperature he measures around him. It so happens that every event horizon has an associated temperature."

^{there exist another solution which do not contradict this one but complement it but you are not able to understand it sorry ... it is in the Book by the physicist} Anirban Bandyopadhyay; Nanobrain or how to make an artificial brain with time crystals...

Now instead of playing with me as an idiot ANSWER WHY MY OBJECTION TO YOUR REDUCTION OF AUDIBLE QUALITIES TO ELECTRICAL FOURIER MAPS OF ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS IS WRONG ?

Let me ask you to ponder this: as something achieves speed of light, time for it stops relative to us who are stationary (Einstein’s theory of special relativity). In that regard, a photon of light that has been traveling for billions of years since the big bang, gets to our eyes in an instant, as far as the consciousness of the photons is concerned. At one moment it is at big bang and at the very same moment, it hits your eyes through a telescope! Do you understand the ramifications of this for fidelity of audio?

Why asking ? Is it not evident i am an idiot ? 😊

i know how to read...Prove me wrong...

i am interested by links between fields, cracks between theories..

My most important reflection subject was the links between semiotic and linguistic..

I am interested by number theory meanings for philosophy...

I am interested by the way the Temple of Louxor was designed..

I am interested by the meaning of the poetic act speech...

I am interested by categoey theory in the approach of Alexander Grothendieck...

i am interested by the links between all that and more..

i like Dyonysos the areopagite the syrian mystic and the link between his three methods and set theory through Cantor works ... i studied it for 10 years...

Etc.. I am interested by the morphology of mammals and the Goethe method in the work of the physicist Henri Bortoft...<

I am interested by The work of Swedenborg about reality and quantum theory... i dont understand for now the link with Roger Boscovich...

i am interested bby READING and THINKING...

I am interested by the difference and similarity between Goethe more oriented perceptual phenomenology and Husserl more oriented conceptual phenomenology and their deep link through the "crisis of modern science" the deep last book of Husserl.....

i am interested by the way human brain perceived QUALITIES and OBJECTIVE INFORMATION from sound source in natural environment..

I am interested by the PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE INVARIANT which explain the information of sound sources to the geaturing and acting human body and why our generative ability to become sound source ourself and produce sound  conditioned nature affordances and conditioned us in a particular direction of time to extract what is useful to our survival in a non linear way because our cochlea is non linear... By the way what is a spiral as mathematical object and symbolic object as Cassirer called them "symbolic forms" ...

it is why the thesis that audible informative qualities which must be reducible to ONLY Fourier electrical map seems preposterous to me . We need an ecological set of experiments protocols to understand hearing...

you are not able to understand a two page psycho-acoustic article it seems NOBODY answer me ANYTHING about it Amir dance around it with his measures schemas without adressing it : Magnasco and Oppenheim

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301

You are right mapman for sure...

i begin this discussion by thanking Amir for his free useful measures information..

Then i observed that the subjectivist-objectivist division was created by FOCUS on the gear pieces by electrical measures and focus on the gear piece by listening experience...One put against the other...

This DIVISION results from the gear market sellers and consumers conditioning not from psycho-acoustic science... The tool obsessed measuring minds used this division between sellers and consumers to claim their dogma as UNIQUE TRUTH... They sell their site ideology... They debunk... Some designers which use psycho-acoustic facts trust listening and hearings but do not say it loud because there are zealots crowds attacking them like they attack audiophiles listenings reviews as of no value at all... This is my perspective about this problem...

I suggested that in psycho-acoustic science this OPPOSITION and war is meaningless completely...

I explained why using many articles but especially one by Magnasco and Oppenheim...

No one even commented it nor any subjectivist nor any objectivist...

it seems people prefer to attack ad hominem instead of thinking..

I dont need to read diploma series from someone to understand with who i spoke...😊

I use arguments...

I like to discuss in good faith...

