It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
I understand that. But what is the confidence level of measurements by audio product type. On ASR there was such estimates. What are they are now?
That is a comment I made in passing which is being misunderstood by you and even some reviewers (Darko comes to mind). The point I was making that in some cases like speakers and especially headphones, correlation of measurements with listening preference while strong, is not conclusive. I said that speaker measurements can on the average, in my opinion, predict listener preference 70 to 80% (something like that). And that for headphones it can sink even lower to say, 60 or 70%. Those are about the ratios I see in my own comparisons of speaker/headphone measurements to my listening tests.
For electronics I said the measurements rise to 100%. When I measure for example a wire from many vectors and find that it is identical, not close, but identical to another cable, then that is that. There is no room left for doubt like there is in speaker/headphone measurements. We know the operation of these devices and when measurements confirm what we know, the job is done. Really done.
Now, maybe the one in a million happens and someone comes forward with a controlled listening test shows that while measurements as I perform are identical, the two items sound different to statistical significance. If so, and we can confirm and repeat that experiment, this will be major news. This, as you well know, has not happened. This is very different than speakers where we can see that the measurement predictions while correlated, don’t explain everyone’s preference.
Net, net, if I review a headphone and i say it measures poorly, and colors the sound like it should be and you come out and say no, you love the sound, you won’t get an argument from me. Or anyone else on ASR. You may get told that you like colored sound but that is it. Heck, I sometimes say I like a headphone or speaker that doesn’t measure great.
But, if I comprehensively show that a power cable doesn’t do anything for the waveform coming out of your audio gear, and explain why, then we are finished. Measurements helped prove what we know from engineering and science.
This is the only reason to get upset over what we do at ASR. You are being you, a human that is dogmatic to N’th degree and refuses to accept new information
"This is selling us way too short. No device is strictly evaluated based on measurements alone. "
I understand that. But what is the confidence level of measurements by audio product type. On ASR there was such estimates. What are they are now?
I know that you do not think that measurements alone can tell us how exactly a DAC or speaker will sound. And that certain audio products are better defined by measurements than others.
I would just like to hear from you something like " DACs are 90% defined by measurements and speakers perhaps 50%.
You know some nuance, grey area and a little humility that maybe all these measurements are limited in what they can say about how a product will sound.
“None of this was my question. My question which you did not answer, was what is the impact of this on fidelity of audio devices we use?”
Absolutely none.
There, your question is answered.
That you cannot recognize your own boorish, snobby elitism and the insulting implementation of such, is not surprising.
“I am here in a thread specifically addressing who and what we are at ASR. Lots of misinformation is posted by members that are easily refuted. So I refute. :)”
So you are here to advocate for your own website. I would call that advertising.
“I tolerate an inordinate amount of abusive snobbishness in this thread. Doesn’t bother me none as long as we get to the truth of who and what we are at ASR. ”
Really, I did not know that you had any measure of control whatsoever on this site to make any kind of decision on what you will or will not “tolerate” on a site you do not own. Just another example of your snobbish, elitist and entitled worldview.
So answer Amir, should we all “recalibrate” or “retrain” our sense of taste and switch to insect based protein, or vegan, because it objectively “measures” better and the technocrat class won’t tolerate anyone not following their “recommendations”?
Or should anyone disagreeing with you just be sent to a re-education camp, of your design, until they get “on-board” and stop disagreeing with you?
It's been shown how your listening "tests" and your claims about them are more than a bit suspect.
Nothing whatsoever has been "shown." I grabbed the files as presented by creators of those tests, put them in foobar2000 abx plug in which is the gold standard for such tests, and i reported on the results. That a person is so incredulous as to a) claim impossibility and b) I must have cheated is just nonsense.
Once more, I have not only passed these tests, but show how. I explain my qualifications in my abilities here (e.g. knowledge of what to look for and formal training to hear small impairments) in my video.
All you have to counter this is just a claim where the claimant can't even make a correct technical point. He thinks a digital scope with ADC resolution of 8 bits can tell two music files apart that are dynamically changing?? You might as well believe in alien abduction while you are it.
And it’s how you can just positively know how something will sound, without ever having gone to the trouble of actually listening to it.
