It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
"I don't trust any subjective review that is not grounded on measurements."
This says it all about your mindset. And all one needs to know about your site. You should put this in bold letters on the home page.
Your subjective review is worthless since you have predetermined how it SHOULD sound based on some numbers. You've guaranteed to have a biased opinion. It's worse than any placebo effect from the appearance of the speaker. Good experiment in psycoacoustics though.
As far as the LRS, no one needs the numbers to know the sub bass isn't there or that they are beamy. Anyone that has ever heard them knows that. They heard it.
So to reiterate.... Measurements are next to useless to determine how a certain HI FI product sounds. They can actually mislead and knowing measurements beforehand guarantees the placebo effect which might help cheap DACs sound "better".
Believe or not, there are folk here who have extensive experience and are not just shopping with their eyes and attracted to the highest price anything.
Ah the self-serving "experience" bit. That much abused word. This is how such experienced listeners as audio reviewers did in test speakers;
You want to explain to me why Audio Reviewers were producing such unreliable listening test results when evaluating speakers in a blind test? That they could not repeat their own outcome when comparing speakers? Experience didn't help them. Nor did it help audio retailers and marketing/sales.
Proper "experience" was in the form of trained listeners. They followed the proper path to get trained and their skill was proven in such tests.
So please, don't use these cliches with me. The whole purpose of my post was that I know what you speak of. Experience....
@amir_asr You have said that you have been insulted here by myself and others, yet you have the temerity to post what you just did about the experience level of all audiophiles. You put all of the group into one basket, that of being clumsy and ignorant consumers..and therefore easy marks. Not ok in my books.
What did you get insulted by and who says "ALL" audiophiles are alike? Countless audiophiles are on ASR following and believing in audio science and engineering.
I am talking about people we both know that change a screw in an AC outlet and say another veil was lifted from the sound. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. We would only know if he did a simple blind test of that. He didn't and observing that doesn't make what I said an insult.
Once again, JA makes it clear its a nearfield measurement without correction, it's up to the viewer to read his speaker measurements section.
He doesn't make it clear. Most people will have no idea what I quoted means. They see a graph and run home thinking the designer screwed up.
NFS is a great tool, but certainly not mandatory for knowledgeable designers.
Go and ask Ascend. Since purchasing NFS, post my measurements of their speaker with the same showing serious issues, their design has been hugely transformed. They can get full 3-D radiation of a speaker in 3 hours and iterate on the design on daily basis. In contrast, garage show operations like yours will make a crude gated measurement or two and call it the day.
Yes, if you spend the time and energy as you linked to in ASR link, you can get proper measurements. But that is not what JA is doing. And certainly not what you are doing on daily basis.
So yes, what else is new. Garage shop operation sells speakers for $15,000 but works hard to say a) you don't need to see any measurements of said speakers and b) incorrect measurements claimed to be correct.
@amir_asr You have said that you have been insulted here by myself and others, yet you have the temerity to post what you just did about the experience level of all audiophiles. You put all of the group into one basket, that of being clumsy and ignorant consumers..and therefore easy marks. Not ok in my books.
Believe or not, there are folk here who have extensive experience and are not just shopping with their eyes and attracted to the highest price anything.
After several tests, the designer then made a conscious decision to let it be, since it sounded much better in its original untamed state after extensive listening tests. This is what many of us mean by "listen first and then measure". Putting more emphasis on listening and what sounds best as a means to an end, rather than making graph lines flat.
Oh I perfectly know what you mean. Before starting Audio Science Review, I co-founded a forum specifically focused on high-end audio. Folks there spend more on audio tweaks than most of you spend on your entire system there! That is where @daveyfand I met. So there is nothing you need to tell me about audiophile behaviors this way. I know it.
Here is the problem: there is no proof point that the assertion of said designer is true. You say he did "extensive listening tests." I guarantee that you have no idea what that testing was let alone that it was extensive. What music was used? What power level? What speakers? How many listeners? What is the qualifications of the designer when it comes to hearing impairments?
Story is told and believed. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not. After all, if he saw a significant measurement error, logic says the odds of it sounding good is low. After all, why else would you tell that story? If the odds are low, then we better have a documented, controlled test that shows that. Not just something told.
BTW, the worse person you want to trust in these things is the person with a vested interest. I don't mean this in a derogatory way. Designer just want to defend their designs and be right. So we best not put our eggs in that basket and ask for proof.
I post this story from Dr. Sean Olive before but seems I have to repeat it. When he arrived from National Research Council to Harman (Revel, JBL, etc.), he was surprised at the strong resistance of both engineering and marketing people at the company:
To my surprise, this mandate met rather strong opposition from some of the more entrenched marketing, sales and engineering staff who felt that, as trained audio professionals, they were immune from the influence of sighted biases.
[...]