Anybody can read my posts and articles to explain a simple fact : Qualities are informative and grounded in experience in the natural world ...Electrical measures are essential for gear design and useful to pair the gear components or help to tune a room...but electrical measures do not replace acoustic training nor musical training and dont make psycho-acoustic problems delusions from someone who dont trust ONLY  measures and  then allegedly need blind test to have the right to speak  ..

The ears/brain dont work like a Fourier computer...Period...

Sound sources are real and sound waves convey real qualitative information extracted from the sound sources by the non linear ears/brain in his time dependant domain...

Then objectivist and subjectivist division created by techno and gear market  obsession is preposterous and dont exist in psycho-acoustic science.. On the opposite the relation between the real qualities perceived by the Easrs/brain and the link to Fourier Maps and acoustic and physical invariant is at the center of this field...

Maybe if everyone activate the manners that I’m assuming all have been taught are an asset when dealing with others this would go better.

Otherwise there may be nothing more of value to see here.

«Usually men walk in a map in their head they dont even see the territory, science as well as religions are maps and walls to protect us from the unknown and from the territory , but tools so useful they can be are not ourself, as transhumanist want us to believe and want us to merge with them, we need free spiritual moral survivalist in the real wold" -- Anonymus anarchist

" i need my barrel to live in and my sun, stay off of it", say Diogenes to Alexander master of the world asking to him what he need in front of the Diogenes sun ...

«I need my ears»--Groucho marx 🤓

exactly what you did...

You treat me as an "idiot audiophiles" as some around you called them you are pathetic...

Instead of answering my REAL QUESTION IN PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC...

What was the impact of photons on my metabolism excretion ?😊 For sure there is one because of the photonic communication between cells but no doctor use this to explain metabolism basic... Do you catch ?

I dont sell cables with quantum properties...

Go ask one seller...

And for time paradox not elementary relativity i refer you to two interesting scientists..

You used this tactic to drawn the fish with me all the time during our discussion... I concluded about your bad faith or ignorance i cannot know ... Your last question illustrate it well..

The ears/brain mechanism is not a quantum physics matter , to understand it at basic level in psycho-acoustic we dont need quantum mechanics for that nor to explain basic cables working too... I am not specialized in cable physical studies either...

ANSWER Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment CONCLUSIONS and explain to me why they are wrong...Why not thinking ? instead of turning around the quantum mechanics pot or around your measures schematics about gear ..

 i thank you for your useful gear  measures, thank me for helping you to separate yourself from the techno babbling zealots around you with psycho-acoustic fundamentals in hearing theories..

Time dilation does not present a paradox. If you get on a spaceship and travel near speed of light for a month, you could arrive back on earth potentially hundreds of years later. Not only will any clock you carry with you verify this, but every fabric of your being will as well! This is a consequence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity where no experiment has managed to disprove it.

Therefore, a photon is simultaneously generated at big bang 13.8 billion years ago and dissipated now in your eye at the same time. This is what the laws of universe predict and isn’t subject to opinion calling it a paradox.

None of this was my question. My question which you did not answer, was what is the impact of this on fidelity of audio devices we use?

 

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

None i know of...And even if there is one, the basic of psycho-acoustic is not based on photonic...This is another level i am not at all able to adress nor you and unnecessary for the discussion about sound qualities perceptible value..

my audio system work only if Maxwell and Einstein are right and some other scientists so what ? What is the relation with psycho acoustic basic fact ?

Unable to answer my question in psycho-acoustic which is directly related you want to ridicule me with emgineering physics ?

Your electrical measures are necessary for design and useful as qualitative information about gear coupling etc... They cannot predict ALL aspect of audible qualities perceived by the ears/brain listening to a an audio system in this room with this ears or this other room etc ...

