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.
Again so useful his falsification about the gear marker can be and are welcome, his bashing of the way humans hears and listen, for the prevalence of his TOOL ANALYSIS as prescription is false and wrong..
Please cut out this "bashing" business. I have not gone after anyone personally other than speaker salesman here who wants to prove there is no audible difference in anything. For the rest of you, I comment on technical points you raise. Me answering you is not "bashing." It is a technical counter with facts, measurement and science of audio. Please don't personalize this discussion this way.
You never bashed , i confused and conflated your polite discussion with me here with some people of ASR...I am wrong here...
I apologize sincerely to you ...
I just answered someone else in a bad mood a post above and this is not an excuse but i was irritate...Not about you......
I dont want to personnalize the discussion too...You are perhaps wrong in my opinion but your are a gentleman...
I thank you for your time and politeness...
As i said i welcome your information thread, not your theory of hearing, audio qualities, and opinon about listenings and design ...
We can differ and be friendly...
By the way i must thank you very much ... I learned a lot discussing with you opposing your points... Really...
Please cut out this "bashing" business. I have not gone after anyone personally other than speaker salesman here who wants to prove there is no audible difference in anything. For the rest of you, I comment on technical points you raise. Me answering you is not "bashing." It is a technical counter with facts, measurement and science of audio. Please don’t personalize this discussion this way.
Please cut out this "bashing" business. I have not gone after anyone personally other than speaker salesman here ...
Well, there you go again, another ad hominem logical fallacy, also known as a "personal attack." Of course, you reserve such attacks only for special persons that you alone designate.
Amir did not read neither Oppenheim and Magnasco, nor Hans Van Maanen...
Nonsense. I read Maanen paper and comment about it when you first post it. I explained to you that he made up an electronic circuit that has hysteresis and then showed a couple of rudimentary simulation that says there is a memory effect. I explained to you that he did not:
1. Show that same in any real amplifier circuit
2. There are no controlled listening tests in the paper saying any of that is real or matters with real products and listeners.
I have shown how incredibly using Fourier transform is because we are able to then perform psychoacoustic analysis of impairments in audio. There is nothing whatsoever in that paper to invalidate this analysis which is the standard in research into audibility of distortions and noise.
Heck, there is not even a single fourier transform in the paper you post! He is only showing you time domain clipping/highly non-linear behavior of a made up circuit which does not exist in an amplifier.
A fourier tranform would have shown huge non-linearities in the circuit he is simulating showing how it is butchering the signal. And whether that would be audible or not.
Bottom line, in no way or shape this backs your claims that fourier analysis of audio signals is a bad or wrong thing. Nothing remotely like that.
If we believe ( and I have no idea if you do) that all appreciation of SQ is subjective; IOW one person’s appreciation of the sound of a stand up bass is another’s definition of a cello, then we have to come to the conclusion that what sounds great to one, is not necessarily the case to another.
Again, in your hypothesis you said everyone said that speaker produced the real sound including me. So what you say above is not consistent with that.
Fortunately, it appears that most of us are surprisingly similar in our preferences when tested blind, i.e. when we don't know what we are looking at. There, when presented with sound coming out of a handful of speakers, we agree with each other to a high degree in what makes good sound. This is independent of any group we belong to. From Harman research into this very topic in an extensive project:
Notice how the speaker in light green was voted as poor sounding by every class of listeners from reviewers to trained listeners.
This is a very fortunate thing. It means that sound reproduction is not wild west. That many of us will like a speaker that is neutral sounding. That too much highs or lows bothers us similarly.
I have tested and listened to nearly 300 speakers now. Regardless of who makes it, when a speaker is neutral, it puts a huge smile on my face! It just sounds right.
Above is the only hope we have of standardization in audio. If production of music is done in neutral settings, then we can have the same in our home and for the first time hear what was heard in the production of said music. We can always put salt and pepper on that if needed with equalization to our preference.
This is *the* most important thing to learn about proper sound reproduction in our room.
These methods are the basis of design in Audio... 😊
I INSISTED on the point that Fourier linear methods are not able to explain hearings power , and they are not enough to create musical design ... The designer must quit his tools and listen TOO... Thats the point...
Bashing Fourier method will be stupid , i NEVER did that, criticizing the context of their application and interpretation in human hearings is the point...
The ears works non linearly in his own time direction, that is the point which make it powerful for extracting information... We must use this fact in the creation of the design and not use our own linear and time symmetrical measure to determine the design as "perfect" because no distortion and low noise ...It is not enough...Musicality exist ... For you it may be a myth... For some designer it is not...
Nonsense. I read Maanen paper and comment about it when you first post it. I explained to you that he made up an electronic circuit that has hysteresis and then showed a couple of rudimentary simulation that says there is a memory effect.
And now you distort what Van Maanen said :
Any electronic circuit changes in amplitude and phase of distortion components caused by modulation frequency. Van Maanen use that fact to show the limit of Fourier method for predicting his behavior...Your three lines attributing to him the idea to made up a circuit with hysteresis HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS POINT ...
Here it is in his own word...:
«When we look at electronics with active components, such systems are non-linear as has been described in a separate paper (Feedback Flaws). Which is why we have to deal with distortion.
So, the first condition is, in general, not fulfilled. Memory effects also often occur in electronics, which can even be enhanced by non-linear effects.
The determination of the frequency response of such a circuit is next to impossible (note that nthe dynamic impedance of the diodes depends on the current, flowing through them and is therefore also dependent on the amplitude of the input signal) and it is obvious that the system is highly non-linear. The charge on the capacitor will be a clear function of the history of then input signal, so the system is also not time-invariant. In other words, the application of Fourier theory to electronics is error-prone and there is a severe risk that the properties for continuous
sine waves cannot (and will not) predict the response in time domain correctly.
Figure 1: Example of a circuit where the Fourier theory is
not capable to predict the response, even if the continuous
sine wave response would be known by measurement. The
reasons are the non-linear behaviour (due to the diodes in
the circuit) and the memory, created by the capacitor as its
charge will depend on the input signal in the past.
i cannot put the figure but anybody vcan go there :
I have tested and listened to nearly 300 speakers now. Regardless of who makes it, when a speaker is neutral, it puts a huge smile on my face! It just sounds right.