Same way we know you can't breathe oxygen on the moon. It is called science and engineering. Again, your doctor doesn't have to become sick like you to diagnose what is wrong with you. As I explained to you in my response, we analyze audio performance using many factors. Measurements are tools. Conclusions are based on far more than that.
That is on top of the fact that I listen to a ton of new products I review. I do more listening tests in a month than audiophiles do in their entire lifetime. You know this to be a fact yet you keep repeating otherwise. From my review of Neumann KH120 II just a couple of days ago:
"Neumann KH120 MKII Listening Tests
Going into this review, I expected to focus on tonality as I always do with my female reference/test tracks. But what I immediately noticed was the warmth of the bass out of this little speaker! Even on a track that doesn't show case this, there was nicely present low frequency response. And it wasn't just the ears that detected it. Low notes were accompanied by cool puffs of air landing on my nose! This was at 1+ meter/4 feet which again, is impressive for such a small speaker."
I went through the "trouble" of listening to it, right? And this is on ASR.
I am the only one posting results of listening tests here where only my ears are involved.
It’s been shown how your listening "tests" and your claims about them are more than a bit suspect. In any event, the results of any tests I’ve been part of wouldn’t refute your tests, even if they were valid. That’s not how it works. Of course, your interest is to continue argument ad infinitum, so as to drive traffic to your forum and website. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that as long as you're honest about your intent.
What is the impact of a photon of light when you hear an informative qualities perceived from two singers whose tone interact ?
None i know of...
That's right. Sometimes the simple is the answer. We don't need to dabble in philosophy or obscurity to analyze performance of something as simple as a DAC, audio cable or amplifier.
You asked questions about the papers you presented. I answered them simply and clearly together with proper back up. You keep saying I didn't and go on posting about philosophers. No one is engaging you on the topic from your camp because stuff you are writing don't make sense or are relevant.
Instead of writing more, come back with the results of any controlled listening tests you have run that disagrees with measurements and are basis of your theories. That is all that matters, right? The sound we hear.
Hmmm, so the Great Amir can't measure it, but can hear it. My my, that sure sounds audiophile myth familiar doesn't it? Coming from the Great one??
Don't play game of Calvinball. You claimed the measurement gear behind me in new videos I produce can tell you the difference between files in blind tests. I explained to you that those devices are not capable of detecting such things as bit depths in music files.
That was your claim and it is falsified by the fact that you can't show any of these devices to do what you said "in theory" they can do. They can't do that in theory or otherwise.
Remember, we are talking about analyzing music here, not equipment. Analyzing music can be quite non-trivial depending on what you are searching for. Simple thing like dynamic range of music cannot be determined from any commercial software. Or even accurately using custom software. We can make a statistical analysis but exact answer would be hard or impossible.
But you’re not an objectivist, you’re a measurementalist.
Is that what you call your doctor? Because he measures? Or do you rely on his knowledge and experience and the fact that he uses measurements as a tool to aid in his diagnosis?
That’s how you can sweep aside any empirical evidence
What evidence? I posted results of double blind listening tests. You don't even dare to run a listening test without your eyes involved. It is an insult to the word "evidence" to call that such.
Really, all the complaining in the world is not going to change the fact that your fellow audiophiles are finding a path to knowledge of audio systems on ASR. We are not perfect but we do try to stick to what is provable, not what is imagined.
Hmmm, so the Great Amir can't measure it, but can hear it. My my, that sure sounds audiophile myth familiar doesn't it? Coming from the Great one??
There would be nothing wrong or inconsistent with that, and it would be consistent with a scientific mindset.
Often enough observation of a phenomenon comes first, then we try to explain it more rigorously with other empirical evidence, hypothesis testing, measurements etc. Anyone could reliably observe that certain reptiles, e.g. chameleons, could change their color well before we understood and quantified the phenomenon.
What counts as an observation that requires such inquiry will necessarily interact with our current body of (tentative, but reliable) knowledge. If it contradicts well known and reliable fields of knowledge then you don't have to pay much attention to claims that would undermine that theory, unless they had very strong levels of reliable observation behind them - e.g. someone claims to have seen a Perpetual Motion Machine in his friend's garage isn't going to count as an observation that requires rigorous inquiry.
But, for instance, if it turned out people were reliably able to detect sonic differences between A and B, in well controlled tests, where this is unexpected on current theory, then yes that becomes a reliable observation you'd want to explain.