You can say this amplifier work well because the measures well demonstrate his linear well predictive working on some stress factors...Thts Ok.. This does not describe and means that ALL listening impressions will be ALL reducible to this set of measures...If not we must call them you claim it so , delusions or artefacts or illusions .. The reason why we hear what we hear are in psycho acoustic about the way human ears works First and last...Not in electrical engineering..

it seems finally that you are like the techno zealots around you... 😊

I will repeat it to be clear, the center and crucial matter in audio are first in acoustic and psycho acoustic not in the gear measuring... Even well and good gear design take his basic fact from psycho-acoustic ...Not the reverse... Psycho-acoustic can use tools and measures but it is to study human hearing... And human hearing is not first and last illusory, it is a relation to reality... it is studied as such in works around hearing impairment...You want to save face by drowning the fish: psycho acoustic explain audible qualities as real  not electric engineering by itself ..

Closing this thread is an error... this thread can inform everybody about his marketing  ways..... 

It is the only place where Amir debated with evident sign of ignorance because challenged seriously , ignorance about psycho-acoustic and ignorance of any solid arguments ... He drown the fish with his tools analysis reviews one after the other as ARGUMENTS... Subjectivity must be eliminated by blind test and never used in the design process... It is the opposite of craftmanship design based on psycho-acoustic ...

Anybody can read the arguments and see there is no serious understanding of psycho-acoustic behind Amir defense of his small set of tools... The measure he takes are useful to know but cannot predict audible musical qualities from the gear... The gear must be paired synergetically in an acoustic room and reviewed by experienced listeners and the designers himself...

Agree it is time to close this thread. Although, it does demonstrate a crystal clear difference between Audiogon and ASR. ASR would never have allowed a similar exchange.

A parting suggestion before this thread might disappear. Go back and carefully read recent posts from @kevn. Very thoughtful, reasoned and accurate analysis.

@mahgister

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

None i know of...

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

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

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

  A Simple answer is not  a SIMPLISTIC answer...

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

Now i will present  the Amir fallacy... 

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

Amir fallacy :

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

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

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

---For a software engineer now from wikipedia :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the Amir fallacy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did Choueri did  to implement these filters correctly ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok small set of electrical measure of dac amp and speakers overcome psycho-acoustic facts about the limits of electrical measures and hearing theory facts about the ears/brain ...

 Amir was not able to contradict even one point of my discourse about magnasco and Oppenheim  experiment... You dont read it prof ?

You are a great scientist prof no doubt... 😊

I’m not saying Amir is perfect or some objective Deity. I’m just observing the quality of the arguments here, and Amir is providing the higher quality arguments thus far.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

«For high fidelity sound i train my electrons»--Groucho Marx 🤓

«Are you trying to sell me a cable brother ?»😎

Dont close this thread... It will be useful for others to read ....

They at least will learn that there is many hearing theories not just one...

They will learn that it is not a small electrical set of measures that is the center of audio but psycho-acoustic...

They will learn About the results of Magnasco and Oppenheim captivating experiment...

they will learn something... There is not much to learn in many threads...

Some people hate Amir... This is stupid.... Amir is a market seller and very polite...

i learned a lot with this thread...

Am i the only one learning here ?

😊

it seems so....

those who learned something can manifest and say what they learn ...

No bullshit please...

It is an I. Q. test not a contest in hate...😉😊

Way more interesting than a blind test to know if a cymbal decay is good or not ...

A short dialogue from ASR... ( a cartoonish dialogue, a fiction not too much far from reality )

« ASR zealot : I dont know about the cymbal decay time and the brush rustle sound time envelope , i must use my tools to analyse the recording ...

---why dont you use your ears?

ASR zealot : i have nobody to supervise the blind test in a correct way... As you know the ears are dubious...

----How do you know if your analysis will reveal less about your audio system and more about the recording itself and what about if your system is not in a good room or if your system is not really so good ?

Are your tools able to gave you everything about all factors of transparency : the recording trade off ? the audio system parts ? the audio system synergy ? the audio system with no acoustic optimization ? or the same audio system in a well controlled acoustic room ?

you never use your ears first to differentiate all these factors?