Above is the only hope we have of standardization in audio. If production of music is done in neutral settings, then we can have the same in our home and for the first time hear what was heard in the production of said music. We can always put salt and pepper on that if needed with equalization to our preference.
This is *the* most important thing to learn about proper sound reproduction in our room.
If this were true then every audio engineer, producer and mixer would use the same speakers. They all want neutral. They all want something that comes close to it. It is important but the most important I would say is misguided. Take a trip over to gearspace.com and see the multitude of threads that exists by the people who create all of the audio and voicing we hear in music and audio today. They still are in search of speakers that do what they need. Fit their room, go as low as they need to, and have voicing they need showing the mix in the orignized way they want. Some mix on Harbeths, B&W and others like a more modern take with Genelec.
That is like saying all cookies should taste the same. They need to have the same ratio of ingredients and follow the same approach. So many ways to cut it, and they are good starting points, but the end result and the journey to get there are the experience we all enjoy.
The problem is Amir want to create a standard in design... It is not a bad idea in itself...But imposing it will negate creativity in a field where there cannot be a perfect speaker anyway, and there could not be ONE SINGULAR PERFECT SPEAKER FOR ALL NEEDS Why ? Because speakers are interesting by the mutiple trade off choices they offer by DESIGN ...
There is no SINGULAR ROOM for all customers too...
In industrial design for big company , it is useful and desirable to STAY AND OBEY standards and their trade-off choices ... But individual creative small designer will choose other trade off, he will innovate to PLEASE THE HUMAN EARS OF HIS CUSTOMER NOT HIS MEASURING TOOLS DIALS to be regular for the industrial mass production needs ...
Then confusing Industrial and small craftmanship , not only in speakers but in amplifier design, and imposing the same set of measures coming from the same hearing theory is not desirable nor doable...
Hans Van Maanen will design his amplifier differently than the Fosi amplifier reviewed by Amir... So positive was his review and i trust him that this amplifier is not bad for the price, you cannot judge with the same set of measures the Van Maanen amplifier design and the mass market Fosi ... The difference in price is astronomical too..
I dont think that the pope of Audio elected will be Amir... He measure well for sure, but he negate what is "musical" for his own "transparency" technologically perfect measured ideal 😊... In sound and acoustic the goal was never and never will be "perfection" of electronical design by the numbers, but musicality even if we dont like the measures of this so called " musical" amplifier ..
You can call as Hinton do, A.I. more intelligent than human, it only reflect your ignorance about what are human beings.. At least Hinton know that A.I. is a danger in our corporate dictatorship...
In the same way you may call "musical" what your measuring tools reveal as "perfect" but it is human ears who will decide, in blind test or in their room BY THEIR FREE CHOICES not by design ...
Why ? i will not explain it here, because Hilde45 will come and denounce me as creating too long posts.,..He dont read post he measure them... 😊
That is like saying all cookies should taste the same.
@amir_asr In my hypothesis, I was attempting to point out that IF a speaker was ever designed that could sound like what people (including you) believe to be as close as possible to the sound of ’real’ instruments in a ’live acoustic space’, and if this very same speaker measured poorly; people like yourself would point to the measurements and not believe in what their very own ears were telling them!
This is fundamentally where I believe we differ in our approach to music reproduction. You are seeking something that you believe looks right on a scope, or what the measurements say is what should be ’musical’, whereas I am looking for a product that can reproduce the closest to what my recollection of the ’real’ sounds like. As a former pro musician, I may have a bent/bias on what that is, but it also has allowed me to be exposed to numerous instruments and their sound in varying venues. If a product meets with my expectation of this sound, and still measures poorly, I have no concern on this. OTOH, if the product measures well and does not meet with my musical expectation, I am not interested. That simple.
@amir_asr In my hypothesis, I was attempting to point out that IF a speaker was ever designed that could sound like what people (including you) believe to be as close as possible to the sound of 'real' instruments in a 'live acoustic space', and if this very same speaker measured poorly; people like yourself would point to the measurements and not believe in what their very own ears were telling them!
This does not exist. It cannot exist. You are saying you want to be in the two places simultaneously. Again, what extensive research across many decades shows is that we as listeners prefer accurate and neutral measuring speakers.
This is no top of your premise that people thinking some speaker reproduces real instruments from a recording that itself is not such a copy.
You can't make up scenarios that are in conflict and don't represent reality and then draw conclusions from them.
But let's say what you say is true. Then what you call "bad measurements" are the measurements we want to look for in speakers. In that regard, those measurements would be considered good, not bad.
This is fundamentally where I believe we differ in our approach to music reproduction. You are seeking something that you believe looks right on a scope, or with the measurements say is what should be 'musical', whereas I am looking for a product that can reproduce the closest to what my recollection of the 'real' sounds like.
Not remotely the case. I listen to every speaker I test. I have already said that measurements are about 80% predictive of speaker performance. That last 20% such as directivity is not quantified.
The difference between us is that I believe in comprehensive research into speakers says that we can easily rule out bad speakers with measurements. That if they measure poorly as you say, we can conclude with high confidence that without other biases, majority of listeners would not like such a speaker.
As a former pro musician, I may have a bent/bias on what that is, but it also has allowed me to be exposed to numerous instruments and their sound in varying venues. If a product meets with my expectation of this sound, and still measures poorly, I have no concern on this.
That's fine. Have your personal belief. Come back when you sit in a blind test and your beliefs prove to be reliable. I have. I found that my beliefs were NOT reliable in that situation. I repeated it. Same outcome. What happened? I voted just like majority of listeners situated completely different than me. So I had to throw out my own personal notions of what is correct and listen to what science says.
OTOH, if the product measures well and does not meet with my musical expectation, I am not interested. That simple.
Wouldn't be mine either. Again, this is why I listen and occasionally go against the measurements and recommend a speaker. Again, it is OK to fall in the 20% bucket. But don't say the science knows nothing about this domain. We know a ton. A ton. Dispute it at your own peril.
