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.
Title: "Tone burst response of amplifiers to determine some properties of their dynamic behaviour"
Tone sine waves are used by all designers.. they are part of the design process.. . The ultimate test is by musical real music...
Please explain to me why it is OK for him to run such tests when you claim any such test is based on "fourier theory" and therefore invalid. I remind you that this is your expert witness.
Are you serious? Fourier Theory is the BASIS of circuit design... I never said that it must be put in the trash bin... 😊
but as a basis to hearing theory Fourier analysis alone dont work... THIS IS MY POINT and Magnasco and Oppenheim point... Van Maanen know that and use the time dependant way the ears works to imagine his specific parts design... I use Van Maanen here as a PROOF for you that Fourier based theory essential for linear predictive beahaviour of components must be used also with an hearing theory which is not Fourier based...The first article i cited of Van Maanen is about :"Often disregarded Conditions for the correct Application of Fourier Theory" did this title suggest to throw out Fourier theory in the trasbin ?
You know how to read i imagine..
As a hearing theory Fourier theory is unsufficient to describe the real hearing workings.. Thats my point suggesting an ecological theory of hearings qwith not only Magnasco and Oppenheim but many other researcher in acoustic....
I make appeal to this ecological theory because you criticized all audiophiles TOGETHER in a single block as being ALL wrong because they supposed that "musicality" exist in some design when they listened to it even if the design do not correspond with your limited set of linear measures
I don't criticize people. I measure audio equipment and if I see problems in it, I report. If you are going to dispute that, then you need to come forward with either your own measurements to the contrary or controlled listening tests. Take this page of your favorite designer's product:
It says "distortion minimized for human hearing." Where is the proof of that? A manufacturer can just say it and it becomes true?
It has a bunch of simple numbers in there. What are the conditions under which they were measured? It produces 75 watts at what distortion? What is the level of noise? Here is how I show power:
You see how informative that is compared to his one number?
What you see there is pure marketing fluff. It is not remotely useful to make a purchase decision. Not on objective or subjective basis.
Tone sine waves are used by all designers.. they are part of the design process.. . The ultimate test is by musical real music...
Nope. Again, he said that the tone burst clearly shows the audible difference:
"To that end, two high-quality amplifiers with clear differences in their perceived sound, have been tested with tone-bursts. In this report, only the results at 30 Hz will be reported and discussed, as at these low frequencies the issues show more clearly."
I like to know why he can test two amplifiers with test tones and declare audible superiority of one over the other just as he is doing. Please answer that.
Thats my point suggesting an ecological theory of hearings qwith not only Magnasco and Oppenheim but many other researcher in acoustic....
I don't care about many others not cited or any ecological "theory." We care about reality of how to determine audible performance of an amplifier to make purchase decisions. Your own expert witness is using test tones to do that. In both papers,. Yet you say we shouldn't.
the testing of the design oprocess included Real musical burst and sine wave... All designer use Fourier tools.. I dont understand your point... you seems desesperate to put me in a box with a contradiction..
I am not the expert on design... But all designer Use Fourier tools... There is NO AUDIO DEESIGN WITHOUT FOURIER TOOLS...
but hearing theory is impossible to understand with only Fourier tools and theory..We need other more ecological approach because sound phenomenon CANNOT BE RECONSTRUCTED as the ears produce them with ONLY FOURIER TOOLS...
I say WE SHOULD NOT USE ONLY FOURIER TOLLS AND SINE WAVE AND TONE BUT ALSO REAL MUSIC AND LISTENING AS ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DESIGN...
You want to put in my mouth an absurdities...Fourier theory is essential to design... No designer can trash it..
You are not able to contradict me about hearing theory and then you resort to absurdities and put them in my mouth ..
😊
only an idiot will say that Fourier theory is useless in design... But Van Maanen use real musical test and his psycho-acoustic knowledge and LISTENING as essential... Thats my point
I know how to read. But I don't want to imagine anything. I like to see facts, not articles written by someone to promote their electronic design. Do you have proper listening test results for anything you have put forward?
the testing of the design oprocess included Real musical burst and sine wave...