And then seek perhaps evidence to support a hypothesis as to what is objectively happening, e.g. try to find relevant measurements.
In other words: there is nothing in principle wrong with reporting hearing a sonic difference that one has not measured (or been able to measure as of yet).
This is why Amir has been pretty consistent in often emphasizing the relevance of listening. (But...under conditions controlling for variables, when seeking higher confidence levels).
But such engineering explanation is not going to make sense to audiophiles as they are not technical and so will dismiss it out of hand.
That is just a prejudicial statement. As with any group, all audiophiles are not alike, although I understand why it’s convenient for you to portray them that way.
Indeed, this is why objectivists failed to make headway for literally decades.
Most objectivists do just fine in the audio world, as is demonstrated on this site every day.
What we at ASR do is go above and beyond. We measure. We measure the signal coming out of your gear ...
But you’re not an objectivist, you’re a measurementalist. That’s how you can sweep aside any empirical evidence that doesn’t fit your agenda, which is to drive traffic to your forum and website. And it’s how you can just positively know how something will sound, without ever having gone to the trouble of actually listening to it.
And we even offer listening tests with real music. But the latter is not really necessary. I just provide it to get past the objection of "well, you didn’t test wiht music." OK, we did and the outcome was precisely as we said it would be.
Expectation bias; even measurementalists are not immune. In fact, they may be especially vulnerable.
Your use of bold face fonts does nothing to further your argument, btw.
What is the impact of a photon of light when you hear an informative qualities perceived from two singers whose tone interact ?
None i know of...And even if there is one, the basic of psycho-acoustic is not based on photonic...This is another level i am not at all able to adress nor you and unnecessary for the discussion about sound qualities perceptible value..
my audio system work only if Maxwell and Einstein are right and some other scientists so what ? What is the relation with psycho acoustic basic fact ?
Unable to answer my question in psycho-acoustic which is directly related you want to ridicule me with emgineering physics ?
Your electrical measures are necessary for design and useful as qualitative information about gear coupling etc... They cannot predict ALL aspect of audible qualities perceived by the ears/brain listening to a an audio system in this room with this ears or this other room etc ...
You can say this amplifier work well because the measures well demonstrate his linear well predictive working on some stress factors...Thts Ok.. This does not describe and means that ALL listening impressions will be ALL reducible to this set of measures...If not we must call them you claim it so , delusions or artefacts or illusions .. The reason why we hear what we hear are in psycho acoustic about the way human ears works First and last...Not in electrical engineering..
it seems finally that you are like the techno zealots around you... 😊
I will repeat it to be clear, the center and crucial matter in audio are first in acoustic and psycho acoustic not in the gear measuring... Even well and good gear design take his basic fact from psycho-acoustic ...Not the reverse... Psycho-acoustic can use tools and measures but it is to study human hearing... And human hearing is not first and last illusory, it is a relation to reality... it is studied as such in works around hearing impairment...You want to save face by drowning the fish: psycho acoustic explain audible qualities as real not electric engineering by itself ..
That serves only as a misdirection. You are claiming/showing a purported successful test. By you.
Nope. You lost the plot there. Dear member @kevn made this comment I was responding to:
Fifth, he is unable to tell apart music files of low and high resolution, and based on this lack of ability, determines that measurements in performance testing is all that is needed to determine what is heard, and what is not.
He says I am unable to tell such files apart and by implication, he can. Can he AJ? Are his claims correct that he can hear such differences and if you can't, that will be a sign of resentment on your part?
You wanted in this conversation. There you are. What is the answer or must we ask it 10 times and only get non-answers?
You treat me as an "idiot audiophiles" as some around you called them you are pathetic...
You keep complaining but not answering my simple and brief question. What is the impact of a photon of light not experiencing time has on performance of our audio system? Does this have an answer or not?
I heard that Amir had a chart that compared the relative value of measurements based on type of audio product. So that things like cables and DACS could be 100% judged by measurements and with things like speakers that % was less.
This is selling us way too short. No device is strictly evaluated based on measurements alone. We always start with the underpinning science and engineering.