The problem is Amir want to create a standard in design... It is not a bad idea in itself...But imposing it will negate creativity in a field where there cannot be a perfect speaker anyway, and there could not be ONE SINGULAR PERFECT SPEAKER FOR ALL NEEDS Why ? Because speakers are interesting by the mutiple trade off choices they offer by DESIGN ...
We have standards in video. Has that screwed up the market for consumers? It has not. People can still choose to buy a 40 inch TV or a projector. The standard says produce the video signal to represent this shade of red. We do the same at playback and we see the same shade of red. No such thing exists in audio. Folks can create pink and call it red. And we play it back as magenta and go on claiming that looks like the real thing.
The standards are not about design. They are about defined fidelity.
And no, a device doesn't have to be perfect. A perfect mastering display costs $50K. But you can buy a $1,000 TV and come darn close to it. And we can prove that using objective measurements and subjective confirmation.
A speaker can have bass down to 20 Hz and cost $20K. Or be one that stops at 40 Hz and cost $1K. As long as they are both neutral sounding, that is perfectly fine and good. A speaker can produce 120 dBSPL that costs $100K and if it is neutral, that is just dandy as well.
What is wrong with this market is that you are sold a speaker for $100k that clearly colors the sound bad ways. It gets sold because they send a review sample to a magazine and get raving review -- guaranteed. It is a corrupt industry that way. Only way out is independent evaluation which is what I am trying to do.
I would think you would be in favor of all of this. But seemingly you are not.
@amir_asr - hi there amir, thank you for your participation in audiogon, and your extensive replies. I have a question that is very important to me to ask, and I hope you will find my request in the sea of responses this thread has become. There is a pretty basic test I found on the internet, of listening ability based on two different digitally configured formats, one in a higher resolution. Here is the said link -
To make it more difficult to hear the sound quality and thus evaluate, lending deeper weight to the results, I had twelve different friends listen to the test tracks on the same mobile phone, with the same rather basic earbuds.
Three of them were all over the place with their evaluations, a few got just a hair over half correct, but four of them got every one of the six tracks correct as related to which was higher in resolution. None were allowed to A/B/A the tracks, just an A followed by a B. The friends were all between 39 and 65, and there appeared to be no correlation between age and the test results.
The equipment was the same in every case, and not the best to evaluate sound quality with, but it was felt to be the best way to test the effort and abilities of the listeners. All things considered and in the absence of perfect testing conditions, can i trouble you to advise if this was a good way to test for listening ability?
The problem is imposing our own theory of what is hearing and what is musical...
Which is what the audiophiles and their reviewers do day in and day out. Fortunately the research in speaker preference puts theory to test and has found what set of measurements correlate highly with listener preference. That is what we follow at ASR. Not to 100% degree but with confidence. When challenged, we can point to massive library of research. When an audiophile or their press is challenged what do they say? Oh I must be right. Well you are not.
But sound is not images...The qualities of an image are easy to define in a consensual way...
The qualities describing sounds are not...
Yourself you dont even accept anything "colored" "musical" etc you claim they are WRONG...
Neutrality is good but wanting neutrality as a perfect obligatory mandate in design will cost something... You are not God and you cannot decide that tomorrow all trade-off choices in audio will be declared unlawful and only pure abstract neutrality will be the goal and the only qualitative adjective usable for describing a good sound or a PLEASANT ONE...No more pleasure because it is illusory if i read you right... Only perfection is acceptable... The problem is by definition of what is a trade off in audio no perfection exist from recording to speakers..
As i say you had your own hearing theory...Imposing it is not possible and doable anyway...
Human dont hear as a Fourier analyser, so useful it is for designing ALL audio components...
Than human hearing own a future and will rule future design not the reverse...
By the way we dont have a singular accepted theory of human hearing... What we know is that human hearing work as a non linear tool in his own time dyssimetric dimension by history and evolution fatefulness.. Then let the designer create their own trade off choices...I am not against some regulation but i dont want society of audiophiles being ASR disciple repeating measures mantras as synonymus with good sound... 😊
It remind me of some transhumanist who are really sure that man must become part machine to compete...How do you falsify that claim ?
You distorted Van Maanen intention above ... I corrected you by citing the text and reestablishing his intention...
But it seems distorting facts to suit your gaol is an habit...
All reviewers and audiophiles DIFFER all day long about anything... There is a multitude of groups and cultist about all possibilities in audio...
No one IMPOSE DICTATORIALLY a theory of hearing and a normalized set of measures for all ... With the Correct and only one accepted vocabulary...
Are you kidding ? or you are blind so busy to sell your salad ? 😊
Audiophiles debate without end unable to impose anything... They are FREE and want to stay free ... They dont tolerate to be imposed hearing standards through the only good measures theory by statistical and blind tests proof...
Musicality for Furtwangler is not the same as for Karajan... Guess why ? A clue : it has nothing to do with "neutrality"...
Wait and i will explain it in my musical thread... Hilde45 measure my words numbers post... i must watch myself... 😊
The problem is imposing our own theory of what is hearing and what is musical...Which is what the audiophiles and their reviewers do day in and day out.
The fact here that you reverse the accusation is revelatory... You are the one who want to IMPOSE a unique view about the relation UNIDIRECTIONAL between measures and what we hear ...No audiophiles do that... Offering his opinions to other is not imposing it through a site with this goal ... Audiogon is not like ASR... There is no hearing ideology here... Only subjective impressions... You are the one claiming what hearing theory MUST BE...
By the way i appreciate your site and your reviews AS I SAID NUMEROUS TIME... i dont accept the one way mandatory direction from measures to hearing as hearing theory...
Neutrality is good but wanting neutrality as a perfect obligatory mandate in design will cost something... You are not God and you cannot decide that tomorrow all trade-off choices in audio will be declared unlawful and only pure abstract neutrality will be the goal and the only qualitative adjective usable for describing a good sound or a PLEASANT ONE...No more pleasure because it is illusory if i read you right... Only perfection is acceptable... The problem is by definition of what is a trade off in audio no perfection exist from recording to speakers..
No one is taking away anyone's choices in designing a speaker. Nothing about what I or audio science stands for mandates anything in that regard. We simply as for flat on axis response and smooth off-axis. You can get there a million ways.