The mean loudspeaker ratings and 95% confidence intervals are plotted in Figure 1 for both sighted and blind tests. The sighted tests produced a significant increase in preference ratings for the larger, more expensive loudspeakers G and D. (note: G and D were identical loudspeakers except with different cross-overs, voiced ostensibly for differences in German and Northern European tastes, respectively. The negligible perceptual differences between loudspeakers G and D found in this test resulted in the creation of a single loudspeaker SKU for all of Europe, and the demise of an engineer who specialized in the lost art of German speaker voicing).
You see the problem with improper listening tests and engineer opinions of such products?
These people shun science so much that they never test their hypothesis of what sounds good. Not once they put themselves in a proper listening test. Because if they did, they would sober up and quick! Such was the case with me...
When I was at the height of my listening acuity at Microsoft and could tell that you flushed your toilet two states away :), my signal processing manager asked me if I would evaluate their latest encoder with their latest tuning. I told him it would be faster if he gave me those tuning parameters and I would optimize them with listening and give him the numbers.
I did that after a couple of weeks of testing. The numbers were floating point (had fractions) and I found it necessary to go way deep, optimizing them to half a dozen decimal places. I gave him the numbers and he expressed surprise telling me they don't use the fractions in the algorithm! That made me angry as I could hear the difference even when changing 0.001. I told him the difference was quite audible and I could not believe he couldn't hear them.
This was all in email and next thing I know he sent me a link to two sets of encoded music files and asked me which sounded better. I quickly detected one was clearly better and matched my observations above. I told him in no uncertain terms that one set was better. Here is the problem: he told me the files were identical!
I could not believe it. So I listened again and the audible difference was there clear as a day. So I perform a binary test only to find that the files were identical. Sigh. I resigned my unofficial position as the encoder tuner. :)
This is why I plead with you all to test your listening experiences in proper test. Your designer could have easily done that. He could have built two versions of that amp, matched their levels and performed AB tests on a number of audiophiles blind. Then, if the outcome was that the less well measuring amp was superior, I would join him to defend it!
Sorry, no. JA's measurements assume you flush mount the speaker in an infinite wall. No stand alone speaker is used that way. As such, his measurements overexaggerate the bass energy. JA states the same: "The usual excess of upper-bass energy due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes that the radiators are mounted on a true infinite baffle, ie, one that extends indefinitely in both horizontal and vertical planes, is absent."
Once again, JA makes it clear its a nearfield measurement without correction, it's up to the viewer to read his speaker measurements section. And you to read your own website where long time speaker designers explain.
There is no way for you to predict where a speaker is located in a room as to provide any diffraction loss compensation.
That's because you don't know what baffle diffraction loss is, it's based purely on the size/shape of the baffle, relative to wavelengths, not "location in room".
And again, ultimately, correction/EQ below transition must be made based IN ROOM, not anechoic. The nearfield and/or anechoic is of limited use other than to compare speaker vs speaker in terms of extension. EQ will be needed regardless of how measurement is presented.
JA's measurements are fine and often done in situ, unlike yours, Genelec, Neumann, PSB, Revel, etc.
He's not bringing an NFS to his reviewers home. His quasi-anechoic on/off axis >300hz or so and nearfield below, along with in room (mostly) are suffice. Claiming that he needs an NFS is petty. Voecks also did just fine for your Salon 2s without.
NFS is a great tool, but certainly not mandatory for knowledgeable designers.
@mahgister your points are valid to state. I’m not as savvy on audio science. I admit that. I also admit that science is really important with audio gear. Just as it is with medicine and improving peoples vision for example.
My analogy isn’t scientific but is based in fact. You cannot strip out the subjectivity of audio.
No one is trying to take out the subjectivity from audio. The entire science of speaker and headphone testing relies on it extensively. Problem with using the ear in evaluating things is that it can be difficult to do it properly. So what to do? Give up and let any and all anecdotes rule the world? No. We research and find out what measurements correlate with listening results. Once there we use the measurements because they are reliable, repeatable and not subject to bias.
If there is doubt about measurements, we always welcome listening tests. We only ask that they be proper: levels matched and ears be the only senses uses.
Just like you can’t do it with food or anything to do with taste. You can’t measure taste. You can’t quantify it but it is there.
Per above, many times we can quantify it. The entire field of psychoacoustics is about that: *measuring* human hearing perception. You just need to do properly as I keep saying it. Food research is done that way with blind tests. There are no controversies there. But somehow audio is special.
Audiophiles hugely underestimate the impact of confounding elements in audio evaluation. Reminds of some research that was done in Wine tasting. Tasters were given two identical wines but told one cost $10 and another $90. Here is the outcome:
"For example, wine 2 was presented as the $90 wine (its actual retail price) and also as the $10 wine. When the subjects were told the wine cost $90 a bottle, they loved it; at $10 a bottle, not so much. In a follow-up experiment, the subjects again tasted all five wine samples, but without any price information; this time, they rated the cheapest wine as their most preferred."