There is a company that sells you a box filled with dirt and a wire that you connect to the chassis of your audio gear and claims it improves the sound (and has real testimonials from people claiming the same). We know, a priori that what he claims is impossible. What earth, the real one does, cannot be emulated using a small box with dirt in it. The guy who built it was a farmer which kind of makes sense why his went where it did. But simple engineering says he is dead wrong.
Now, classic objectivists will stop here. Here is an example of the most well known engineering talent online, Dave Jones on matters of audiophiles and their ideas:
So we could just stop there and call it done. But such engineering explanation is not going to make sense to audiophiles as they are not technical and so will dismiss it out of hand. Indeed, this is why objectivists failed to make headway for literally decades.
What we at ASR do is go above and beyond. We measure. We measure the signal coming out of your gear and see if using a different cable changes this. Usually we find not a hair has changed in the output of the audio device. In some cases we actually find things have gotten worse with the fancier items such as a cable! Or Power "regenerator" (which didn't really regenerate).
When still doubted, we play music and capture that with generic and fancy cable. We then show the difference electronically and even offer the files for people to listen to:
Now the case gets incredibly convincing. Now the person will understand and accept the electronic explanation of why said cable couldn't have made the difference in the first place. The measurements and null test then are the icing on the cake and proof points for the non-technical.
In that sense, you are providing an extreme disservice to your fellow audiophiles to keep talking about us just measuring. Your fellow audiophiles are not dumb as that implies. They are learning the story end to end. I know because I watch them explain it to others.
Back to cables, they are the most innocent things in your audio system. They have higher fidelity than any piece of electronics and by a mile. That audiphiles based on lay intuition and incorrect listening tests have arrived at a different point of view is again, easily proven using electronics circuit theory.
So yes, once we measure something like a cable, then the story is told. We have theory, engineering knowledge and now concrete, objective data to prove the same. And we even offer listening tests with real music. But the latter is not really necessary. I just provide it to get past the objection of "well, you didn't test wiht music." OK, we did and the outcome was precisely as we said it would be.
So reduces us to just measuring at your own peril. We are about knowledge and true understanding of what makes your audio devices tick, and what doesn't. If that is scary and uncomfortable to know, I get it. You don't have to come to ASR. But please don't keep repeating the same fallacious tag line as if I am not here to correct you. That my friend, makes no logical sense.
You treat me as an "idiot audiophiles" as some around you called them you are pathetic...
Instead of answering my REAL QUESTION IN PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC...
What was the impact of photons on my metabolism excretion ?😊 For sure there is one because of the photonic communication between cells but no doctor use this to explain metabolism basic... Do you catch ?
I dont sell cables with quantum properties...
Go ask one seller...
And for time paradox not elementary relativity i refer you to two interesting scientists..
You used this tactic to drawn the fish with me all the time during our discussion... I concluded about your bad faith or ignorance i cannot know ... Your last question illustrate it well..
The ears/brain mechanism is not a quantum physics matter , to understand it at basic level in psycho-acoustic we dont need quantum mechanics for that nor to explain basic cables working too... I am not specialized in cable physical studies either...
ANSWER Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment CONCLUSIONS and explain to me why they are wrong...Why not thinking ? instead of turning around the quantum mechanics pot or around your measures schematics about gear ..
i thank you for your useful gear measures, thank me for helping you to separate yourself from the techno babbling zealots around you with psycho-acoustic fundamentals in hearing theories..
Time dilation does not present a paradox. If you get on a spaceship and travel near speed of light for a month, you could arrive back on earth potentially hundreds of years later. Not only will any clock you carry with you verify this, but every fabric of your being will as well! This is a consequence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity where no experiment has managed to disprove it.
Therefore, a photon is simultaneously generated at big bang 13.8 billion years ago and dissipated now in your eye at the same time. This is what the laws of universe predict and isn’t subject to opinion calling it a paradox.
None of this was my question. My question which you did not answer, was what is the impact of this on fidelity of audio devices we use?
I will also treat you as you treat me, i know how to liquidated your paradox
Time dilation does not present a paradox. If you get on a spaceship and travel near speed of light for a month, you could arrive back on earth potentially hundreds of years later. Not only will any clock you carry with you verify this, but every fabric of your being will as well! This is a consequence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity where no experiment has managed to disprove it.