To be sure, it is not my job, and should not be yours either, to make anything easy for manufactures/designers. They have their challenges and they signed up for that when they decided to get into that business. I am a consumer and want a performant system. You can't deliver it? Don't get in the market.
We have speakers that cost just a few hundred dollars that deliver on these metrics. That expensive speakers costing many multiples can't is no reason to relax the criteria for them.
DonT relax anything... Go on criticize them those costlier speakers designer... I will congratulate you for that...
And who in his right mind can oppose to someone who ask " for flat on axis response and smooth off-axis." Not me ...
But designers will go on with their trade off choices and you will criticize them... All is OK...i will read you...
But dont come to me saying that all there is to say about audio components is their measures set...And dont come to me saying that human hearing impression are all illusory and with no value out of blind test ...
Psycho-acoustic dont say that... Trained ears are not the same as untrained one... Furtwangler and Floyd Toole or Dr Choueri or the creator of my headphone a physicist acoustician of genius Dr Gorike all had trained ears...dont put them in the same basket as people who buy an amplifier for the price tag and dials... Dont put them in the same basket than people unable to tune their own room... Etc...
The human ears beat the Fourier uncertainty why ?
Because he use some aspects of sound by virtue of his non linear structure and brain tools which made him able to EXTRACT 10 times the accuracy information in the time domain permitted by the linear Fourier treshold between frequency and time ... This means that hearing is not explanable only by Fourier methods, and it means that human hearing can be trained and is very trustful when trained at long term... Furtwangler dont need a blind test...he dont pick up his amplifier by reading your measures... It does not means that measures are useless... Who would pair the wrong amplifier with the wrong measures to the wrong speakers? We need measure for regularity and standards... Deriving all audible qualities from them is non sense...
No one is taking away anyone’s choices in designing a speaker. Nothing about what I or audio science stands for mandates anything in that regard. We simply as for flat on axis response and smooth off-axis. You can get there a million ways.
To be sure, it is not my job, and should not be yours either, to make anything easy for manufactures/designers. They have their challenges and they signed up for that when they decided to get into that business. I am a consumer and want a performant system. You can’t deliver it? Don’t get in the market.
We have speakers that cost just a few hundred dollars that deliver on these metrics. That expensive speakers costing many multiples can’t is no reason to relax the criteria for them
"You go @amir_asr! Taking em down like John Wick!"
Do you really think so Yowser? I think he has made a complete fool of himself. Perhaps you did not read the thread and notice his evasions and gaslighting.
Actually on reflection, you are correct. John Wick is a fictional character and most of Amir's replies resemble fiction.
@yowser@laomanHe reminds me of a lot of people with NPD, hopefully this will serve as a testament to not support his "cause." He thinks he is the second coming. I think he is now using this thread to spread the gospel of ASR. Hope it gets to 1,000 posts so people know who he is.
Like I said before religion and science can co-exist bolstering one another. So much we don’t know. I am really glad I don’t fall in either camp of subjective or objective. I can be both or either.
@amir_asr - hi there amir, thank you for your participation in audiogon, and your extensive replies. I have a question that is very important to me to ask, and I hope you will find my request in the sea of responses this thread has become. There is a pretty basic test I found on the internet, of listening ability based on two different digitally configured formats, one in a higher resolution. Here is the said link -
Thank you for kind words. I am not at all a fan of this kind of test. They are usually designed by people who want to get a "no, there is no difference" answer.
The proper way would tell you this is the high resolution file and CD one. Then you are presented with a randomized test to identify the samples against those two versions. What this does is enable you to go through a training phase where in sighted listening, you can work to learn the difference if they exist. Once there, then you can take the blinded version. Such training is highly important and part of any protocol for such tests such as international ITU standard BS1116:
"Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems"
"4.1 Familiarization or training phase
Prior to formal grading, subjects must be allowed to become thoroughly familiar with the test facilities, the test environment, the grading process, the grading scales and the methods of their use. Subjects should also become thoroughly familiar with the artefacts under study. For the most sensitive tests they should be exposed to all the material they will be grading later in the formal grading sessions. During familiarization or training, subjects should be preferably together in groups (say, consisting of three subjects), so that they can interact freely and discuss the artefacts they detect with each other."
The reason for this is that if there are any potentially audible issues, we want to find them. We don't disadvantage the listeners by throwing two samples and so "go." There is no way to get trained this way as you don't know which sample is which.
Now, if our goal is to challenge someone saying they can tell the difference between high-res and CD in their sleep, then sure, you can run this kind of test. But you better not run and declare there are no audible differences. There can very well be and you will be missing it in this type of testing.
I post this video before on what it means to get trained. In there, I show how I passed a test of high-res vs 16 bit. Something you can learn how to do and bust the theory of people who say everything sounds the same:
@amir_asr Then what is @soundfield talking about when he says you have never participated in a blind test outside of your own?
First thing you want to learn that nothing AJ tells you is the truth unless you verify it yourself. I don't know anyone who sacrifices the truth to serve his agenda more than him. And his agenda is that nothing in audio makes a difference other than I guess speakers. He used to walk the halls of forums and stomp on you repeatedly if you dared to say otherwise. I came into the picture and he repeated the same. The problem for him was that I am a professionally trained listener in addition to knowing the technology whereas he is none of that.
He would challenge me on audibility and I would routinely show him that with tests put forward around that time that his assertions were completely wrong. That I could, in computerized automated double blind tests, I could pass them. That would cause him to blow a fuse and accuse me of teaching. Those accusations were as empty as his inaudibility claims. I explain this in detail in the video I post above. Here it is with the timestamp:
Above I show how you cannot just edit the output of these ABX programs due to cryptographic hash in the newer version. He also accuses me of watching an analyzer while performing the test. This is completely silly as real-time analyzer is not going to let you pass many of these tests such as the high-res one where countermeasures are in there to assure that very thing.
Bottom line, he likes to create FUD around anyone who can create these tests as to claim there is not ever any audible difference in audio no matter what. Pass a test like this and you must be a cheater. Well, no, he is the one that is the problem because there are reasons why one can pass these tests and not everything presents an inaudible difference.