No, I am dead serious. Were you there when he performed these listening tests? What was his equipment compared to? How was the listening test done? Blind? Level matched? How were any issues narrowed to the specific design techniques?
An why were any sine waves used? You keep saying they shouldn’t be used.
but hearing theory is impossible to understand with only Fourier tools and theory..We need other more ecological approach because sound phenomenon CANNOT BE RECONSTRUCTED as the ears produce them with ONLY FOURIER TOOLS...
Is it diffucult to understand ?
The claim no. The proof, absolutely. How have you convinced yourself of any of this without a single controlled test? You say the ears matter yet your designer has not provided a single comparison with ears that his amplifiers sound better than any other amplifier.
You are not able to contradict me about hearing theory and then you resort to absurdities and put them in my mouth ..
There is no dispute about the research you put forward. That the brain applies non-linear processing to what it hears is a given. Nothing in there said anything about measurements. That came from your designer who wants to sell amplifiers with certain characteristics. To which I say fine. Please prove that they are audibly superior to competing design. He doesn't have this proof. And you don't either.
He does not used ONLY fourier tool but his hearing theory ideas then musical real music too and mainly...
Ah, we finally make progress. So measurements with "fourier" tool is instructive to tell us about fidelity of audio gear. Well, that is what I am producing. And what your manufacturer is NOT.
As to whether he is testing with real music, no proof of that is provided whatsoever. We don't even know the song titles let alone how such a test was conducted.
Is a measuring tool set is enough to predict the linear well behaviour of circuits ..,.Yes... But it is not enough to qualify and determine the ultimate sound value...listening is necessary..
i added to this that we must enlarge and added to fourier theory an ecological theory of hearing to understand what we hear... Magnasco and Oppenheim say that...
Where is the mystery ?
My basic point is simple...
Your information is useful, but you cannot qualify all amplifier only on the specs measured... listening test arenecessary...
It is useful to have a hearing theory... No one can object to that...
This is why the Magnasco and oppenheim experiment is important as the final note of many other experiments in the same direction revealing the limites of Fourier tools for understanding hearing..
There is no mystery in what i said... this is evident
only an idiot will say that Fourier theory is useless in design... But Van Maanen use real musical test and his psycho-acoustic knowledge and LISTENING as essential... Thats my point
None of us care how something is designed. We are caring about how to evaluate company claims of superior fidelity. You say it is done with music. I ask how and you have no answer. I show you that the very same company is using measurements to prove that and now you say it must be OK then.
I wonder, if ASR website (Amir Science Review) was so popular, beating every single audio forum & site, including Stereophile, by multiple TIMES, why the owner of that site, the honorable Amir His Majesty, spend so much time here? 50 posts so far on this thread alone in a few days. Daily. Even in weekends. And very long elaborate posts. Nobody wonders why so many men hours that can be spent measuring stuff, and posting in the website he owns? 🤔
Is a measuring tool set is enough to predict the linear well behaviour of circuits ..,.Yes... But it is not enough to qualify and determine the ultimate sound value...listening is necessary..
Fine. Where is the link to the listening test protocol and results so we can examine their correctness?
Your information is useful, but you cannot qualify all amplifier only on the specs measured... listening test arenecessary...
My information is routinely the only reliable data you have on performance of audio equipment. The only thing outside of that is marking claims and buyer anecdotes. Come back with such listening tests on all audio gear and I will stop measuring.
There is no mystery in what i said... this is evident
There is mystery when you state a theory you have believed with no evidence in reality. You have not presented any data points related to performance of audio amplifiers. You just want us to read a few lines of text written by a company designer. So no, it is not evident in the least.
But for Van Maanen some other aspects of his design are inspire4d by his hearing theory ideas... Then he used music real test also and very importantly..
I thank you for your informative set of measures ffrom tghe beginning... Why ? because this useful...
But i disagree wi5th you vabout the importance of hearing theory and listening test...I disagree with the idea that we can predict more than the behaviour of the electronic compobnents but also their sound qualities... Sound qualities is a set...In this set each sonic character production cannot be predicted as human hearings will perceive it and judged it...