Therefore, a photon is simultaneously generated at big bang 13.8 billion years ago and dissipated now in your eye at the same time. This is what the laws of universe predict and isn’t subject to opinion calling it a paradox.
None of this was my question. My question which you did not answer, was what is the impact of this on fidelity of audio devices we use?
I heard that Amir had a chart that compared the relative value of measurements based on type of audio product. So that things like cables and DACS could be 100% judged by measurements and with things like speakers that % was less.
When I say that I learned how little measurements matter it is speaking relatively. I used to think much higher of them, that they told more than they do. I do believe they have value.
I would like to see this idea of nuance and relative value of measurements addressed by Amir. A consideration of the grey areas.
Well, pardon me. Do tell: can an audiophile tell the difference between high-res and CD with identical masters?
That serves only as a misdirection. You are claiming/showing a purported successful test. By you.
What theory? Two files that are presented as 24 bit/96 kHz while in reality one has a true dynamic range of 16 bits, can NOT be analyzed with any tool I have.
Hmmm, so the Great Amir can't measure it, but can hear it. My my, that sure sounds audiophile myth familiar doesn't it? Coming from the Great one??
Ok, not buying 😉. We both know you can/have measured the difference and already confessed on your forum how to cheat such a test by cranking the silence to give away the lower bit depth. Remember?
Nothing that complicated. I give it one out of three chances to be wrong, based on more than a decade of conducting double-blind and subjective tests and formal evaluations of my hearing. In other words, I know what percentage of time I have made a fool of myself in such tests . Versus being right.
We then have a long and established record of you being disingenuous about your self testing. So what I'm suggesting is you show this remarkable ability at PAF 24, proctored.
«Usually men walk in a map in their head they dont even see the territory, science as well as religions are maps and walls to protect us from the unknown and from the territory , but tools so useful they can be are not ourself, as transhumanist want us to believe and want us to merge with them, we need free spiritual moral survivalist in the real wold" -- Anonymus anarchist
" i need my barrel to live in and my sun, stay off of it", say Diogenes to Alexander master of the world asking to him what he need in front of the Diogenes sun ...
@djones51 ASR doesn’t offer anything of value to us audiophiles. I’ve been there, done that, I’ve bought a 250$ DAC with pristine measurements thinking it would be all I’ll ever need. I’m poor, you see, so it’s easy to fall for ASR ’s claims. "Yaaay I got a great deal and you guys are all morons"
Unfortunately, those claims are utter BS in the real world for anyone who has EARS and actually LISTENS to their equipment. So, I’d rather see ASR as a disservice to the audiophile community, on top of being full with obnoxious (let’s call a cat a cat) members.
Where amir starts going on about how, explicitly or through snide comments, someone is a rube, a plebe, an unsophisticated troglodyte if they don’t agree with his value judgements and they actually like, and forfend(!), purchase something that does not “measure up” per amir, is where he becomes offensive.
Tossing the "fallacious" label at @painter24 is a prime example of true colors being revealed.
It has been implied in this thread that bad behavior in disagreement with Amir is equivalent to the bad behavior accusations leveled against Amir. No, there is an important difference. Amir and ASR only give lip service to the idea individuals are free to make their own choices. The ASR approach is to badger other into submission. Every non-compliant thought is dismissed as invalid, uninformed, biased, untrained, non-scientific, ignorant, unethical, etc., etc. This thread is nothing more than Amir arguing and badgering with excessively long posts,
i begin this discussion by thanking Amir for his free useful measures information..
Then i observed that the subjectivist-objectivist division was created by FOCUS on the gear pieces by electrical measures and focus on the gear piece by listening experience...One put against the other...
This DIVISION results from the gear market sellers and consumers conditioning not from psycho-acoustic science... The tool obsessed measuring minds used this division between sellers and consumers to claim their dogma as UNIQUE TRUTH... They sell their site ideology... They debunk... Some designers which use psycho-acoustic facts trust listening and hearings but do not say it loud because there are zealots crowds attacking them like they attack audiophiles listenings reviews as of no value at all... This is my perspective about this problem...
I suggested that in psycho-acoustic science this OPPOSITION and war is meaningless completely...
I explained why using many articles but especially one by Magnasco and Oppenheim...
No one even commented it nor any subjectivist nor any objectivist...
it seems people prefer to attack ad hominem instead of thinking..
