Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Posting the same things over and over ad-nauseum is not facts. Answering my question about what Amir's tests do that is wrong, why it is wrong, and very important how wrong it is would be a fact. My comment about the testing bandwidth used for audio and the testing frequencies and times for the hearing test has factual underpinning.  

That human hearing must respond to a threat quickly but audio tests equipment can take it's jolly old time doing analysis is also a fact.

I guessed that Radar probably uses non-linear processing. Look at that it does.

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

Here is another question for you. Armed with your knowledge of how human hearing using non linear processing (experiment done at low frequency), exactly what is wrong with the stereo equipment that is being developing and importantly how wrong is it?

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

I am not in anger at all...

I discussed about a very precise point...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what did you want ?

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

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

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

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

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

@mapman ,

For the truth to lie in the middle they would need to be answering the same question 😀.  Quite obviously they are not.

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

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

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

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

From post one till today...

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

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

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

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

Where is the point of disaccord ?

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

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

I can only speak for myself but the problem at hand for most here on this thread I think is how to best choose what to buy. Measurements are very useful for that. Explaining why human hearing is so complex is totally useless towards that end. It is useful to understand how human hearing works to help better understand why we hear what we do. But these are two totally different use cases. What is of value always depends on context. So there really should be no debate. Two totally different sets of information used for two different but related purposes. Best to understand it all but no point in arguing one versus the other. One topic at a time please!