Mind you, AJ himself has never taken a single test. He has no training or again, knowledge of technology. So I can see why it is miraculous to him that someone can pass these tests. But that is his problem, not mine.
BTW, I am not the only one passing these tests. The late Arny Krueger and friends created an ABX test of amplifiers showing them to have audible differences.
Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different
If you don't know Anry, he was a staunch objectivists who like AJ, believed you all are wrong about hearing any differences between just about anything. Kind of like AJ but less ruthless.
Bottom line, don't listen to AJ. There is a reason I threw him out of ASR even though he claims to be a hardcore objectivist. See how he doesn't even post measurements of his speakers. When facts go against his stance, he all of a sudden pretends facts don't matter.
@amir_asr You remind me a little of a very good friend of mine who is a highly respected mechanical engineer. My friend is 100% certain that all cables sound exactly the same, and that there is absolutely no reason to spend money on power cables that are anything beyond a certain gauge necessary to supply enough current. I have had him over to listen to my system and to tell me if he can hear differences when I swap in cables. My friend tells me that he can, but these things are all due to his poor memory of the sound before and after, plus he believes that only a ’blind’ test would allow him to state that there are no differences.
This is the thing, I have run into many folk who are not that much into music, and as such their interest level in this hobby is minimal, at best. They like other aspects of sound reproduction, maybe they enjoy the technical aspect ( like the well known gear designer I referenced in a prior post, who hated music), or maybe they like the visual aspect of the gear, but the actual reproduction of music and the ability of the gear to get us as close to possible to what we hear as ’live’ is not something they truly value. It is my belief that you are a techie first, second and foremost...and that music really is not that high on your list, you just like the science. Maybe i am wrong about you, but to me ( as a musician and an a’phile), your ASR forum is one of the last places I would want to be, because the folk that seem to post there are absolutely into the tech side-- and really not the music.
BTW, you state that if a speaker measures poorly and sounds great, then the measurements are in fact what we need to be looking for and as a result are good? I submit that the measuring devices are simply not able to measure the very thing that makes the speaker sound great to the listeners ears, instead measuring aspects of the sound that do not correlate with what we hear. This is something that I know you will not accept as a possibility.
This is the thing, I have run into many folk who are not that much into music, and as such their interest level in this hobby is minimal, at best.
Which couldn't be farther from truth for me. I got into hi-fi in 1960s when I was barely a teenager. I love music and aspire forever for perfection of its reproduction.
They like other aspects of sound reproduction, maybe they enjoy the technical aspect ( like the well known gear designer I referenced in a prior post, who hated music), or maybe they like the visual aspect of the gear, but the actual reproduction of music and the ability of the gear to get us as close to possible to what we hear as ’live’ is not something they truly value.
I don't know anyone like this. Every audiophile regardless of which camp they are in, share the love of music with interest in audio hardware.
It is my belief that you are a techie first, second and foremost...and that music really is not that high on your list, you just like the science. Maybe i am wrong about you, but to me ( as a musician and an a’phile), your ASR forum is one of the last places I would want to be, because the folk that seem to post there are absolutely into the tech side-- and really not the music.
Your belief is an insult and attempt at misdirection. The largest thread on ASR Forum is about music we enjoy:
It has *930* pages currently. It is linked to from the home page as a feature. When I went to Pacific Audio Fest last week, one of my top goals was to gather what music was being played and share it with the membership. Much new music was discovered and members went as far as creating playlists for them.
I assume you also like to listen music although I don't recall ever hearing you discuss that on either forums I have known for you.
What is different between us is that I am dedicated to understanding the technology that produces music. This is enabled by me having professional experience as both an engineering and trained listener for literally decades in audio. While you were perhaps spinning an LP, I was streaming music from cloud and reading research papers to advance my knowledge. You sit there and hypothesize what makes a difference in sound reproduction. I get to test literally thousands of pieces of new audio and get to talk to top luminaries in our field.
You talk about cables making a difference. I have tested a number of them and not just by measurements but performing null tests with music. The difference is nothing. Not a thing. The engineering says they shouldn't make a difference and they don't.
The fact that you hear a difference is because you are a human. I too hear such "differences." But just like your friend, I know that our hearing is variable and bi-directional. Our brain can instruct our hearing system to dig in deep in music, or not. Certainly when sitting back and enjoying music, you are not doing that. But when you compare things, you allow your brain to hear things differently in A vs B. When that happens, you think there is a difference even when there is none.
We can prove the above just like you friend said: take away your eyes and knowledge. But you didn't want to submit to that test, did you? Fact is that you don't want to know.
Mike Lavigne whom you know, swore that he could easily hear the difference between his MIT Oracle cable and another one. When tested blind against monster cable, he failed miserably to tell them apart.
"in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it.""
Take away his eyes and all of sudden his ears don't do what he said they do.
You walk around claiming that some knowledge of music creation helps you with magical powers when it comes to sound reproduction. That against incredible body of audio science and engineering, you know better. Well fine. Do the blind test with your friend and repeat 10 times and see if you can get 9 out of 10 right. If you are unwilling or can't pass the test, then please spare the insults that those of us who believe in audio science somehow don't enjoy music.
BTW, you state that if a speaker measures poorly and sounds great, then the measurements are in fact what we need to be looking for and as a result are good? I submit that the measuring devices are simply not able to measure the very thing that makes the speaker sound great to the listeners ears, instead measuring aspects of the sound that do not correlate with what we hear. This is something that I know you will not accept as a possibility.
No, I don't take advice from Joe audiophile who has not conducted a single proper test to arrive at claims they make about sound fidelity. I rather trust the people who have. And those people who have literally dedicated their lives to this question have proven conclusively that what you said is wrong, dead wrong in majority of cases.
Of course you want that to be true. So that when you claim this speaker is heaven's give to mankind and measurements show it to have strong resonances and coloration, you don't look embarrassed. The solution isn't to make up a new theory to fit your poor judgement. The solution is to learn the science, realize how compelling it is, and start to invest your dollars that way.
I have now tested some 300 speakers. And I measured all of them based on best the research has to offer as far as predicting listener preference. You haven't done any of this, right? My experience has proven in vast majority of the cases that a neutral speaker is the best speaker -- just like research predicts.