I dont need to read diploma series from someone to understand with who i spoke...😊
I use arguments...
I like to discuss in good faith...
Anybody can read my posts and articles to explain a simple fact : Qualities are informative and grounded in experience in the natural world ...Electrical measures are essential for gear design and useful to pair the gear components or help to tune a room...but electrical measures do not replace acoustic training nor musical training and dont make psycho-acoustic problems delusions from someone who dont trust ONLY measures and then allegedly need blind test to have the right to speak ..
The ears/brain dont work like a Fourier computer...Period...
Sound sources are real and sound waves convey real qualitative information extracted from the sound sources by the non linear ears/brain in his time dependant domain...
Then objectivist and subjectivist division created by techno and gear market obsession is preposterous and dont exist in psycho-acoustic science.. On the opposite the relation between the real qualities perceived by the Easrs/brain and the link to Fourier Maps and acoustic and physical invariant is at the center of this field...
Maybe if everyone activate the manners that I’m assuming all have been taught are an asset when dealing with others this would go better.
Otherwise there may be nothing more of value to see here.
i am interested by links between fields, cracks between theories..
My most important reflection subject was the links between semiotic and linguistic..
I am interested by number theory meanings for philosophy...
I am interested by the way the Temple of Louxor was designed..
I am interested by the meaning of the poetic act speech...
I am interested by categoey theory in the approach of Alexander Grothendieck...
i am interested by the links between all that and more..
i like Dyonysos the areopagite the syrian mystic and the link between his three methods and set theory through Cantor works ... i studied it for 10 years...
Etc.. I am interested by the morphology of mammals and the Goethe method in the work of the physicist Henri Bortoft...<
I am interested by The work of Swedenborg about reality and quantum theory... i dont understand for now the link with Roger Boscovich...
i am interested bby READING and THINKING...
I am interested by the difference and similarity between Goethe more oriented perceptual phenomenology and Husserl more oriented conceptual phenomenology and their deep link through the "crisis of modern science" the deep last book of Husserl.....
i am interested by the way human brain perceived QUALITIES and OBJECTIVE INFORMATION from sound source in natural environment..
I am interested by the PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE INVARIANT which explain the information of sound sources to the geaturing and acting human body and why our generative ability to become sound source ourself and produce sound conditioned nature affordances and conditioned us in a particular direction of time to extract what is useful to our survival in a non linear way because our cochlea is non linear... By the way what is a spiral as mathematical object and symbolic object as Cassirer called them "symbolic forms" ...
it is why the thesis that audible informative qualities which must be reducible to ONLY Fourier electrical map seems preposterous to me . We need an ecological set of experiments protocols to understand hearing...
you are not able to understand a two page psycho-acoustic article it seems NOBODY answer me ANYTHING about it Amir dance around it with his measures schemas without adressing it : Magnasco and Oppenheim
Now being unable to answer my point about the IMPOSSIBILITY and UNSCIENTIFIC attitude which consist as you did and trying to convince others that a small linear set of electrical measures from Fourier Maps are the only OBJECTIVE way to qualify audio audible impressions QUALITIES, because if not , they are anyway "illusions" or artefacts we must eliminated by blind test, this techno babble ideology has nothing to do with psycho-acoustic as demonstrated CLEARLY not only by the results of Oppenheim and Magnasco but by the way they constructed their experimental protocol to demonstrate the way the ears/brain do not compute mere Fourier maps but perceived REAL QUALITATVE INFORMATION FROM THE REAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENT in his time dependant domain and extract this information essential for his survival in a non linear way...
What is your answer and argument AGAINST this fact ?
Instead treating me like a deluded idiot you set me a childish trap with a paradox in quantum theory...
If i explain to you the solution , you will not be able to UNDERSTAND it...
I will also treat you as you treat me, i know how to liquidated your paradox , and i will suggest to you first TWO solutions at this paradox, one in non commutative geometry by Alain Connes about TIME in this video : "the shape of music."...and i will briefly resume it :"The thermal time hypothesis has been put forward as a possible solution to this problem by Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes, both in classical and quantum theory. It postulates that physical time flow is not an a priori given fundamental property of the theory, but is a macroscopic feature of thermodynamical origin." For clarity i will add this "The thermal time hypothesis predicts that the ratio of the observer's proper time to his statistical time – the time flow that emerges from Connes and Rovelli's ideas – is the temperature he measures around him. It so happens that every event horizon has an associated temperature."
there exist another solution which do not contradict this one but complement it but you are not able to understand it sorry ... it is in the Book by the physicist Anirban Bandyopadhyay; Nanobrain or how to make an artificial brain with time crystals...