In a word Fourier is reliaqble for circuit design not for predicting all aspects og hearin experience..
I wonder, if ASR website (Amir Science Review) was so popular, beating every single audio forum & site, including Stereophile, by multiple TIMES, why the owner of that site, the honorable Amir His Majesty, spend so much time here?
Because ASR is more than me: it includes tens of thousands of your fellow audiophiles who are discussing audio topics on their own without me. I do my part to post my near daily reviews and folks go on discussing them and other topics of interest. You can read my audio review from last night. Or you can hang around here and continue to show interest in what we are discussing...
What? We design circuits based on knowledge of electronics, not Fourier "tools." Fourier principles are used in such things as lossy audio compression but have no role in design of say, an analog amplifier.
But for Van Maanen some other aspects of his design are inspire4d by his hearing theory ideas... Then he used music real test also and very importantly..
Our job is to verify his claims there. After all, every designer uses music to check out what they have built. And they all claimed to be informed as such in their designs. We as consumers are left to figure out who is right in this and who is not.
I have repeatedly asked you to tell me about nature of Van Maanans music testing. You don't have any to offer. And he has not seen fit to provide such proof either. There is nothing scientific about that. We have classic audio marketing, that's all.
i trust that Van Maanen is competent in audio design... As i know that you are competent in your specs review...
but my point citing Van Maanen is because he was INSPIRED by the non linear aspect of hearing and the time dependant domain where the act of hearing take place ... He used this in his tought experiment and real experiment with his design..
But so competent he could be i have no idea about the quality of his design...
I used it to complement my point about the ecological hearing theory...Van Maanen is conscious of that... You have heard many more high end components than me, buy one and review it... I will love that... 😊
Test yourself his design and i will read your review...i will never be able to buy his product anyway...😊
I dont belive in the Van Maanen design theory...I cannot evaluate it by listening anyway... And i am not competent in amplifier design... BUT I KNOW THAT VAN MAANEN IS RIGHT about hearing theory and the way the ears process sound in relation to sound source.. this is why i read it...
There is mystery when you state a theory you have believed with no evidence in reality. You have not presented any data points related to performance of audio amplifiers. You just want us to read a few lines of text written by a company designer. So no, it is not evident in the least.
But i disagree wi5th you vabout the importance of hearing theory and listening test...I disagree with the idea that we can predict more than the behaviour of the electronic compobnents but also their sound qualities... Sound qualities is a set...In this set each sonic character production cannot be predicted as human hearings will perceive it and judged it...
You can disagree but you need to prove it. You can't keep repeating the same research which says nothing whatsoever about "sonic qualities" of an amplifier.
BUT I KNOW THAT VAN MAANEN IS RIGHT about hearing theory and the way the ears process sound in relation to sound source.. this is why i read it...
I fully understand everything he has written and nothing there should remotely get you to believe what he is saying. He has offered no proof points other than one silly circuit which has no place whatsoever in a real amplifier. A contrived example is no proof of anything. You need to write him and ask him to give you that proof: that his knowledge of said "theory" has enabled him to build a more musical amplifier. Ask him how that was assessed. If he says it is to his ears and reviewers or customers, run, and run very fast because that is what every other audio designer will tell you.
It is our disagrement here... You ask me to prove what is evident : it takes listening test not only meassuring test to evaluate gear... You even said it yourself and you do it..
Our disagrement is simple: we cannot reduce hearing to Fourier theory and we cannot extrapolate our design abstract measure to real hearing test predictivity... We must listen to improve the design... All audiophiles are not the same, some are deluded, some are less deluded, thats my point...
The evidence of reality is not oscillator results but the acoustic space occupied and your ears.
Not really. The space between your ears is your brain which interprets and makes up stuff all the time. It especially does that if you allow your eyes to feed it information too.
What we care about are the sound waves going into your ear. In many cases we can prove conclusively that they have not changed yet the lying brain says they are because you let your eyes help it that way.
