@soundfield 

And flat FR is sometimes boring.

Virtually useless and perhaps harmful for deciding which sounds better.

As a speaker maker, what do you have to say about this?  Is CEA-2034 frequency response measurements "virtually useless" and "perhaps harmful" in determining the fidelity of the speaker?  

@soundfield

He must be talking about an amplifier or DAC.

Nope.  I presented him two speaker frequency response measurements and asked him if he gets nothing out of them and that was his answer.  Here is the post again (cant get the link, it is just a few posts above yours):

@ossicle2brain 

And just to repeat, Amir has made me realize how little measurements actually matter. 

[amir] So you are saying that you learn nothing from measurements of these two speakers?

Only if you promise to be one of the everyone.

Why?  Set up the test.  Show the people here that they can't tell the difference between high res and CD as you like to claim.

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.

What the audiologist does is exactly that: whether a signal can be detected under the conditions of the test.  They even play noise and then a tone to see if you can hear one over the other.  Seems like you have neither taken an audiologist test, nor an ABX.

As to multiple trials, that is exactly what I showed.  Each row represents a randomization of the samples and you are asked the question again:

Difference between 24/96 kHz and 16/44.1 with file provided by the late ArnyK:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/24 20:27:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling amir-converted 4416 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

20:27:41 : Test started.
20:28:07 : 00/01 100.0%
20:28:25 : 00/02 100.0%
20:28:55 : 01/03 87.5%
20:29:02 : 02/04 68.8%
20:29:12 : 03/05 50.0%
20:29:20 : 04/06 34.4%
20:29:27 : 05/07 22.7%
20:29:36 : 06/08 14.5%
20:29:44 : 07/09 9.0%
20:29:55 : 08/10 5.5%
20:30:00 : 09/11 3.3%
20:30:07 : 10/12 1.9%
20:30:16 : 11/13 1.1%
20:30:22 : 12/14 0.6%
20:30:29 : 13/15 0.4%
20:30:36 : 14/16 0.2%
20:30:41 : 15/17 0.1%
20:30:53 : 16/18 0.1%
20:31:03 : 17/19 0.0%
20:31:07 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 17/19 (0.0%)

0.0% probably of chance.

Above, the test was repeated 19 times and I got 17 right making the probability that I was guessing less than 0.0%.

As to multiple listeners, that is if we want to establish detection thresholds for a population.  In the case of a personal challenge, if  you pass a test like above, it is a significant factor that calls for standing up and paying attention.  This is orthogonal to what an ABX test is.

So no, there is no confusion here.  @kevn said he passed the test of high-res vs CD but provided no evidence whatsoever.  And the test that he said he did run, is not about high-res vs CD.  For my part, I took whatever challenges were common at the time and ran the in a proper program to see if I could tell the difference.  

Have you taken an ABX test and if so, can you post the outcome of any?

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.

Meaning what exactly?  When someone here says DAC A sounds great and DAC B sounds like crap, how is that not a claim made under his test conditions?  Heck, you don't even know his test conditions.  At least with ABX tests, we have a protocol and way of documenting the results as I have been showing.

If you are saying someone can create a test where you can't tell the difference even if an audible difference exists, that is a truism.  This is why we have specification such as ITU BS1116 on what a proper test is. 

The issue is that audiophiles as a whole are terrible as a group in detecting small differences.  This is why @soundfield is so confident that anyone saying or even showing the result of passing such tests must be lying or cheating. 

As I have explained, we have a responsibility to create a proper test and give listeners every chance to pass a test, not work hard to make sure they don't.  Before you say ABX tests make it hard, well, I am showing you that I can pass them.  So that is not a valid excuse if you are really hearing what you are claiming.

Really, audiophiles routinely claim that making a tweak to their system makes a night and day difference.  So much so that the wife in the kitchen hears it as well.  If so, it should be walk in the part to pass the same in ABX test.  If you can't with identical stimulus do that, then you need to learn why your sighted test was faulty.  Don't go looking for problems in such a blind test.