The notion that some speaker with screwed up frequency response where it colors the tonality of everything you play through it means we should change how we measure it is just absurd. Sadly, you have many friends who look at the cost, size and brand of a speaker and convince yourself that it must sound great.
To be sure, some statement speakers bring incredibly capability as far as dynamics is concerned. That aspect costs money and so is justified. What is not is having a speaker tuned by some designer by ear with obvious flaws in its response.
Sadly ideas like yours keep these companies in business. They love that you defend them and create FUD around proper measurements of their products. You can do that but know that I am here to provide the transparency that they don't. Smart companies will learn and start to follow the science as many of their competitors have. Others will just sit there thinking everyone is like you.
As ASR has grown, so has importance of proper engineering and measurements. This isn't a trend you kill by claiming we don't listen to music or we don't know how to measure. All that does shows that you rather have your head in the sand that spend a minute learning something about audio.
Thank you for your quick response, amir. I hope you won’t mind if I can clarify an issue (I realise how many queries you are attempting to answer at the same time, so I fully understand if you missed this) -
My question was if you could advise if the test was a good way to gauge listening ability, but your reply involved "Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems", training and learning.
My question did not have anything to do with a method, or training, or audio systems, just whether the test, even if intended to have participants give a ‘no, there is no difference’ answer; only if you could advise if it was a good starting point to gauge ‘listening ability’.
The first response you gave me the impression you had already decided the test was not good for training or or learning. The test was certainly not posturing as being anything other than a simple measure if an individual could hear the differences of resolution in the two files presented.
It seems to me, with the results I got from the twelve friends I asked, that the test, however basic, served its purpose. I wondered if you could advise if this simple test works well enough as a beginning to determine good listeners from bad listeners, all training aside.
@amir_asr you wrote ’You talk about cables making a difference. I have tested a number of them and not just by measurements but performing null tests with music. The difference is nothing. Not a thing. The engineering says they shouldn’t make a difference and they don’t.’
Well, take any system and put all Nordost wires in it and than swap them with all Cardas wires and than tell me there is no difference.
The thing is, because of the quoted lines in post above, nobody who has any ’experience’ in building hi fi system will ever take you for serious (some may even think that you have a hearing problem)
I really do not mind what other people do or claim, it is a trivial subject after all. But, perhaps even if you have some good intentions or even if some of your tests have an actual meaning, you have 'shot your self in a foot' with such orthodox stand.
Do you think that different tubes or capacitators also ’sound’ the same?
What you don't want to hear is how the technology really works. You want to live in the Matrix. The reality is too painful for you. I get it. Don't come to ASR. It isn't the place for you.
More ad hominem logical fallacy personal attacks from the guy who claims reason and science are on his side.
Hope everyone had a happy 4th spending time with friends and family, celebrating our independence.
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 01:10pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 01:25pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 01:32pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 01:41pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 01:50pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 05:23pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 05:27pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 05:41pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 05:55pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 07:10pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 07:20pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 07:23pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 08:03pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 11:19pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 11:23pm
amir_asr 07-04-2023 at 11:46pm
amir_asr 07-05-2023 at 02:55am
Wow, Amir, get help. Most of those posts were epics. This isn't healthy. The raving egomania is one thing, but I feel sorry for your family here now, on what should have been time spent with them on a fun day. Take it easy man, you can't save them all, especially when you need to look inward.
Btw I was just kidding about the Blue Screen stuff. You know I post that just to see you unravel. Have you considered buying AVS to retroactively delete these classics of the real Amir, like you can on your ASR kingdom?
@soundfield now you’re not answering his questions and addressing measurements for your speakers. Saying you feel sorry for his family is pretty low. Not a good look.
Where did the OP go? Disappeared pretty quick, then turned into the Amir show.
To the Moderator(s): Given your task is not easy, could be time to close this thread. That action would be a big help to Amir, since he previously mentioned having a huge backlog of items to measure. Clearly, Amir is spending too much time here trying to convert the great unwashed mass of Audiogon audio-fools.
Did Amir change my mind? Maybe not Amir on his own, but ASR as a resource. I learned more about what was important for speakers, positioning, and acoustic treatment than I learned from all other sources combined. Not just some useful or useless rules of thumbs or calculators, but the how and the why. It is nice for once not to hope, guess, and randomly achieve success but to work towards it.
Reading through the many pages here, I lost interest at about 8, I also have learned a lot about audiophiles. I did not like what I learned.
I even went down a rabbit hole scientific paper after reading a tremendous claim.
"«Claims that differences in upstream components
(e.g., source or amplifier) can be heard even when the
system is bottle-necked by a mediocre downstream
component (e.g., speaker) shouldn’t seem surprising—
given that the NEP ( neurals excitation pattern) can resolve 1 part in 10 at the 40power » Millind N. Kunchur"
This sounded very impressive. 10^40. An incredible amount of resolving power. Then it clicked in my brain and I related it to something I know well, images, and sight. Using the same reasoning as the author of that paper, the eye has 6,000,000 photo sites, connected to nerves, and each is able to easily resolve 256 levels. Using the authors own reasoning, the eye can then resolve not just 1 part in 10 at the 40th power, but 1 part in 256, to the 6 millions power. 10^40 compared to 256^6000000. Remarkable! "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".
The DIVISION between "Technophile" and "golden ears", or between objectivists and subjectivists is TOTALLY irrational as a dividing fact instead of a distinction and based on a misunderstanding of what psycho-acoustic science is...
By the way there exist no science in the singular form... There exist sciences with a common method , but this common method cannot be confused and conflated with KNOWLEDGE...Why ? Because VALUES ( good and bad, truth and false , just and unjust, etc ) are freely DECIDED and freely DEBATED by human free individuals who express then their free choices for themselves and their societies...Science is a slave not a master...
Then scientifically speaking the association of a "quality" with an objective set of conditions is the basis of psycho-acoustic science... Then when technophiles or objectivists negate the existence of the VALUED quality and ask for a proof for his existence, they completely go in REVERSE on the road of science... Science dont negate the existence of qualities to begin with but begin and end with them as values... For example timbre subjective perception and evaluation is not a "color" added in an illusory manner to physical objective sound it is INTRINSIC to sound perception and existence ... It is why technophilia and technology dont define science and it is why science dont reduce itself to technology...Science uses measures but is not defined by measures...Technology must eliminate some phenomena from some other one to work in some paramatrezed location, its power come from the reduction of knowledge to a specific "location" or "application", science becoming knowledge encompass and transcend technology...