See how strongly price comes into the equation here and how removing that aspect in a controlled test was the key to arriving at the truth of what tasted better?
They go on to say:
"Previous marketing studies have shown that it is possible to change people's reports of how good an experience is by changing their beliefs about the experience. For example, says Rangel, moviegoers will report liking a movie more when they hear beforehand how good it is. "Our study goes beyond that to show that the neural encoding of the quality of an experience is actually modulated by a variable such as price, which most people believe is correlated with experienced pleasantness," he says."
As you see, we are wired this way to pollute our observation with what we think in advance of such tests. It reasons then that if we want to know the truth about audio performance, that all these other factors are eliminated. Otherwise we would be judging the price, etc. and not the sound.
Of course without going to school for a day, marketing and engineers alike in audio have learned the above. They know that all they have to do is have a good story and high price and sale is made. No need for any stinking controlled test proving anything. Just say it, folks get preconditioned, and you are done.
The point on which i disgree with Amir is not his measures set usefulness, is exclusively about extending a set of measures as synonymous with sound perceived qualities because...
And you don't care, no matter how many times I have stated it, that the above is NOT my position. :(
Measurements tell you if a system is deviating from perfection in the form of noise and distortion and neutral tonality. This, we want to know because they are opposite of what high fidelity is about. We want transparency to what is delivered on the recording.
When measurements show excess noise and distortion, that is that. The system has those things and if they rise to point of audibility, you hear them. Best to get a system that minimizes that so you don't have to become an expert in psychoacoustics to predict audibility.
Your argument needs to be that given two perfectly measuring system, one will sound better the other. To which I say fine, show it in an ears only, controlled listening test. Don't tell me what a designer thinks will happen. Just show it with a listening test.
You say the ears are the only thing that can judge musicality but when I ask you for such testing, you don't have one and instead you quote words for me or what is wrong with measurement. We want evidence of the hypothesis you have. Not repeated statement of the hypothesis.
BTW, if such a controlled test did materialize, it would be trivial to create a measurement to show the difference. We will then know what it is that is observed. When you don't have anything to show from what was tested, what music was used, what listeners observed reliably, etc. there is nothing there to analyze.
Petty BS, JA makes clear its a nearfield response and that's exactly what is shown. Your measurements show the anechoic response with baffle diffraction loss aka step. BOTH methods show only approximate output depth extension, NEITHER can predict the actual in room LF response, which will dominate.
Sorry, no. JA's measurements assume you flush mount the speaker in an infinite wall. No stand alone speaker is used that way. As such, his measurements overexaggerate the bass energy. JA states the same:
"The usual excess of upper-bass energy due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes that the radiators are mounted on a true infinite baffle, ie, one that extends indefinitely in both horizontal and vertical planes, is absent."
There is no way for you to predict where a speaker is located in a room as to provide any diffraction loss compensation. This is why CEA/CTA-2034 standard calls for full anechoic response of bass, not a near field one with above stipulation. And that is what I, Genelec, Neumann, PSB, Revel, etc. all do.
Once you put a speaker in a room, the response will radically change in bass. For that reason, the job is not done when you get a well measuring speaker. You need to measure and correct for response errors. But you don't want to start with faulty measurements thinking a speaker designer didn't know how to design flat response and put that hump in there as seen in Stereophile measurements.
I hear you wanting the crude near-field measurement to be right as to then enable you to post them and say, "see, I have them." But you don't since your speakers are not flush mounted on infinite walls.
BTW, Klippel NFS has capability to measure in-wall speakers with that assumption. It will get rid of baffle diffraction and back wall reflections. Here is an example with the speaker mounted in small baffle:
And here are the computational analysis of error components:
You can see how Klippel NFS I use has properly computed the radiation from back of the speaker ("acoustic shortcut") and subtracted it out because in real use you would not hear it. Diffraction losses from the edges of my baffle are also found and subtracted. The system is also self-checking allowing you observe its accuracy.
Bottom line, Klippel NFS is a $100,000 system designed to solve these problems and give you a true picture of the radiation pattern of a speaker independent of where or how it is measured.
BTW I read the posts on asr forum regarding Ohm Walsh speakers. Interesting comments from users there but frankly one will learn a lot more about those RIGHT HERE than there. At least so far. Maybe Amir will put those to the test someday. Not that it matters. Many Ohm users out there from over many years that are happy and they know it. Not sure what else they need to know really.
I never contested the usefulness of measures or of others opinions with or without measures...
Measures set are useful information and we all welcome them ( if we have a brain able to read them for what they are) ...
The point on which i disgree with Amir is not his measures set usefulness, is exclusively about extending a set of measures as synonymous with sound perceived qualities because this set of measures is ANYWAY limited and based on an uncomplete hearing theory : the Fourier frequencies based theory... ...
This time i go by myself...