Now instead of playing with me as an idiot ANSWER WHY MY OBJECTION TO YOUR REDUCTION OF AUDIBLE QUALITIES TO ELECTRICAL FOURIER MAPS OF ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS IS WRONG ?
Let me ask you to ponder this: as something achieves speed of light, time for it stops relative to us who are stationary (Einstein’s theory of special relativity). In that regard, a photon of light that has been traveling for billions of years since the big bang, gets to our eyes in an instant, as far as the consciousness of the photons is concerned. At one moment it is at big bang and at the very same moment, it hits your eyes through a telescope! Do you understand the ramifications of this for fidelity of audio?
Explain to me how a review for a loudspeaker does not entail listening to it. Joke.
It has been explained. Repeatedly. I have even post a video I have done on it.
Someone’s subjective testing of a single speaker has little to no value. That you seek is useless.
The purpose of my listening tests is to determine audibility of flaws seen in measurements, not something onto themselves. Here, the flaws of the speaker are quite apparent. With the speaker being quite large and heavy, I made an exception to my general stance of listening and EQing it and letting the membership build a consensus.
That you ignore some 300 speaker reviews with listening tests and pick this one to complain about shows anything but good intentions. Move on.
@amir_asrI am not AJ. You’re so rude and people come to your defense. Nice of you to be so condescending and sarcastic. That is your science at work? I post on ASR regularly.
Explain to me how a review for a loudspeaker does not entail listening to it. Joke.
Doesnt bother you but you continue to unravel and let this whole conversation frustrate you more and more.
"As I noted, due to lack of time, I do not have listening impressions for you." How the @#!$ do you evaluate a speaker without that? I would love to see a car review without driving it. Astonishing.
There was no proctor available to vouch for authenticity of my subjective listening tests. It was during the time of Covid and proctors just didn't want to make home visits. Meanwhile, we have this:
Do you need help understanding this AJ? Is it befitting of a $20,000 speaker?
Here is a "review" from ASR. Amir doesn't even share whether he would recommend it. Just says vote with your eyes.
A company sends you a $20,000 test pair and you can't even be bothered to listen.
"As I noted, due to lack of time, I do not have listening impressions for you." How the @#!$ do you evaluate a speaker without that? I would love to see a car review without driving it. Astonishing.
Clearly it does bother you. You are still here. LAUGH OUT LOUD. You have explained everything you ever could about what your website does, and revealed everything it doesnt do through your snobbery. The fact that you cant see your elitism shows you have a blindspot the size of Texas. You just want the last word which you don't seem to be getting.
About this matterc the two most influential philosopher of the last century are Merleau_Ponty, and the mathematician turned philosopher Husserl...
Let me ask you to ponder this: as something achieves speed of light, time for it stops relative to us who are stationary (Einstein's theory of special relativity). In that regard, a photon of light that has been traveling for billions of years since the big bang, gets to our eyes in an instant, as far as the consciousness of the photons is concerned. At one moment it is at big bang and at the very same moment, it hits your eyes through a telescope! Do you understand the ramifications of this for fidelity of audio?
Anyhow in conclusion, no I don’t think Amir has changed my mind about anything. I have found useful information on his site that will help my decision making when buying though and look forward to what all he might review in the future. He is a reviewing machine for sure. The metrics say he produces more reviews faster than most anyone else and I respect that as long as the quality does not take a back seat..
Where amir presents measurements clinically and without bias, well and good.
a service.
That’s what my reviews are like on ASR. They are heavy on data and few words in between translating what the data says. I used to not say anything about recommending or not recommending a device but members strongly asked for that so I put it in there. But I also have a poll for members to vote to agree or disagree.
Further, every review is a discussion thread allowing people to again, agree or disagree, express their likes and dislikes (product or my review), and importantly add a lot of knowledge of information on their own.
How that can be "abusive" when it is exactly what you are asking, is a mystery to be solved.