@soundfield 

Umm, over your right shoulder, in background

I see where you got confused.  Almost all of the ASR video content has the analyzer in the background.  None of these tests were run during that video.  Every test I have been showing predate my youtube channel by 5 or more years (see the dates in ABX tests and the ones for videos).  In the video, I am just showing the results, not running them then.  This should have been quite obvious.

As such, your claim that I had an analyzer running at the same time of the ABX testing is totally false.  

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.

This is a bunch of nebulous claims. I don’t know what you have seen. What was hard about it. Or how it generated worst results than sighted.

Such claims have been examined. For example audiophiles claim they need long term testing vs short. Clark led such a study for his local audiophile group by creating a black box that generated X amount of distortion. Audiophiles took these home but could not hear the distortion. Yet, another group with an ABX box and quick switching, not only detected that difference but eve a lower one! See my digest of that paper here.

AES Paper Digest: Sensitivity and Reliability of ABX Blind Testing

The second of the tests consisted of ten battery powered black boxes, five of which had the distortion circuit and five of which did not. The sealed boxes appeared identical and were built to golden ear standards with gold connectors, silver solder and buss-bar bypass wiring. Precautions were taken to prevent accidental or casual identification of the distortion by using the on/off switch or by letting the battery run down. The boxes were handed out in a double-blind manner to at least 16 members of each group with instructions to patch them into the tape loop of their home preamplifier for as long as they needed to decide whether the box was neutral or not. This was an attempt to duplicate the long-term listening evaluation favored by golden ears.

This was the outcome:

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

See how I provide specifics to back what I say? Why do you think mere claims should be sufficient otherwise?

@soundfield 

Umm, where did I claim that? 

Well, pardon me.  Do tell: can an audiophile tell the difference between high-res and CD with identical masters?

Yeah @amir_asr your posted results for the listening test are meaningless and unverifiable. No way to know you did that unless it was proctored like @soundfield says 

There is a proctor: it is called a computer.  In comparing files, a computer program randomizes trials, keeps the results and summarizes and reports them at the end. 

As to verification, I showed you video where I explain precisely how I passed the test and how you too -- assuming you have critical listening abilities -- can do the same.  

Furthermore, newer versions of the ABX comparator has a cryptographic hash which makes it impossible to doctor the results:

foo_abx 2.0 beta 4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.5
2014-12-09 14:24:40

File A: 30 Hz jitter strong level .025.flac
SHA1: 54719c17fd29d0546b79f50bd7e3c61de1dd025d
File B: no jitter.flac
SHA1: 262cd6c4d4c73502a0142f867b00aae013fd13ce

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver

14:24:40 : Test started.
14:25:00 : 01/01
14:25:06 : 02/02
14:25:16 : 03/03
14:25:21 : 04/04
14:25:27 : 05/05
14:25:34 : 06/06
14:25:39 : 07/07
14:25:45 : 08/08
14:25:51 : 09/09
14:25:56 : 10/10
14:25:56 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

-- signature --
ba16bda939028d34d8b131283f9d46709dab36f9

You run the above result against a signature check program and it will give thumbs up/down as to whether the results are hand modified.

So no, you have many ways to build confidence on such results and I have given you reasons above.

Ultimately though, if we are going to doubt each other's ethics, then we can't go anywhere.  I could accuse you of being AJ for example. You could jump up and down 1000 times and I can still say you are him.  What are you going to do then?  Accept that you could be AJ?

If these results can be gamed so easily, why don't you, AJ or whoever show us that?  If you can't, then you don't know how they can be games and therefore, all you have is FUD, not facts.

@amir_asr Yes I am AJ. How did you know?

It was pretty easy.  You use the same letters of alphabet when writing.

Ok, so you confirm those are indeed signal analyzers, Oscilloscopes etc that could theoretically real time analyze and identify signals, visibly. Cool.

What theory?  Two files that are presented as 24 bit/96 kHz while in reality one has a true dynamic range of 16 bits, can NOT be analyzed with any tool I have.  A smart signal processing person made sure of that.

BTW, a digital scope has at best 12 bits of resolution (most are 8 bits).  Yet you think that can be used to detect high-res music at 24 bits vs 16 bit audio?