ASR zealot : No need, a well behaved component measured for his linear behaviour is all there is to know... Hearing delude us in a way an oscilloscope cannot. i always listen to confirm my oscilloscope lecture.. My acuity is so good that i am always synchonized with it...

----I understand, but if the cymbal decay is not good , perhaps it is a bad file, or a bad recording technic which was used, or perhaps a bad component, or perhaps a bad synergy between them , or perhaps a bad room ? And perhaps your ears defect ?

ASR zealot : no problem i dont use my ears much because of their biases anyway...But i pass very hard to pass acuity test with success..

----And you will write a review with this recording anyway only if you are able to measure the amplifier or the speakers and use blind test with a few reviewers, is this so ?

ASR zealot : yes...

--- But suppose the recording engineer was not so good especially for the cymbal part even if the measured speakers or the measured amplifiers are measured as good with a linear behaviour what about the recording engineer fault for the cause of the lack in transparency...

ASR zealot : you dont understand the method... All audible qualities are illusory or subjective anyway, even transparency... What matter is the OBJECTIVE blind test results for our readers and the measured specs of the amplifier ...

--- Then you will go on with the amplifier review ?

ASR zealot : yes... transparency of the amplifier will be measured... not the recording technique..And the amplifier will be objectively measured and confirmed by blind test

---- Then the choice of the recording and of the room did not matter at the end ?

Asr zealot : what matter is objective measuring science... Room acoustic is a market superstition... Well measured speakers dont need a room, they will do well in any room ..

---- If even transparency is subjective as the end result , the only real objective factor is measuring tool ?

ASR zealot : yes...our role is to explain to each consumers they cannot trust any non verified by us gear component, they cannot trust their ears either...The measures is the objective level of transparency...

--- you are then the only hope to tame the audio jungle market ?

ASR zealot: this is why we exist... Law and order...

--- But psycho-acoustic experiment just demonstrated that the Fourier linear time independant mapping based models of hearing is wrong , the way our ears/brain work had no direct relation with our tools ?

ASR zealot : it is the reverse ,the experiment demonstrated that our ears cannot be trusted, i precisely stated to you that our ears cannot be trusted , even mine with top tested acuity, and this experiment by Oppenheim and Magnasco confirm it completely... The tool behave well linearly in a predictive way, the ears dont work in this way..

Only our set of linear tools verify each market component and can say something objective about sound quality... the ears works as a pair of uncontrolled horses ... our tools are the necessary blinders to tame and trained them in the right direction ... Our ears work bad non linearly as a bad impredictable circuit and dont obey science, mathematic is time independant unlike our poor hearing.. Psycho-acoustic study hearing only to replace it by A. I. which will be an improvement ...You dont seems to understand science ? You are a philosopher no ?

I am astounded by the amount of  prof take as good arguments...

Hearing theories and their link to the design practice ... No value for prof... Amir did not even adress that he called that "philosophy" when i spoke about it and when Van Maanen write about it he called that, leaflet of marketing with no value ...He does not even try to understand the content... Everybody can look for himself with the link above......

The difference between abstracts Fourier map of frequencies, amplitude and phase and duration compared to concrete subjective ears/brain evaluation in the time domain and non linearly extracted from natural sound sources... No value for prof parotting Amir here ...

The fact that it is psycho-acoustic research now that drive audio industry no more the basic traditional gear design from edison to the first tube amp and the first S.S. amplifier and the first modern microphones in the boom after the war , because the industry being mature now, the great innovation comes from dac psycho-acoustic technology improving and mature now, but also from the like of Choueri virtual room acoustic , using positively and not eliminating as Amir do the subjective ears/brain specificities ( HTRF measures and specific inner ears comb filters measures to increase the musical experience by the fine tuning of his BACCH filters application for each subjective listener using his subjective characteristic com-pletelt instead of rejecting them )

Choueri did the exact opposite of Amir, to increase the experience he used and measure each specific aspects of subject hearing DIFFERENT abilities and his room too and speakers... Amir reject all subjective ears/brain aspects as mere illusions or artefacts . he promoted only a small set of electrical measure as REAL FACTOR of sound qualities, except some room measures but he does not advise for small room acoustic (sic)... Is it not incredible ? All that has No value as argument for prof parotting Amir here...