I am here in a thread specifically addressing who and what we are at ASR. Lots of misinformation is posted by members that are easily refuted. So I refute. :)
If I ever want to be exposed to that kind of abusive snobishness, I will be sure to visit.
I tolerate an inordinate amount of abusive snobbishness in this thread. Doesn't bother me none as long as we get to the truth of who and what we are at ASR.
Where amir presents measurements clinically and without bias, well and good.
a service.
Where amir starts going on about how, explicitly or through snide comments, someone is a rube, a plebe, an unsophisticated troglodyte if they don’t agree with his value judgements and they actually like, and forfend(!), purchase something that does not “measure up” per amir, is where he becomes offensive.
He becomes tedious, with copy/pasted thousand word or line replies and 15 multicolored charts and graphs. Leave those on your own site and just provide an invite to view them there.
If humans only did or liked, what was “measurably” good for them, via social pressure, government diktat, or rule of technocrat, what a sad, flat experience life would be.
Make your measurements amir, but leave out the “value judgments” of and, often less than subtle, insults about people who disregard your “suggestions” to purchase, or not, a piece of equipment. Save that crap for your own site. Please. If I ever want to be exposed to that kind of abusive snobishness, I will be sure to visit.
I just show you in my post above with Copernic/Ptolemaus how we can devise perfectly error free observation /measurement protocol without any errors in it and being right all the time but with a false hypothesis all along for millenia ptolemaus astronomy goes way before Copernic and improved with the time passing a lot not only in spite but because of his faulty paradigm .. it is why experiments and observations are not enough to define science... moral conduct and training of the thought process ( not only mere logical reasonning here but more ) as training of the conscious attention is more important...
You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.
The only way you can assure you will not fool yourself , is not EXACT PERFECT experimental protocol with the illusory goal of eliminating ALL your biases.. This is impossible...
The biases created by the seeing of the sun turning around us is not false... This bias is confirmed each day...
The only way to not fool ourself is to cherish truth over our own life...Cherish truth over our paradigm... cherish truth over our tools... And even cherish truth over our scientific method... truth is the ultimate Ockam razor... Truth is one eternally...
There is no recipe to cherish truth... It can be learned by the moral and ethical conduct of the process of thinking... Plato teach it as such... This is why Christ teachings, Buddha, Lao tse, are so deep and why geometry and number theory are exercise in truth thinking and contemplation ...
My job was teaching reading and MOTIVATING reading among students not at an elementary level but reading analysis between fields...litterary, poetic or scientific or philosophic...
What is language ? in the grammar of any language there is a GEOMETRY of the thinking process which is the basis of the scientific process itself... Linguistic is one of the most astounding science ever... I studied with a linguistic genius alas! not translated in english much...Nothing is really random in language... language is so deep with meanings... i even cannot imagine how human can invent it... We litterally speak with a tool more deep than we can fathom... i cannot describe why here... They will kill my long post... 😊
In language there is two completely INTERTWINNED levels : poetic and prosaic... Guess where is truth in language ?
It is in our heart and in our way to relate the poetic and prosaic mode of speech TOGETHER in a conscious ethical way ...
Truth is the brother of love...They come from the Source...
it is the reason why i advised my students to study geometry or number theory more than philosophers only ( prosaic mode of speech) and read more mystics ( poetic mode of speech ) more than theologian...
observation must be trained... Faraday set of experiments or Goethe description of plants and mammals are very powerful for training...One of the most stunning book on earth describe mammals... Reading it we fall off from our chair, because we realized that we were able to identify a lion by reflex looking at it but we realized we had never SEE a lion... because our bias of recognition of the object lion fooled us completely... We miss all evident talking signs of the lion form and metabolism by looking at the lion image without seeing ever a real lion through the image...Any mammals form tell a story through all details of the form... as we must learn how to listen, we must learn how to see... Even grown adults dont know how to see... but oftem more blind people know how to see, why ? because they know that what we see is the ECHO of the signals we throw at the object like a bat and a dolphin... If we emit truth we will perceive truth...
in all that seeing, hearing etc , there is no simple method, only the thirst for truth and contemplation...
By the way acoustic phenomena are also as music a contemplative objects in time and very deep astounding as music or painting are ...
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.