My best to you mapman
I have a little Fosi integrated Amp in one of my setups that I have posted about here in that it cost a pittance and turned out to be a huge overperformer driving my older kef ls50s very well which is not a trivial task. I have had some highly touted much costlier amps fail miserably at that in the past. I saw a review of a Fosi amp on asr site. Amir measured it and gave it a thumbs up. So we both agreed at least about Fosi amps in general. No minds changed
I have a little Fosi integrated Amp in one of my setups that I have posted about here in that it cost a pittance and turned out to be a huge overperformer driving my older kef ls50s very well which is not a trivial task. I have had some highly touted much costlier amps fail miserably at that in the past. I saw a review of a Fosi amp on asr site. Amir measured it and gave it a thumbs up. So we both agreed at least about Fosi amps in general. No minds changed
I appreciate everyone especially those with who i disagree if they are respectufull...Because i am able to learn from them...
The irony is i disagree with Amir And i agree with some point that some idiot make but are not able to articulate...This idiot ask me to shut up and go, unable to realize that i am on the same side as him : listening cannot EXACTLY correspond with measures..
If it was the case it will be a solution for the central problem in psycho-acoustic..
It is not the case now in this science .. Amir dont know it...He pretend he know it...
Also I gotta admit that as a technical person myself nonsensical or merely extravagant claims with nothing but bravado and marketing hype bug the heck out of me. Happens here all the time. As long as people are civil I accept it as their right and take it for what it’s worth. But it does bug the heck out of me because I do care about the technical details. Tolerance is a good thing. Those with total confidence in their convictions won’t fear the opinions of others. I do get that! But hey again nobody is perfect and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. FBOFW.
It’s always a good idea to have unbiased sources confirm scientific or technical findings. Data presented by just one guy may not be accurate for many reasons. So take it with a grain of salt FWIW.
Here you use against me an argument that miss the point i made in my posts and reveal that you did not have understood them..
The point i made with the ecological theory of hearing, which is a real theory of hearing, not something i invented for this debate, the point this theory make is precisely what you just said and this theory is based on what you just said without explaing it in the precise hearing/measures scientific context ... But you dont explain why your point is right,, the ecological hearing theory, begiinning with Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment precisely do it, and i explain why this is so here in my long posts..
Then i NEVER oppose to your Analogy, an anology is not an argument... All my posts if you had read them EXPLAIN why your analogy is CORRECT... Then why not reading my posts ?
Yes they are too long, but these posts were not HERE for all to read, i WAS DISCUSSING AND CORRECTING AMIR faulty theory about his measures and the relation with hearing theory...I discussed with Amir disagreeing with him... Nobody here is in the obligation to read my posts TO AMIR... And no idiot can order me to stop and go...
Those who did not understand the discussion goal ask me to stop and go ...
@mahgisteryour points are valid to state. I’m not as savvy on audio science. I admit that. I also admit that science is really important with audio gear. Just as it is with medicine and improving peoples vision for example.
My analogy isn’t scientific but is based in fact. You cannot strip out the subjectivity of audio. Just like you can’t do it with food or anything to do with taste. You can’t measure taste. You can’t quantify it but it is there. And in some cases it doesn’t translate from culture to culture. One dish might be revered in some culture and detested in another. The environment the experience and the way the food is prepared all matters. Same goes for audio. It doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
@somethingsomethingaudiono doubt style does matter when dealing with others. A little humbleness can go a long way. Same for having a sense of humor.
I am a senior level engineer myself and work with obsessed technical people like Amir all the time. Everyone is different though. Respect for others is a must in the corporate world because it’s typically a team effort that results in success. But the really good technical people often develop oversized egos to go along with it that can be a hindrance. But the smart ones learn over time and get it. In the end it’s the results that matter most. If one works for oneself it’s less of an issue as long as the results are there. You can do as you please as long as the results are there.
@mahgisteryour points are valid to state. I’m not as savvy on audio science. I admit that. I also admit that science is really important with audio gear. Just as it is with medicine and improving peoples vision for example.
My analogy isn’t scientific but is based in fact. You cannot strip out the subjectivity of audio. Just like you can’t do it with food or anything to do with taste. You can’t measure taste. You can’t quantify it but it is there. And in some cases it doesn’t translate from culture to culture. One dish might be revered in some culture and detested in another. The environment the experience and the way the food is prepared all matters. Same goes for audio. It doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
@amir_asrWell, measurements show why it is not perfect. For measurements to fail, would have been if it didn’t show that!
I was following a scope readout by a tube amp designer recently who was acknowledging a "non-perfect" sign wave existed in the last design iteration. The top left corner of the sign wave was lively, less than perfect in terms of uniformity, yet reportedly sounded really good, alive and well, when the amp circuit was left as-is. Letting it be or hammering it into submission was the next case study to tune and listen more. This is where things get to be a LOT more interesting to me.