So no, you don't get to waive your hands and claim this and that.  Learn the real theory, and the capabilities of the measurement devices, and then we can at least have a conversation. 

Bottom line: no analyzer of any sort was used in any of my testing.  You don't have any evidence to the contrary other than your incredulity that someone like me could pass such tests.  Well, tough.  I did pass them and I explain the science and signal processing of each. 

Save that crap for your own site. Please. 

I am here in a thread specifically addressing who and what we are at ASR.  Lots of misinformation is posted by members that are easily refuted.  So I refute.  :)  

If I ever want to be exposed to that kind of abusive snobishness, I will be sure to visit.

I tolerate an inordinate amount of abusive snobbishness in this thread.  Doesn't bother me none as long as we get to the truth of who and what we are at ASR.  

Where amir presents measurements clinically and without bias, well and good.
a service.

That’s what my reviews are like on ASR. They are heavy on data and few words in between translating what the data says. I used to not say anything about recommending or not recommending a device but members strongly asked for that so I put it in there. But I also have a poll for members to vote to agree or disagree.

Further, every review is a discussion thread allowing people to again, agree or disagree, express their likes and dislikes (product or my review), and importantly add a lot of knowledge of information on their own.

How that can be "abusive" when it is exactly what you are asking, is a mystery to be solved.

@mahgister 

About this matterc the two most influential philosopher of the last century are Merleau_Ponty, and the mathematician turned philosopher Husserl... 

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?

@mahgister

I will also treat you as you treat me, i know how to liquidated your paradox

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?

@ossicle2brain 

I heard that Amir had a chart that compared the relative value of measurements based on type of audio product.   So that things like cables and DACS could be 100% judged by measurements and with things like speakers that % was less.

This is selling us way too short.  No device is strictly evaluated based on measurements alone.  We always start with the underpinning science and engineering. 

There is a company that sells you a box filled with dirt and a wire that you connect to the chassis of your audio gear and claims it improves the sound (and has real testimonials from people claiming the same).  We know, a priori that what he claims is impossible.  What earth, the real one does, cannot be emulated using a small box with dirt in it.  The guy who built it was a farmer which kind of makes sense why his went where it did.  But simple engineering says he is dead wrong.

Now, classic objectivists will stop here.  Here is an example of the most well known engineering talent online, Dave Jones on matters of audiophiles and their ideas:

https://youtu.be/m7ERMu825m4

So we could just stop there and call it done.  But such engineering explanation is not going to make sense to audiophiles as they are not technical and so will dismiss it out of hand.  Indeed, this is why objectivists failed to make headway for literally decades.

What we at ASR do is go above and beyond.  We measure.  We measure the signal coming out of your gear and see if using a different cable changes this.  Usually we find not a hair has changed in the output of the audio device.  In some cases we actually find things have gotten worse with the fancier items such as a cable!  Or Power "regenerator" (which didn't really regenerate).  

When still doubted, we play music and capture that with generic and fancy cable.  We then show the difference electronically and even offer the files for people to listen to:

Now the case gets incredibly convincing.  Now the person will understand and accept the electronic explanation of why said cable couldn't have made the difference in the first place.  The measurements and null test then are the icing on the cake and proof points for the non-technical.

In that sense, you are providing an extreme disservice to your fellow audiophiles to keep talking about us just measuring.  Your fellow audiophiles are not dumb as that implies.  They are learning the story end to end.  I know because I watch them explain it to others.

Back to cables, they are the most innocent things in your audio system.  They have higher fidelity than any piece of electronics and by a mile.  That audiphiles based on lay intuition and incorrect listening tests have arrived at a different point of view is again, easily proven using electronics circuit theory.  

So yes, once we measure something like a cable, then the story is told.  We have theory, engineering knowledge and now concrete, objective data to prove the same.  And we even offer listening tests with real music.  But the latter is not really necessary.  I just provide it to get past the objection of "well, you didn't test wiht music."  OK, we did and the outcome was precisely as we said it would be.