Once this is said, psycho-acoustic is a science studying human hearings, and we dont know so much about human hearings and the relation between sounds and the perception of qualities as we dont know much about the relation between consciousness and the brain...
The only people who will contradict this are not scientists but technophile, materialist ideologue, transhumanists... They dont need to think, they "know" and they "do"...But it is better to think first as any philosopher will say ...
Where this distinction between objectivist and subjectivist come from in audio and why there is now a complete DIVISION ?
it come not from science but from the efforts by technology and audio market , divided about the GEAR marketing PUBLICITY complementary strategies: is our piece of gear the best well measured by technology, or is this piece of gear the best loved one by all listeners ?
Psycho-acoustic science studying this relation between qualitative human perceptions and objective conditions of observation and analysis, DISCOVERED recently, in a slow process of discovery spanning more than 60 years that the LINEAR relation between the frequencies domain and the time domain is not obey by the human ears... The human ears work non linearly and extract an accurate amount of information which cannot be obtain by linear means , the Gabor limit between frequencies and duration...
The physicists confirming this known knowledge for a long time now in a rigorous experiments of measures on human subjects called it : human hyperacuity...
«The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a time-frequency tradeoff exists for sound signals, so that the shorter the duration of a sound, the larger the spread of different types of frequencies is required to represent the sound. Conversely, sounds with tight clusters of frequencies must have longer durations. The uncertainty principle limits the precision of the simultaneous measurement of the duration and frequency of a sound.»
«The researchers think that this superior human listening ability is partly due to the spiral structure and nonlinearities in the cochlea. Previously, scientists have proven that linear systems cannot exceed the time-frequency uncertainty limit. Although most nonlinear systems do not perform any better, any system that exceeds the uncertainty limit must be nonlinear. For this reason, the nonlinearities in the cochlea are likely integral to the precision of human auditory processing. Since researchers have known for a long time about the cochlea’s nonlinearities, the current results are not quite as surprising as they would otherwise be.
"It is and it is not [surprising]," Magnasco told Phys.org. "We were surprised, yet we expected this to happen. The thing is, mathematically the possibility existed all along. There’s a theorem that asserts uncertainty is only obeyed by linear operators (like the linear operators of quantum mechanics). Now there’s five decades of careful documentation of just how nastily nonlinear the cochlea is, but it is not evident how any of the cochlea’s nonlinearities contributes to enhancing time-frequency acuity. We now know our results imply that some of those nonlinearities have the purpose of sharpening acuity beyond the naïve linear limits.
«
New sound models
The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing.
"In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted).
"The issue is that many fields, both basic and commercial, in sound analysis try to reconstruct only one of these, and for that they may use crude models of early hearing that transmit enough information for their purposes. But the problem is that when your analysis is a pipeline, whatever information is lost on a given stage can never be recovered later. So if you try to do very fancy analysis of, let’s say, vocal inflections of a lyric soprano, you just cannot do it with cruder models."
By ruling out many of the simpler models of auditory processing, the new results may help guide researchers to identify the true mechanism that underlies human auditory hyperacuity. Understanding this mechanism could have wide-ranging applications in areas such as speech recognition; sound analysis and processing; and radar, sonar, and radio astronomy.
"You could use fancier methods in radar or sonar to try to analyze details beyond uncertainty, since you control the pinging waveform; in fact, bats do," Magnasco said.
Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing.
"Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you’re testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.
"We are also studying with these same methods the notion of simultaneity of sounds. If we’re listening to a flute-piano piece, we will have a distinct perception if the flute ’arrives late’ into a phrase and lags the piano, even though flute and piano produce extended sounds, much longer than the accuracy with which we perceive their alignment. In general, for many sounds we have a clear idea of one single ’time’ associated to the sound, many times, in our minds, having to do with what action we would take to generate the sound ourselves (strike, blow, etc)."
What does it means for audio ?
It means that objectivists pretending that human sound perceived qualities may be only illusions, "good" or pleasant" as subjective qualities being subjective experience are then considered "inexistant impressions... The business to please human ears is for them a fraud... All there is to say about "qualities" is reducible after many blind test ELIMINATED all false pretenses to a mere set of LINEAR measures.... And these linear measures are established as the only standard for creating a good audio design even if any electronic circuits subjected to music bursts into it , instead of sine waves, can produce non predictable audible results...As Van Maanen argue in this article :
then if Van Maanen is right audio design must be investigated and conducted under the guidance of human ears... It is a craft ... Not a mass producted activity only...
But the crux of the matter is through the discoveries of the fundamental non linear working of the human ears/brain hyperacuity, that this hyperacuity was developed by EVOLUTION history for survival reason related to the urgency to recognise speech and natural sounds, and also music, because music and speech are born TOGETHER...
This means that the "qualities" negated by the objectivists not only exist but are the ONLY OBJECTIVE BASIS for the understanding of human hearings...Then the efforts to reduce audio science to "technological linear measures "of the gear reflect complete ignorance of psycho-acoustic science, instead favorizing the direction of mass standardized design productions instead of qualitative experience andhigher qualitative design, because anyway the highest qualitative audio production CANNOT BE REDUCED to mass market engineering productions , nevermind the level of measures excellence used, they are at the end the results of creative artful CRAFTMANSHIP then they are way costlier ..
All of what is perceived is not measurable... A rainbow exist but need a neurophysiological subject to exist... Qualities being perceived by humans comes from a field of studies in psycho-acoustic and neurology taken very seriously here and which science never negate them a priori as in the technophile objectivist world motivated by mass market regulations of the PRODUCTS and by also regulation of the human being himself...(Transhumanism is here to stay for now )
We will rule say some objectivists what you will hear and what you will not hear because the "qualities" dont exist anyway... Sound is the domain of subjective "illusions" they claim .... Saying so they are FORGETFULL of the way evolution created our BIASED EARS/BRAIN system because it is biased by and for the survival dimension not as a passive tool; our brain is not a passive tool, it is a participant in the creation of sounds with meanings and for yesterday favorizing our survival, and today manifesting also as what we call our "pleasure" , and which are also qualitative IRREDUCIBLE values ... Then contrary to any industrial tools we used which are ultimately linear and time independant, our ears/brain work non linearly in a dependant time domain for our survival and for our pleasure ...