The fact that even hearing impairment studies need experiments in a natural environment not just in a laboratory with Fourier maps around what is called ECOLOGICAL HEARING THEORY , this is no value for prof parotting Amir...

The fact that serious designer even here in Audiogon , not just Van Maanen, use harmonics ( distortion positive control) to ease the way the ears/brain perceive sound qualities , it is of no value for prof parotting Amir whose circle of zealots purist ignorant called that MARKETING for audiophiles (idiots) .. Incredible arrogance and educated stupidity...

The fact that any trained classical musician or acoustician , or mature lover of music as i am one, can judge an audio system by analysing rise and decay of piano notes , the rise and decay of cymbals ( a perfect SIGN for analysing the way the audio system work in time control because the concentric decay of a strucked cymbals increasing as a slow circle before vanishing is better than a Fourier map analysis and way more shorter to analyse ) the bass evaluation with turkish drum or gong , and the organ bassier note rendition , the rise of the higher note of the violin and his decay time etc, all that are IMMEDIATELY revelatory of an audio design better than few electrical measures from the linear Fourier window of a circuit behaviour, but it is of no value for Prof parotting Amir...

it is incredible the knowledge of prof and Amir...they are able to predict everything about audio qualities with few set of electrical measures... Indeed it is exactly what Amir sell to gullible consumers.. His method as catechism...

They know something , and they know better than me on many audio points for sure, but their misunderstanding of the BASIC psycho-acoustic theory and applications is stunning...

They really think that techno cultism is science and replace concrete listening experience and the only possible experiment is with the few tools of Amir...

Amir bragged about predicting cymbal harmonious decay or the timbre of a violin by measuring an amplifier and connecting it with speakers in a room with no acoustic...No doubt any acoustician can go to sleep now and any recording engineer too, any classical or jazz musicians, they dont know what transparency is, Amir know with his electrical tools...

i am astounded and dumbfounded... i had been unable to discuss anything here anybody can verify that Amir produce no argument against my essential point NONE ... Oppenheim and Magnasco experiment no value for prof at all, parotting Amir...

And prof say naively that he is even attacked on ASR by defending something about the hearing subjectivity...Incredible... imagine a naive designer audiophile how it will be treated ? i know because i read many pages of dialogue between an expert designer and some Amir groupies... this designer is more a saint that i am for sure...

it seems we can have a diploma at low price now...

In my time 1963, i studied latin and old greek english too ( but i did not pass my graduation in english 😊 and i struggle with Latin theme writing ) we learned anyway how to read any text and commented it at 13 years old... now it seems that education dont exist. only SPECIALIZATION with empty programmable students....

i say all that because i am stunned by this level of ignorance... i am not an engineer in audio ... And i am able to win easily an argument, so much high is the level of ignorance in techno cultism ...

Thanks...

I appreciated Kevn too... and your posts too...

one thing is sure for me, even if Amir is more a market seller than a scientist, he is a gentleman... then we must condemn hateful posts...

 As i said many times i welcome his measures... Not the zealots around him parotting his dogma for the worst...

I invite everyone to read Toole discussion and Dr Choueri discussion on ASR...

There is no competition between ASR and audiogon... To much different sites...

@texbychoice just read @kevn musings and I think you are right. Very well said. I have learned from @mahgister too, so I agree it would be a pity to close this. People needs to see who Amir is warts and all, and it certainly helped me identify my own biases.

@kevn you really write well and I love your meditation on audio

i am misunderstood completely by the two of you ..Sorry,...