So reduces us to just measuring at your own peril.  We are about knowledge and true understanding of what makes your audio devices tick, and what doesn't.  If that is scary and uncomfortable to know, I get it. You don't have to come to ASR.  But please don't keep repeating the same fallacious tag line as if I am not here to correct you.  That my friend, makes no logical sense.

@mahgister 

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

You keep complaining but not answering my simple and brief question.  What is the impact of a photon of light not experiencing time has on performance of our audio system?  Does this have an answer or not?

@soundfield

That serves only as a misdirection. You are claiming/showing a purported successful test. By you.

Nope.  You lost the plot there.  Dear member @kevn made this comment I was responding to:

Fifth, he is unable to tell apart music files of low and high resolution, and based on this lack of ability, determines that measurements in performance testing is all that is needed to determine what is heard, and what is not.

He says I am unable to tell such files apart and by implication, he can.  Can he AJ?  Are his claims correct that he can hear such differences and if you can't, that will be a sign of resentment on your part?

You wanted in this conversation.  There you are.  What is the answer or must we ask it 10 times and only get non-answers?

Hey @amir_asr are you going to reply to soundfield? Pretty amazing how you switch your entire ethos. 

Seems like you want in this conversation as well.  Do you think it is possible for an audiophile to hear the difference between high-res and CD?

@cleeds

But you’re not an objectivist, you’re a measurementalist.

Is that what you call your doctor?  Because he measures?  Or do you rely on his knowledge and experience and the fact that he uses measurements as a tool to aid in his diagnosis?  

That’s how you can sweep aside any empirical evidence

What evidence?  I posted results of double blind listening tests.  You don't even dare to run a listening test without your eyes involved. It is an insult to the word "evidence" to call that such.

Really, all the complaining in the world is not going to change the fact that your fellow audiophiles are finding a path to knowledge of audio systems on ASR.  We are not perfect but we do try to stick to what is provable, not what is imagined.

@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.

@soundfield

Hmmm, so the Great Amir can't measure it, but can hear it. My my, that sure sounds audiophile myth familiar doesn't it? Coming from the Great one??

Don't play game of Calvinball.  You claimed the measurement gear behind me in new videos I produce can tell you the difference between files in blind tests.  I explained to you that those devices are not capable of detecting such things as bit depths in music files. 

That was your claim and it is falsified by the fact that you can't show any of these devices to do what you said "in theory" they can do.  They can't do that in theory or otherwise.

Remember, we are talking about analyzing music here, not equipment.  Analyzing music can be quite non-trivial depending on what you are searching for.  Simple thing like dynamic range of music cannot be determined from any commercial software.  Or even accurately using custom software.  We can make a statistical analysis but exact answer would be hard or impossible.

@cleeds

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.

Misdirection and projection. I am the only one posting results of listening tests here where only my ears are involved.  Do you have some or not?

@cleeds

It's been shown how your listening "tests" and your claims about them are more than a bit suspect. 

Nothing whatsoever has been "shown."  I grabbed the files as presented by creators of those tests, put them in foobar2000 abx plug in which is the gold standard for such tests, and i reported on the results. That a person is so incredulous as to a) claim impossibility and b) I must have cheated is just nonsense.

Once more, I have not only passed these tests, but show how.  I explain my qualifications in my abilities here (e.g. knowledge of what to look for and formal training to hear small impairments) in my video.

All you have to counter this is just a claim where the claimant can't even make a correct technical point. He thinks a digital scope with ADC resolution of 8 bits can tell two music files apart that are dynamically changing??  You might as well believe in alien abduction while you are it.

@cleeds

 And it’s how you can just positively know how something will sound, without ever having gone to the trouble of actually listening to it.

Same way we know you can't breathe oxygen on the moon.  It is called science and engineering.  Again, your doctor doesn't have to become sick like you to diagnose what is wrong with you.  As I explained to you in my response, we analyze audio performance using many factors. Measurements are tools.  Conclusions are based on far more than that.