Van Maanen use the same Fourier tools as any designer, but he used new idea for components design parts... How can he prove that his design is good out of a listening test ? 😊
I dont need a proof to know that our fourier hearing theory dont tell all the story , it is in psycho-acoustic books... There is MANY hearing theories..
But i dont need proof to know that we must verify the design basic quality by measures but ALSO listening... And i trust trained listeners...
The fake science crowd pushing Toneloser gear is one of the reasons I stopped frequenting A’gon.
There are plenty of engineers and designers, actual smart people, whose measurements make sense. Galen Gareis, formerly head of design for Belden offers many technical specs and reasons why he designed his Iconoclast cables, and offers specs on each cable that ships.
The late great Bascom King, aside from being an esteemed engineer and designer (whose amps I am enjoying right now) used to do measurements for magazines and once measured an amp with much lower distortion than any other. It sounded poor.
The fake science crowd is all about feeling good thinking you’ve drinking champagne as good (or better than) a premium brand. Actually maybe that’s a new business model for them, they can measure premium beverages and debunk Dom Pérignon! Or maybe do stress tests on The stitches of Gucci jackets to prove that Kirkland brand clothes “measure” better.
I better rush and register Menswearsciencereview.com before someone else does.
I’ll buy a new usb microscope so I can verify thread count of the sheets I just bought, so I know if they feel soft or not.
I think it’s pretty pointless to argue against use of measurements to establish what is good sound reproduction. Note that good sound reproduction is different than good sound. One is objective the other subjective.
It’s also true that metrics alone do not tell the whole story. They are capable of getting things right but are often applied incorrectly or incompletely. It’s worth arguing that case by case but not that metrics are always the whole story or that they are of no value. It’s really not so complicated to understand. I find much of the content of this thread pretty useless. Maybe Amir’s site has more to offer. I’ll have to check it out more often.
What interest me philosophically , and very much so, is the ecological theory of hearing...
This is very deep...
i know being technologically inclined, that it will not interest you... You will perceive it as "mere philosophy"...
But the reason why Magnasco and Oppenheim claim that this is one interesting road to go, is simple: we cannot asssign the reality of sound phenonmenon only to the computerized model of the brain... The history of evolution put real vibrating sound sources at the center of our survival , socially by the importance of speech/music perception , and individually by the importance of natural sound perception...
This nature training of our species was a hearing training , and it is the reason why our ears/brain dont work as a computer algorythm reconstructing sound qualities of real physical sound sources by calculus of the elementary abstrast factors from The Fourier theory : frequencies, amplitude, phase, duration... our ears works not in a time independant dimension as our mathematic but in a time dependant DIRECTIOn where we were trained to hear natural and speech/musical sound qualities and natural sounds... Our survival depend for example of the way the tapping on a fruit indicate that the fruit is ripe or not...The sound quality here is OBJECTIVE information... And it is a subjective pleasurable impression.. and it is directly perceived as a WHOLE...
Note that good sound reproduction is different than good sound. One is objective the other subjective.
Good point and simply put...
I find much of the content of this thread pretty useless.
My posts may be useless but not the articles i recommended sorry... it is a counterpoint to some Amir claims about hearing theory and listenings illusions and/or power...
Very good point... it is one of the reason i like my headphone, i felt the bass with my body by bones resonance... I never felt that before with headphone..
@mahgister: I understand why Amir is doing this but I totally fail to understand why YOU keep doing this. You must know this is simply another platform for Amir’s propaganda. Please stop. And if you ever wander whether you can beat Amir in audio arguments in audio forums and audio social media (and I am not saying audio truths), you are mistaken. You cannot. He invented them
Anybody can read the articles i proposed... 10 articles at least..
Anybody can be respectful even in disagrement... I dont think that ASR is useless on the opposite there is there many interesting discussions...But i cannot imagine because i prefer human relation to discuss only measures... 😊 But Floyd toole had an interesting discussion on ASR and i think Dr. Choueri too...
Anybody can know and think by himself why we cannot predict all aspects of sound qualities and design ONLY by linear set of measures... Good design dont equate superior sound qualities..