This designer mentioned when taming those little sign wave spikes (aka flare), now making it a more uninformed and perfect sign wave, all of the sudden the amp sounded "dead", no longer alive or enjoyable any more, bleh. After several tests, the designer then made a conscious decision to let it be, since it sounded much better in its original untamed state after extensive listening tests. This is what many of us mean by "listen first and then measure". Putting more emphasis on listening and what sounds best as a means to an end, rather than making graph lines flat.
Some of the popular mid woofer speaker drivers I’ve used from Scanspeak are this way, measuring less than perfect, yet they are alive and musical as-is when left alone - "less tamed" if that’s a description that resonates with a few members here. With tests showing a bit of less-than-perfect jagged flare on the graphs in the upper midrange frequency range on the last drivers I used - most electrical engineers would beat it back into submission with an overly controlling crossover. Some look at this flare as noise, distortion, needing correction. That’s one point of view, not all.
Once again, in my own self made speakers later discovered leaving the drivers as it was designed resulted in a captivating and engaging sound - left in less than perfect form. Sometimes what is perfect to an electrical measurement engineer is not always perfect music to others ears. Most of the audio systems I enjoy listening to do not measure perfectly at all - fwiw. The absolute best measuring dac I’ve ever owned was one of the worst to listen to. Sounding "dead", or boring being a great description.
Unfortunately a debate that won’t be solved on this tread it seems.
@mapman No one is putting down his hard work. What isn’t okay to is to point the finger and say hey you’re wrong I’m right. He does it in a condescending, rude, and yes sometimes uninformed way. We’re all human here, I think. Amir cherry picks people to attack and remove from his website if they don’t agree or bow down to him. How is that objectivity in the name of science?!
Fortunately Amir doesn’t run this forum and can’t play the almighty. There is no way this discussion could take place on his ASR. Isn’t that interesting? I would’ve been banned already.
The fact that my posts were clumsy stylistically and too long is not the crux of the matter at all in this debate...
@mahgister calling everyone idiots isn’t helping get people to listen to your repeated long winded exclamations. You aren’t listening to why people are tuning you out.
First i respect you and never call you a name because you are RATIONAL... This must be clear..I called idiots the one who ask me to shut and go... You are not one...Then putting in my mouth the false fact that i called everyone idiots is a claim i dont like... You can apologize...
Second i answered your last post because you say that you can RATIONNALLY argue SUCCESSFULLY agaisnt Amir position..And put him in a corner where he will only be able to babble only ad hominem attacks with no more a rational argument .. I did it...
Third i ask you on what basis you arguments will be better than mine ?
Now you say :
I already explained with my donut analogy. You can look at and test food for composition all you want but taste will always be subjective. And tasting food is the whole reason it’s made. We don’t make donuts to watch them and study them.
Then basically your ANALOGY is only that an analogy... It is USELESS to argue against Amir with ONLY this analogy...
In my too long posts, i used10 articles and i appeal to the logical epistemological FACT that no MEASUREMENTS tools can be read in acoustic OUT OF A CONTEXT : a hearing theory...
i put Amir in a corner because save by ad hominem attack against Van Maanen, and childish simplification of the result of Oppenheim and Magnasco experiment and without adressing their CONCLUSION and the MEANING of this experiment in the context of hearing theory , he could not logically sustain the idea that his measurements can PREDICT qualitative perceptions from the human hearing as described in the ecological hearing theory which anyway encompass the Fourier hearing theory and correct it...
And you think that my long posts explaining this complex subject with Amir and criticizing Amir is useless and your Analogy is enough to put him in a corner ?😊
Thanks for not asking me to shut up and go cas the idiots who ask for it ... Your analogy is not an argument and Amir will live well with it... But he cannot OPPOSE any argument against ecological hearing theory and he cannot oppose any argument to Magnasco and Oppenhein analysis of human hyperacuity and his meanings for understanding the power and limits of linear Fourier measures set in psycho-acoustic...
Why do you think my posts were long ? No one can resume a complex matter and arguments in few words and analogy... I dont harass people... I think... Some others harass people here and they ORDER me to go...
If you think anyone can repeat shortly a one line analogy and win a debate ...You are naive...
it is not AN ARGUMENT...It is a only that an analogy Amir will smile at, he will not babble without words save ad hominem arguments with a mere analogy ...
By the way my style can appear rude sometimes by me i APOLOGIZE when i am wrong... i Stay polite... But i dont accept to be bully by idiots.. You are not one for anybody who read my post correctly...
@amir_asr wondering if there are products you like to listen to that didn’t measure well? Does what you actually enjoy listening to always correlate to good metrics?
BTW thanks for spending some time here. I know it can be a tough crowd sometimes. Your site is very impressive and indicates a lot of time and hard work spent trying to put some real parameters around products that people might actually be able to afford. I think that is a valuable service and wish more people did it. You seem to have a lot of dedication to what you do which is admirable. I suspect many truly interested in learning appreciate what you do. FBOFW. Nobody is perfect but striving for excellence is something that should be valued not put down.