That is on top of the fact that I listen to a ton of new products I review.  I do more listening tests in a month than audiophiles do in their entire lifetime.  You know this to be a fact yet you keep repeating otherwise.  From my review of Neumann KH120 II just a couple of days ago:

"Neumann KH120 MKII Listening Tests
Going into this review, I expected to focus on tonality as I always do with my female reference/test tracks. But what I immediately noticed was the warmth of the bass out of this little speaker! Even on a track that doesn't show case this, there was nicely present low frequency response. And it wasn't just the ears that detected it. Low notes were accompanied by cool puffs of air landing on my nose! This was at 1+ meter/4 feet which again, is impressive for such a small speaker."

I went through the "trouble" of listening to it, right?  And this is on ASR. 

I understand that. But what is the confidence level of measurements by audio product type. On ASR there was such estimates. What are they are now?

That is a comment I made in passing which is being misunderstood by you and even some reviewers (Darko comes to mind). The point I was making that in some cases like speakers and especially headphones, correlation of measurements with listening preference while strong, is not conclusive. I said that speaker measurements can on the average, in my opinion, predict listener preference 70 to 80% (something like that). And that for headphones it can sink even lower to say, 60 or 70%. Those are about the ratios I see in my own comparisons of speaker/headphone measurements to my listening tests.

For electronics I said the measurements rise to 100%. When I measure for example a wire from many vectors and find that it is identical, not close, but identical to another cable, then that is that. There is no room left for doubt like there is in speaker/headphone measurements. We know the operation of these devices and when measurements confirm what we know, the job is done. Really done.

Now, maybe the one in a million happens and someone comes forward with a controlled listening test shows that while measurements as I perform are identical, the two items sound different to statistical significance. If so, and we can confirm and repeat that experiment, this will be major news. This, as you well know, has not happened. This is very different than speakers where we can see that the measurement predictions while correlated, don’t explain everyone’s preference.

Net, net, if I review a headphone and i say it measures poorly, and colors the sound like it should be and you come out and say no, you love the sound, you won’t get an argument from me. Or anyone else on ASR. You may get told that you like colored sound but that is it. Heck, I sometimes say I like a headphone or speaker that doesn’t measure great.

But, if I comprehensively show that a power cable doesn’t do anything for the waveform coming out of your audio gear, and explain why, then we are finished. Measurements helped prove what we know from engineering and science.

You know some nuance, grey area and a little humility that maybe all these measurements are limited in what they can say about how a product will sound.  

Do you want me to lie to as you buy humility?  Fact is that my instrumentation and suite of measurements are at levels way beyond human ability.  The right criticism is that we find problems that are not audible to people.  To which I say fine.  If you are going to buy something though, and I find a product that is cheaper while being more performant, why not consider that?

What I am not going to do is to tell people, 'everything we know about audio engineering combined with measurements show this device to be transparent to the source.  But.... if you want to think it still "has a sound," you go right ahead.'  That makes no sense.  You don't want me the one to be misleading you.  Heaven knows the industry is doing that en masse.  

By now it should be clear that pleasing a few people who keep complaining and complaining is not a goal. If folks want to get bent out of shape over my testing, so be it.  They need to think though why, without exception, the people who send me such gear are happier to know the information, than not. This is the power of what we are doing at ASR.  The yearn for knowledge is that strong among huge swath of audiophiles we serve.

@mahgister 

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..

How do you know what they intended?  You don't even know who that is, or what they heard or experienced.  So any argument on that basis is moot.

The only thing you have in your hand is the recording.  That is our "big bang."  Everything past that is unseeable.  Such is the world of audio without standards.

Fortunately, when put in a controlled test where only the ear is involved, most of us agree on what good sound is when listening to a number of speakers.  We compare them to each other and realize which one sounds more "real" to us, even though we have no real concept of well, real. 

So even in something as fuzzy as speakers and human perception, we have a way to select equipment that is performant based on real research.  You know, the type that actually tests to see what speaker we like, not what a research paper says when testing humans with special tones.  

The only rational strategy is to build a neutral system that can be provably so.  Then modify it to tase using equalization.  It is not complicated.  You want to please your ears?  Do it right.

Sticking wood blocks under your speaker cables won't do it.  Thinking a power condition lowers the noise floor when it doesn't, won't do it.  Thinking a more expensive DAC sounds great while a cheap one being "crap" won't do it.  None of this is based on realties of engineering that goes into operation of your audio gear.