Thats all ...
i say it i will repeat...I dont focus on gear as subjectivist or objectivist... I focus on acoustic and psycho-acoustic ...And here subjectivity and measures complement and are inseparable from each other.. . Gear is secondary in audio , acoustic and psycho-acoustic is fundamental... it is my opinion... audio industry is now a mature industry, pure science matter more than ever... basic technology has passed a minimal threshold of quality...
@mahgister: I understand why Amir is doing this but I totally fail to understand why YOU keep doing this. You must know this is simply another platform for Amir’s propaganda. Please stop. And if you ever wander whether you can beat Amir in audio arguments in audio forums and audio social media (and I am not saying audio truths), you are mistaken. You cannot. He invented them
"I think it’s pretty pointless to argue against use of measurements to establish what is good sound reproduction. Note that good sound reproduction is different than good sound. One is objective the other subjective.
It’s also true that metrics alone do not tell the whole story. They are capable of getting things right but are often applied incorrectly or incompletely. It’s worth arguing that case by case but not that metrics are always the whole story or that they are of no value. It’s really not so complicated to understand. I find much of the content of this thread pretty useless. Maybe Amir’s site has more to offer. I’ll have to check it out more often."
Yes, correct, what virtually everyone agrees about.
The problem with this thread is due to one person. mahgister
mahgister ..... JUST STOP. Your neurotic verbosity is a drag. I along with nearly everyone else here ignores it.
You are spamming this thread and site with endless BS that no one has the patience for. Go take a walk. Get some fresh air. Learn about being concise.
Sorry dude but sometimes we all need some tough love.
Nothing. Just the ASR propaganda. Read my question I posted above:
I wonder, if ASR website (Amir Science Review) was so popular, beating every single audio forum & site, including Stereophile, by multiple TIMES, why the owner of that site, the honorable Amir His Majesty, spend so much time here? 50 posts so far on this thread alone in a few days. Daily. Even in weekends. And very long elaborate posts. Nobody wonders why so many men hours that can be spent measuring stuff, and posting in the website he owns? 🤔
Think!
Oh:
Maybe Amir’s site has more to offer. I’ll have to check it out more often.
And what is one brand Amir’s company - Madrona Digital - sells? You guessed it! Revel products. But didn’t Amir say he doesn’t monetize ASR in any way (pssst... let’s ignore memberships and patreon)? Oh, fret not, he doesn’t make any money off that. And trust him, no one calls his business wanting to buy Revel speakers because they focus on custom integration and no one really buys speakers from him. So there’s zero conflict of interest there. Right? Right?
I would laugh, truly, if it weren’t so clearly hypocritical and obvious to anyone with half a brain that Amir espouses behavior that he himself condemns.
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). Amir sells many brands. He is no different than anyone else (who puts a disclaimer on their site or review or otherwise are transparent about monetization). Absolutely no different. He somehow thinks he is, though. That’s scary.
Even more timely:
I see something similar that has happened to his other targets happening right now with some of the headphone guys where Amir, in typical Amir fashion, is going out of his way to subvert their efforts and calling into question not just their measurements but even their integrity. How people don’t see this for what it is, a means to control the narrative in his favor, is truly baffling to me. How Amir chooses to see everyone as a competitor to him rather than letting discussion flow is also baffling. Can’t have anyone favoring another reviewer over Amir now can we?
It’s ok to make money if you are offering a service or product of value. That’s determined by the masses not any single handful of detractors.
It’s OK to not like someone. That’s a personal choice, but by posting here realize one is serving the purpose of providing free publicity. Not the first time someone has come here to help make a buck. In fact that’s what this site is for! The forum exists solely for that purpose. I have no problem with it as long as the vendor is reasonably transparent and honest about why they are here. Not always the case!
@thyname I make no money posting. But many here do. They have products and services to sell and there are no forum rules against vendors posting here. But. Audiogon is a business that makes money by enabling sales. I’d surmise the forum is deemed a positive tool towards that end by allowing people to discuss things related to the things sold. Amir’s site is one of many resources buyers have at their disposal to help make better informed decisions.
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.