BTW I also appreciate your focus on issues discussed. No personal attacks. That makes a world of difference in regards to adding value.
@mahgistercalling everyone idiots isn’t helping get people to listen to your repeated long winded exclamations. You aren’t listening to why people are tuning you out.
I already explained with my donut analogy. You can look at and test food for composition all you want but taste will always be subjective. And tasting food is the whole reason it’s made. We don’t make donuts to watch them and study them.
Would that be because Kevin had access to world class anechoic chambers?
Right, NOT an NFS. Ditto for Andrew Jones, etc,, etc, etc.
We all did fine before NFSs, every speaker designed before a few years ago and since. Including Amirs own Revel Salon 2s. NOT designed/measured with NFS.
Then do it and we will see if Amir will be put in a corner by ARGUMENTS ..
let the donuts wait..
A demonstration as i did ask for ARGUMENTS, no ad hominem attacks even if the ad hominem attacks may be true THEY COUNT FOR NOTHING ... And to be successful the rational attack must be IMPOSSIBLE to be answered RATIONNAlly.. then Amir will be put in a corner... Case closed..
I did it by appealing to HEARING THEORIES...But idiots dont know how to read and ask me to stop and go away..
I can demonstrate how he is wrong. Again I go back to food. Namely donuts. Let’s say all donuts that are perceived as good follow a basic recipe and ratio of ingredients. This can be verified by a scientific test in a lab. One place sells donuts that don’t follow that tried and true recipe but everyone flocks to buy some. That to me is what audio is like. I actually believe a lot of what Amir is saying but you can’t test food without the eating and enjoyment. There will always be a subjective component to reviewing restaurants if we want to go with the food analogy.
Initially I liked Amir and found the website good. All of my interactions with him were pleasant. But now I see a lot more of his personality and how if he doesn’t agree with a line of discussion he shuts it down. Then people get mad and leave or he turns off the spigot of information because his feelings got hurt. Then he claims he doesn’t care when he does. Talk about subjective!
The big brains who ask me to stop talking disagreeing with the weak and unsustainable arguments of Amir about the Maggies and why he measured and how he measured , the big brains who answer Amir by ad hominem attack against him ( true or not i dont give a damn about ad hominem attacks in a deep conversation ) DID NOT ANSWERED HIM AT ALL ON THE CRUX OF THE MATTER AND FROM PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC and ARE UNABLE TO DO anything save hating in short posts😊... You like them enjoy them..
My posts are perhaps long and not well written but at least i argued about the essentials and Amir did not ANSWER well on that and he could not...
Any measures in audio answer questions in the context of some hearing theory... PERIOD...
Enjoy the empty arguing of the empty harassing brains... I do not...
They cannot read a two pages aerticles and understanding it...
They believe so idiots they are that my discussion putting Amir in a corner did bad service to audiophiles.. Their insults for sure do great and better services to audiophiles in their childish minds...
Not one of them is able to answer Amir save to say a childish non motivated answer OR A PERSONAL ATTACK ; we listen we dont measure THEY SAID... then why and how ? they cannot answer that save to say they will buy an upgrade... Consumerism idiocy replace arguments..
Amir is wrong on what he claim about listenings but at least he is polite...
i am fed up by idiots...Not by Amir... I can demonstrate why he is wrong... Idiots cannot..
«The mathematical demonstration about why some people are stupid fail miserably🤓 »--Groucho Marx
«But the schematic depiction of stupidity motives succeeded greatly»--Chico Marx 😎
«Is not because the mathematical theory of stupidity dont work, but an ecological theory of stupidity work well ?---Harpo Marx 🧐
«You know what i means»--Yogi Berra
Enjoy, the 50 pages book is free and shortened here:
I know for a fact for every hater on here actually typing some lame no body cares type of stuff towards Amir or ASR are outnumbered by 100:1 via the silent no name passerby’s.
Silent "no name" here that respectively disagrees with your declaration. Amir is a big boy and literally asked for it by dropping in here to post.It's his choice. I believe most audiophiles with at least a few years under their belts simply want reliable components that reproduce what they personally feel real music sounds like. So what if the measurements aren't pristine? I have nothing negative to say about Amir.I just don't believe an audiophile would reject a well made component that fit into their system and sounded spectacular because Amir gave it a thumbs down.
More petty egomania BS. JA needs a NFS as much as Kevin Voecks did when he designed your Salon 2s.
Would that be because Kevin had access to world class anechoic chambers?
Three-dimensional modeling, 4-pi anechoic chambers, and laser inteferometry were but a few of the industrial marvels revealed in early March to a group of Stereophile and Stereophile Guide to Home Theater scribes. ... Stereophile in 2000
@yodogyodog, "All of you who are hating, it is clear he is doing something right if you guys are hating."