@raysmtb1 

Don’t change a thing a Amir! I got back into audio as a hobby for years ago and could not believe the things that I saw. $4000 audio cables crazy magic rocks, little dots that you stick to your wall. 

Thank you for the kind words.  It means a lot to me.  And yes, the dots from synergistic "research" are up there.  One of the devices supposedly radiates things in the air that makes the sound better.  They have a remote for it. He will only do forward switching.  Ask him to go back and you get non answers.

I must say though, Ted puts together one of the best sounding systems at these audio shows. I covered their room back in 2017 Axpona:

I enjoy visiting his suite to discover reference tracks and enjoy some good tunes.  

I think that is when I found this lovely track by Willie Nelson and Johny Cash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fdCuRKatjs&t=13s

Did I hear Amir say that photons have "consciousness." Would this also apply to electrons?"

Electrons are like us: they have mass (so can't achieve speed of light).  Ergo, they must have feelings too!!!  :D

So I'm just wondering if you would hazard a guess as to how well measurements will determine how the different audio product categories will actually sound to people.  How much they like them.  

No need to guess. I can fully predict what they will like in blind testing given the measurements and my knowledge of audio engineering and science.  With their eyes wide open, anything goes but in general, the more expensive, the fancier and the more talked about the gear, they more they will like it.

Can the moderator please close this thread or ban Amir or preferably both. Amir is using this thread to direct traffic to and advertise his site, things for which he has thrown off others from his own site. I am tired of his arrogance, insults and rudeness.

Should said banning and deletion of this thread occur, let me express my extreme gratitude to the moderators/site owners for allowing me to comment this far.  For this, I will forever be grateful.  They have gone above and beyond in making this forum hospitable for me despite like above.

Sincerely,

Amir

Above I am talking about non acoustic products.

@amir_asr @amir_asr @amir_asr Why then do you not give that same courtesy and hospitality to Erin?

I did.  Massively so. We helped him create his channel by giving him access to huge number of visitors.  I even helped him get his Klippel system up and running and calibrate his measurements against a speaker I had tested.  Once he got rolling this is how he finished his reviews:

Support / Contribute
If you like what you see here and want to help me keep it going, please consider donating via the PayPal Contribute button located below. Donations help me pay for new items to test, hardware, miscellaneous items and costs of the site’s server space and bandwidth. All of which I otherwise pay out of pocket. So, if you can help chip in a few bucks, know that it is very much appreciated.
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/contribute

You can also join my Facebook and YouTube pages if you would like to follow along with updates.

A single post like that will get you banned on any forum, audio or otherwise.   It didn't on ASR but we did warn him repeatedly that he should not do this.  But he continued in various ways to pull traffic from us his site/channel with advertising, etc. 

Eventually this came to a head, and he was banned.  Alas, after he got his painful divorce, I unbanned him and he remains so as I type this.  Members constantly link to and post his reviews/website.  There is no more "courtesy" to be had to offer him.

There are no parallels between the above and my posting here.  I am not creating new threads and posting links and pleading with money as Erin was doing.  The membership here decided to create a thread specifically discussing ASR.  Accusations are made against me/ASR which are disputed with factual quoting from ASR.  Links to ASR are not commercialized with sponsored links, advertising, etc.  

Knock on wood, ASR is larger than audiogon unlike the hugely reversed situation with Erin.  So while he badly needed us to get started and collect money, we are in no such situation.  

@mahgister 

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 ...

As I have repeated explained, speakers have been tested using countless controlled listening tests.  Measurements were then made that correlate with the preferences of those listeners.  Whatever listening abilities those humans had, came into account in this research.  You said you read Dr. Toole's book so you should know all of this. 

With other gear, when we test humans, they routinely can't replicate their sighted claims of fidelity in blind tests.  Therefore, there is little that is real that needs to be investigated.  If anything, I am your champion as evidenced by me showing that small impairments can be heard.  You need to come to my defense when I post such data, not continue to complain.  :)