I never called all ASR members zealots... Dr Choueri and Toole discussed there among others respectable people...I even invited people here to go and read there interesting discussions .. VERIFY...

i called zealots on ASR techno SOME babbling people, SOME  techno objectivist groupies, because there is some as there is also insulting idiots here, I see some zealots attacking an experienced designer on ASR because of their ignorant zeal they ACCUSED him of designing "distortion" full product to "golden ears"...Incredible arrogance and ignorance together...They are zealots there as there exist idiots here ...

I called "idiots" those who insulted Amir here REMEMBER ? They even invited me to shut down my discussion ...

Read my posts...

i submitted more than 12 articles by 4 physicists and one geologist... And one acoustician...

I debated Amir with very precise argument from the 3 articles by MaGNASCO and Oppenheim because my main argument was there...No answer from him about this article save a remark disparaging his content as a mere secondary uninteresting or meaningless acuity test ... VERIFY...

I THANKS Amir 16 or 17 times for his set of measures as more than welcome ..Some idiots dont liked that at all...

I did not accepted though his claim about predicting ANYTHING about audible qualities from a finite set of measures on the gear ... ( his concept of "transparency" testing and his transparency concept apply to software file not to acoustic listening experience with all interfering aspects from the recording to the room acoustic )

Confusing the lenght of my posts and my clumsiness in english syntax with my alleged ZEAL, when i was winning with deep argument over some zealots of ASR or some idiots here insulting Amir, calling me a zealot is PREPOSTEROUS:

I will repeat my criticism from the first post i put here on this thread till today

The audio market condioned people to buy gear and focus on gear component, they sell them by the specs they bragged for or by the "musicality" they bragged for, Anyway the division between "subjectivist" and "objectivist" has his roots there in this PAVLOVIAN CONDITIONINGof the attention ON THE GEAR PIECE...

The main and real focus in audio, the attention , the scientific aspect of audio must be centered on ACOUSTIC AND PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC science , there is no objectivist and no subjectivist in psycho-acoustic methods...There they take the HEARING SUBJECTIVITY SERIOUSLY , they studied it experimentaly to understand this deep mystery, they dont eliminate subjectivity systematically by blind test and they dont negate his power as delusions or artefacts or illusions even if there is for sure...In the opposite they used subjectivity power and they even proved it to exist..

There is no gear objectivist in psycho-acoustic because they MEASURE all aspect on the controlled environment and all aspects of hearing to understand and APPLIED it to new design or to help with hearing impairments in natural environment experiments..

Then i am not a zealot , a zealot means someone pertaining to an ideology, objectivist measuring ideology or subjectivist listening "naieveté"; my focus is in acoustic training and psycho-acoustic learning...

Then i dont like to be called "zealot" by mistake or misunderstanding...

Call my posts too long and bad written , this is a FACT... but try yourself in a better english to convey all these complexities and answers in short posts of a few line... It is IMPOSSIBLE...

So much frothing and veins popping out on foreheads! Mahgister, you win the prize my friend! Your outpourings are truly epic and everything I have come to expect from the golden-ear brigade. And you call an ASR member a zealot?

Lots of stones thrown in glasshouses all around.

calling a ASR member zealot is just plain stupid and counterproductive. They actually have their beliefs anchored to something, a foundation, vs no anchor at all of the “it is all in the ears” people, which isn’t even remotely factual. It is all in your brain, not your ears. But hey, facts never stopped the anti ASR crew before!

In my discussion with students for 40 years i discovered that lesser mind are unable to distinguish and separate the meaningful and meaningless aspects between two quarrelling side using historical and epistemological CONTEXTS to go on a subtle deeper and longer road OVER the two partial sides...

The great American polymath scientist, chemist, mathematician and logician and probably the greateast american philosopher, founder of pragmatism , Charles Sanders Peirce, say that Hell is binary and Heaven ternary; he founded alone modern semiotics with this joke about graphs and trees ... 😊