Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

I’m at a complete loss as to what the moderator is up to, they are even deleting pleas for civility. It seems like some of you on either side of this debate are having the same problem.

It’s only possible to answer specific claims. Vague broadsides are just that. You have to show how Erin or Amir measured incorrectly, or there’s nothing to discuss.

It’s very similar to the attitude I take towards cables etc., you have to show any difference exists in the first place before it is useful to discuss the character of the difference.

As for group pile-ons, I don't think one site has a lot on the other in that department.

I’ll close with my signature quotes from ASR, which are a good guideline to avoiding a pile-on over there.

• “Beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be guarded." - Philip Tetlock
• "Scientifically improbable claims require scientifically impeccable evidence" - Me.
• ”We have been drawing attention….to the absolute necessity to separate the quantitative judgement of audio from the qualitative judgement by removing loudness as a bias. It has been ignored, and the audiophile business carries on its own merry way. Those who work in sound professionally know that this is lesson 1 semester 1 in audiology: the very core of the science. So we have given up trying to educate on this point, as every audio engineer has eventually done over the last half century, as the usual audiophile has an emotional need which cannot be reached by logic, reasoning and science.” - Alan Shaw

Amazing to see this thread still going.

If Amir is worthless or a charlatan as some here claim, why are you bothering to read and post about him? Are you trying to protect people from him? Are you St. George slaying the dragon? Or, perhaps you have too much time on your hands and this is the best you can come up with for amusement?

My voice would be completely lost on the Internet if people didn't see value in my work and didn't talk about it.  And continue to support the activity by sending me huge volume of audio gear to test. 

Pretty much nails it. I'm not an active participant on ASR, but for pete's sake, the notion they are all zealots following a cult leader...come on. This is not the 118th Congress!

Even something as basic as tuning an instrument by a skilled musician can sound better than just adjusting the strings (or tube length) to a set and measured frequency. Something about the feel of the instrument in a master’s hands that is superior to measurements.

Indeed, piano tuning is a bit of an art, as you have to set the temperance intervals slightly out of tune deliberately, and it will be slightly different for every piano.  Tuning it like open guitar strings with a tuner would sound horrendous.  But all of that is still just physics, and measurable. Pianos are musical instruments, not music reproduction.

Audio recording reproduction is related for sure to the gear design...But it is relative to the room acoustic potentials too...

We can use this analogy between piano and tuning though , because a small specific room coupled to specific speakers and gear is not a perfectly designed DSP system as in Dr. Choueri perfect design compared to it... The gear coupled to the room is like an imperfect out of tune instrument... It resemble an instrument to be tuned for the ears pleasure, because the different distribution of the pressure zones of the room are like the cord of a piano must be controlled and acted upon to compensate for the gear limitations and the owner hearing limitations using measures and listenings to improve it or "tuned" it ... Small room acoustic is not Great Hall acoustic, different acoustic architecture completely because of the difference in reverberation time positive and negative part among other things...

The acoustician , or here the improvised acoustician, the room’s owner, may and can tune it like a piano tuner tune a piano indeed ... Imperfect results are not bad results if they astonishingly improve the experience at no cost...

Electronical Reproduction of a recording and small room acoustic translation are two different things..

They fuse together in the revolutionary design of BACCH filters system for example in a virtual room processing technology...It will be my ONLY upgrade one day...

But when i was alone in my room i tuned it, as imperfctly it may be at the end , it was astonishing for my ears, and with them... With succees FOR ME and for my experience AT NO COST ... And i learned a lot in the process...

Audio is about psycho-acoustic first and last, not about the gear market nor it is about the welcome falsification of the market claims by Amir , so useful it can be and it is...

But before anyone draws an analogy to audio reproduction, pianos are instruments, not reproduction.:)

@mahgister i prefer to make everything as accurate as possible in the reproduction chain and THEN EQ (or BACCH, as you’ve mentioned a dozen times) to taste. If your electronics are adding fixed EQ or distortion, if your speakers aren’t flat with even dispersion you are in the circle of confusion. Certainly we can season at the end, but if you don’t start with fidelity to the original, you are nowhere, and varying masters will cause no end of trouble.

I’ve not heard BACCH. I do use convolution filters I created from REW (something I learned at ASR!). They make a huge difference, especially if you start in the right place. You can’t solve for poor dispersion with EQ. You can’t correct distortions, or FR varying with weird loads in the electronics.