At the end my opinion :
Did Amir information is useful ? Yes it is... Falsyfying gear market specs is useful information...
Did Amir theory about gear design and human hearing is the last word in audio ?
Absolutely not... Audiophiles can go on listening and write their faillible opinions.... Science dont negate human experience but study it.... Why science goes on with this study till today ? It is because TECHNOLOGY is far from understanding human hearing not only hyperacuity but cameleonic power as in echolocalization , the brain, and the qualitative perceived world... Goethe is no less important than Newton...By the way it takes real sound source resonating in the world with their intinsic materials qualities to produce sounds for the ears/brain...
The physics of sound waves is not enough... Why ? Because most sounds we perceive we produce them by speech acts or by musical craft, then sound is not only waves in the air, it is a sound source with a qualitative perceptible inside we PROBE as dolphin or bat probe an object...Then in psycho-acoustic science the perception and emission of sounds are related IN A NON LINEAR WAY , which means that sound qualities cannot be evaluated as is evaluated industrial material audio design...in the same way audio engineering craftmanship is an ART based on psycho-acoustics not reducible as said the designer and physicist Hans van Maanen to the Fourier domain...
It means that objectivists pretending that human sound perceived qualities may be only illusions, "good" or pleasant" as subjective qualities being subjective experience are then considered "inexistant impressions... The business to please human ears is for them a fraud... All there is to say about "qualities" is reducible after many blind test ELIMINATED all false pretenses to a mere set of LINEAR measures.... And these linear measures are established as the only standard for creating a good audio design even if any electronic circuits subjected to music bursts into it , instead of sine waves, can produce non predictable audible results...As Van Maanen argue in this article
It would seem that Amir is in fact a perfect example of the type of hobbyist that you describe here. A pure objectivist, who simply will not trust his ears regardless of what they are telling him, relying instead on what his vaunted measurements are showing.
I guess i hit a nerve when I posted above that I believe he is not that much into music, but a techie first. @amir_asr, it is ok to be this way, I did not say there is anything wrong in this.
Let's leave it at this, so that we both are not tempted to throw out ad hominem's, you enjoy a different aspect of this hobby than i do, but it's all good. IOW, we agree to disagree.
I want to publicly thank @mahgisterfor serving as the defacto and perhaps accidental Audiogon gatekeeper.
While I have neither the patience nor the time to read his rather lengthy posts, @mahgister is single handedly grinding Amir into submission. Each forum has a reason to exist, people choose the one they like that's where they tend to visit. Since I'm a vacuum tube guy, I don't need to visit ASR but certainly wish them no ill will.
I want to publicly thank @mahgisterfor serving as the defacto and perhaps accidental Audiogon gatekeeper.
As a new user, I was looking for a mute or block button to eliminate what I cannot interpret as anything but spam, with the same thing repeated over and over, that 5-10 minutes of Google would inform is much ado about nothing: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,99371.0.html If I can quickly figure out a few repeated points are much ado about nothing, I consider pages and pages of it spam. I regret now falling down the rabbit hole when I just wanted to buy some stuff.
It is hard to read so clumsy english syntax asmine in my posts 😊😁😊 , i apologize to all people and stay very shameful about my posts especially after reading thinkers as great as writers as George Santayana :
«Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.»
In audio fanaticism the subjectivist are less sinful in their ignorance of technology than the objectivist fanatical aim which is to erase "perceived qualities" so meaningful they could be from the highest designing goal in favor of what is measured or to reduce them to pure "standardization" for mass market benefit ...Alas! mass market production is not high end craftmanship...Values could never be reduced to numbers..
Psycho-acoustic is precisely the study of these irreducible "musical" meanings for sure for the benefit of mass market production but not at the price of reducing these values to mere numbers...
Sound and music are arts based on science but not reducible to science, from the recording engineer using his EARS experience to choose the trade-off choices set and the more pleasurable and useful for the recording process and from the craftmanship of designer learning the last discoveries in psycho-acoustic and designing complex new more PLEASURABLE design for the benefit of the BIASED ears/brain system wishing for such to the listeners picking up the gear pieces of his choice to put them in the best acoustical conditions for him...All here is at the same time art and science, not one without the other...Only mass market productions so useful they can be is no more high art and high science but trivialized automatized art and science transformed now in useful techological tools or daily devices or trivial machines ...
But we can decide also to design A.I. regulating at the same time our ears and the sound dimension and bent ourselves totally to its ruling and renounce tomorrow our own creativity for an alleged illusory "perfection"... It is a society choice : the perfect hive "knowledge" or the imperfect learning humanity...
Science investigate mysteries so deep only naive mind think that these mysteries will be debunk as mysteries and reveal as trivialities ...Mathematician are in awe considering prime numbers distributions...No technological trick would reduce it to a trivial fact...
Euler one day discussing with the atheist Diderot claiming as evidence that GOD did not exist, fatigued by his credulous naivete as a thinker wrote his famous equation : e powered to pi and i +1=0... Diderot stay silent and departed... This equation dont prove at all that God exist, but before negating a SOURCE for the harmony of all things we must think a bit...That was Euler point...
In the same way the psycho-acoustic discoveries about the non linear working of the ears/brain iin their time dependant fashion made us think a bit before reducing all "qualities perceived" to Fourier method and measures as powerful they are for our technological benefit...
I want to publicly thank @mahgisterfor serving as the defacto and perhaps accidental Audiogon gatekeeper.
While I have neither the patience nor the time to read his rather lengthy posts, @mahgister is single handedly grinding Amir into submission. Each forum has a reason to exist, people choose the one they like that’s where they tend to visit. Since I’m a vacuum tube guy, I don’t need to visit ASR but certainly wish them no ill will.
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.