JA is fully aware of it but doesn’t apply a correction leaving you guessing as to what the response really is. Fortunately sometimes he say this in the review.
Petty BS, JA makes clear its a nearfield response and that's exactly what is shown. Your measurements show the anechoic response with baffle diffraction loss aka step. BOTH methods show only approximate output depth extension, NEITHER can predict the actual in room LF response, which will dominate.
He badly needs the same system I have but he is not going to get the funding from his subjectivist heavy owners and editors.
More petty egomania BS. JA needs a NFS as much as Kevin Voecks did when he designed your Salon 2s. Or JJ when he made his current speakers at Immersion. Folks with far more knowledge about loudspeaker design/measurements than you have, managed just fine without NFS's. That egomania thing again.
Additionally, I have noticed that whenever JA measures a large floor standing model, like a panel or other design, he always mentions that this is a factor in his results....I would suspect this is something that Amir might want to remember.
I don’t need to because my measurement system (Klippel NFS) doesn’t care. JA is performing manual measurements of speakers outside so size of the speaker is a major barrier for him.
Note that JA’s measurement method exaggerates bass response due to use of near-field measurements (it assumes the baffle is infinitely wide which obviously it is not). If you look, he always shows a hump there. Here is the Perlisten S7t measruement:
See that hump between 80 and 300 Hz? It is a measurement error (some or all of it). Its exact frequency and shape varies with speaker size/design.
Here is the Wilson Sasha W/P:
See the hump around 80 Hz?
Monitor Audio:
JA is fully aware of it but doesn’t apply a correction leaving you guessing as to what the response really is. Fortunately sometimes he say this in the review.
He badly needs the same system I have but he is not going to get the funding from his subjectivist heavy owners and editors.
FYI I have measured 300 speakers now and my work gets scrutinized by manufactures down to a dB at times! So please be careful in making accusations of lack of knowledge on my part. It is unkind and wrong.
Maggies have their fans and their detractors. One thing about them is they are always a good option for the price asked, IMO. The LRS are meant to be their entry level model, and as such they are priced accordingly. I doubt one could find a speaker at the same price level that would hands down beat them across the board. Do some things better, sure, but not everything. Plus, it should be pretty obvious to anyone who has been in this hobby for any length of time at all, that they will not reproduce bass well. Amir states this is a fault of the speaker, well sure it is, but there are options to address the issue..called sub woofers. Additionally, I have noticed that whenever JA measures a large floor standing model, like a panel or other design, he always mentions that this is a factor in his results....I would suspect this is something that Amir might want to remember.
@amir_asrbetween this and the 5128 conversation on ASR you sound like an elitest out of touch petulant child. Now I see what @soundfieldis saying. If you have family or hobbies outside of this there is no way you’re tending to it. You seem consumed and unhappy with the narrative. You can’t play god here and it’s driving you mad. Seriously take a walk. Get a massage. You are only bound to get more curmudgeonly from here.
Your target audience is not Galen’s market anyways.
What is that target? The ones that don't need any evidence from the manufacturer that said cable costing 10X more makes a difference in sound coming out of your gear?
And again, you measured the speakers first and THEN listened?
Putting the cart before the horse and insuring your measurement philosophy bias.
Nope. I don't trust any subjective review that is not grounded on measurements. They would be expressing random views in totally uncontrolled situation. I don't see my role as being yet another subjective reviewer to give you such an opinion. You can get that from myriad of other sources.
I listen for a specific purpose: to verify what measurements show as far as audibility. Measurements may show a dip between 1 to 3 kHz. How audible is that? I put in a reverse filter to compensate. Then I perform AB tests, blind if needed and assess that. Many times I find that measurements are correct in that regard. That the sound does get better. Such was the case with Magnepan LRS. Sometimes the correction doesn't help in which case I remark that in the review and search for explanation.
A bonus outcome of the above is that you get a set of filters anyone can apply to the same speaker. When doing so they can opine if the sound got better, or not. This feedback is frequently shared and in many cases it is positive. Indeed many people send me speakers/headphones just so that I create such a filter for it!
The above has worked so effectively that I now give dual review ratings for headphones: one as is and one with EQ correction:
Rating on the left says "fair." Rating on the right says "superb." Here are the listening test results post measurement:
Audeze LCD-X Headphone Listening Tests and Equalization
The sound out of box is quite boring and bland. So equalization tool came right out:
I used dual filters to try to better shape the low frequency boost as it has a complex shape. I then used another pair to fill in the hole in 3 to 5 kHz. The final filter in yellow at 5.8 kHz is just a "stopper." I use a bit of negative gain to make sure there is no boost at that point and farther in frequency response. It helped keep the headphone from sounding too bright post EQ.
Once there, these headphones were a delight to listen to. The sound is now light and airy with really good spatial qualities. Dynamic ability is excellent letting you listen at any level with no hint of distortion. The sound is so nice that a day later, I am listening to them as I type this review.
[...]
I am happy to strongly recommend the Audeze LCD-X 2021 revision with equalization. Without it, it is a pass for me.
See how methodical the process is? It is not just a word salad with a bunch of unrelated talk about this and that album I used to listen with.
I explain all of this in one of my videos and proof points of why the type of subjective reviewing you ask for generates totally unreliable results:
Amir, I don't care how you make your money. I for one do think you do it for the intellectual challenge and a sense of being honest and logical. For good, not evil. :)
That being said...
This is a highly specialized speaker that has poor general purpose. People fall in love with its spatial qualities due to dipole design and tall image it provides. So not surprised you speak as if it is perfect. But perfect it is not. Not remotely so.
I never said the LRS was perfect. It IS a perfect example of where measurements fail.
And again, you measured the speakers first and THEN listened?
Putting the cart before the horse and insuring your measurement philosophy bias.
So not only are measurements next to useless to determine how things sound but going by your biased limited view of a great speaker based on measurements could actually turn curious audiophiles away from a wonderful SOUNDING speaker.
So in fact, rather than doing a service here, you are doing a disservice.
And it’s amazing how I spoke all this truth without any impressive looking charts.
And now I’m left wondering even about cables........the one simple? thing that might make sense.
@amir_asr How much money do you make from donations to your site or donations you request on every review you post? Interesting you leave that out. You won’t answer because you don’t monetize anything and you don’t need money living in a multimillion dollar waterfront home.
given our massive traffic and number of products I review.
So why do you spend practically your entire valuable time posting here? Instead of your own site which you own in full with practically saint like features 🤦♂️
‘Help me understand what’s happening on this thread…
A couple of days ago a company offered me money to get their gear tested sooner and I told them NO!
You are so nice. Like I said, a saint 🥰
Go ahead and spam this forum with sponsored links and see how long you last.
What do you mean? You have lasted here way too long with your propaganda, promoting your own site. Nobody is kicking you out from promoting another sales site (albeit disguised as “science”)
Edit: As I said earlier, I don’t begrudge anyone making money as long as they are honest with their audience (or in Amir’s case, honest with themselves). Amir will say he makes a comment on all his reviews that his company sells Revel and that’s all the disclaimer he needs. I agree. But he chastises every single other reviewer who does essentially the same (i.e., advertising, YouTube monetization, affiliate links which are labeled clearly, etc).
This is wrong on multiple fronts:
1. I don't chastise youtubers for making money. I am an avid viewer of youtube product reviews which without exception are monetized multiple ways as you state.
2. I never put any link or other information for people to buy any product from me or my company. I don't even say what my company does unless asked.
3. Every review immediately starts with the source of the product: member loan, my own purchase or company. Almost no other audio reviewer I know does this.
4. ASR has incredible potential for monetization given our massive traffic and number of products I review. But I will not go there. I don't need the money and certainly don't need to have it cloud the transparency of the reviews.
A couple of days ago a company offered me money to get their gear tested sooner and I told them NO!
5. As a policy and core principle, we will NOT allow our people to try to monetize our traffic/membership for their own interest. This is a universal rule that is heavily enforced by other forums. We are actually more lenient to a fault here. Go ahead and spam this forum with sponsored links and see how long you last.
Bottom line, you are completely out of line with your comparison.
Edit: As I said earlier, I don’t begrudge anyone making money as long as they are honest with their audience (or in Amir’s case, honest with themselves). Amir will say he makes a comment on all his reviews that his company sells Revel and that’s all the disclaimer he needs. I agree. But he chastises every single other reviewer who does essentially the same (i.e., advertising, YouTube monetization, affiliate links which are labeled clearly, etc).
This is wrong on multiple fronts:
1. I don't chastise youtubers for making money. I am an avid viewer of youtube product reviews which without exception are monetized multiple ways as you state.
2. I never put any link or other information for people to buy any product from me or my company. I don't even say what my company does unless asked.
3. Every review immediately starts with the source of the product: member loan, my own purchase or company. Almost no other audio reviewer I know does this.
4. ASR has incredible potential for monetization given our massive traffic and number of products I review. But I will not go there. I don't need the money and certainly don't need to have it cloud the transparency of the reviews.
A couple of days ago a company offered me money to get their gear tested sooner and I told them NO!
5. As a policy and core principle, we will NOT allow our people to try to monetize our traffic/membership for their own interest. This is a universal rule that is heavily enforced by other forums. We are actually more lenient to a fault here. Go ahead and spam this forum with sponsored links and see how long you last.
Bottom line, you are completely out of line with your comparison.
Galen was extremely nice to you. I am not that nice. I would just ignore you if I were him. Your target audience is not Galen’s market anyways. But he was still nice to you.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
