@curtdr This thread exists and in such a prolific form for a reason. I am not entirely sure why but there is a lot of history there. If Amir would just answer some basic questions, people wouldnt be so frustrated, including myself.
Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
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.
1,423 responses
that so many on here are so hostile to measurements is very strange to me, but I understand that sometimes defending our own perceptions is more important especially if we have big $$ invested... and I also am well aware that one can argue that our perceptions ARE our own personal reality, so... it is also very strange that people complain about hostility on Amir’s site and yet are so hostile on THIS site. sigh. |
Do you undertand what is the time domain ? Do you understand that hearing is related to the long history of decoding natural sounds meanings then hearing works in a non symmetrical time dimension and non linearly at all ? Amir never answered about that and about the 4 physicist i summoned all saying the same things.. Then i am here to discuss...Why did you claim i am not for discussion ? who else here proposed 4 articles for the discussion ? Where are Amir psycho-acoustic science backing his claim about hearing experience not so valuable as gear measuring tools ? You are so naive to believe posting a tool analysis of an amplifier is a proof in psycho-acoustic and an answer to my 4 articles ? Answering my point in psycho-acoustic by proposing chart analysis of amplifiers or cables is NOT AN ANSWER... Before judging my posts have you read the 4 articles? What means for you the fact that human hearing beat the fourier uncertainty? say to me what this means please ? i wait...
By the way you said i lack comprehension about Amir... Sorry but i thank him about the measures information about the gear... I cannot accept his stance about hearing experience to be replaced by the listenings methods he proposed based on his gear measuring methods and then the bashing of any OTHER hearing experience... Perhaps you did not understand the points discussed in these articles? the human hearing limits are not those Amir claim they are... What did they said these articles ? Try yourself to understand BEFORE JUDGING ME ...
Are you able to read this : ( why amir did not answered about this article physicist ? I discuss here, not him ,because he refused to answer about fact... The ears dont work as his measuring gear tools... And nobody can predict how an amplifier will sound only with measures of some specs... This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion |
I have a rare L-C-R set of ATC SCM100ASL active mid-field studio monitors as my fronts, made originally for Abbey Road. Three subs, two in stereo supporting the L&R with one 16" sub dedicated to LFE for DSD and Video content. Rears are Harbeth 40.2’s and 6 overhead ceiling mounted Definitive Audio 3-way monitors for height/Atmos. I have dedicated 2-channel path that bypasses the AVR I use for video. |
@soundfield @amir_asr Make love and get it over with already. I could cut the sexual tension with a knife! You two are so excited for the other. |
Blind test are useful for short term memory verification of subtle audio cues... You dont pick gear choice by blind tests and measures numbers only... Trained ears in acoustic or musicians dont use blind test because they work with long term acquired acoustic cues perception habit... Amir negate this and claim it to be ONLY delusion because he think his measuring tools are adequate to replace the ears natural long experience and in some case trained in acoustic and music ... but the way psycho-acoustic reveal how the ears/brain work in non symmetrical time domain and with non linear hearing strctures and methods contradict his llinear analysis time symmetrically dependant tools ... A pair of ears is no electrical tools...Fourier methods are no more enough to understand human hearing, then it is preposterous to reduce human hearing to gear measuring tools... Only ignorant people can believe that... Not one of the 4 physicist articles i proposed contradict my stance, it is the opposite and Amir was unable and unwilling to go on that road... His goal then appear to be a circle around him not truth... |
"It is impossible to discuss with you Amir... You are here to recruit? I am here to discuss..."
You are patently not. I've followed your discussion with Amir. And while you make some interesting points, your rush to express your opinion betrays your interest in trying to comprehend what Amir is saying. So, instead you badger him for answers to questions he has adequately answered more than once. I'd try a new approach. Because you sound very frustrated. And from my perspective, that frustration is born out of a lack of comprehension. |
Amir, you kicked me off your "Audio Science" forum for being "too objective", because I insisted only valid listening tests mattered, not "SINAD" and "ETC" many of your cult worship. "Valid" in the same sense that you didn’t get to administer your own Math tests in school, lest you always get an A. As I pointed out earlier, you have a long history of fabricating "Blind" tests. Foobar ABX can and has been gamed. There are threads about it on HA. Again you forget you posted a picture of the real time analyzers you use on the test signals, plus admitted to cranking up the silence to cheat. What you will never do is a public test administered by someone else. You know, the bare minimum standard used for AES, JJ, Toole, etc. Your gamed online Foobar tests wouldn’t pass basic paper submittal review. Attending PAF next year? 😉 |
@somethingsomethingaudio I wasn't calling you thin skinned. You don't seem to be. You seem measured and rational to me. Unlike some other commenters here that prefer badgering to discussion. We certainly have a difference of opinion, and I didn't mean to disrespect you if it came across that way. I too am more than a little jaded by the audiophile community. I thought it's woo-woo extremes were just a funny oddity. Though this lately has become a form of impassioned belief that defies logic. Oh well. I'm off to walk the dog. Wish I could ask him about his opinion about the upper frequencies of my speakers I can no longer hear. I'd value his opinion on it. Though all he want is treats and a scratch. I envy him. |
I find this hostility toward Amir more than shocking. Some of the accusations here border on the libelous and certainly do not reflect reality. .... I find it very hard to understand how Amir is being so consistently attacked when he appears to be offering a perspective with very clearly marked boundaries. Many accusations here are without any merit or grace.
Unfortunately, as we have seen all too often through history, as soon as some people see their vested interests being attacked they will readily resort to hostility when some of us might prefer dignified discourse. Sheer naked greed is the root of many an evil. 10,000 years of civilization has really done very little to change the nature of the beast. As much as I’d like to see myself and my fellow audiophiles as being a little better than that, far too many times some of the responses here lapse into rudeness and even vulgarity. Evolution moves surely but slowly. By the way, did anyone mention peace talks regarding the situation in Ukraine between the Globalists and the Russians? I thought not. |
Incredible! It is impossible to discuss with you Amir... You are here to recruit? I am here to discuss... You answered BESIDE my points completely... You cannot equate your measures of gear components as replacement for hearing experience and you cannot even claim that this is better than hearing experience... This is IDEOLOGY not science... Your measures of gear are useful to inform us about some claims and truths about their specs THATS ALL... Anything further is no more credible scientifically... You never answered... And i am among the few one here giving FACTS FROM 4 DIFFERENT PHYSICISTS ARTICLES PDF , ALL SAYING THE SAME THINGS, i did not give you insults... I know believe that your motives are less desinterested than what it seems or what you claims ... Yes i am naive... i am too serious to be cynical... 😊 By the way i taught reading analysis...Then english is not at all my spoken language, i almost never spoke it and learn it in philosophy books or science books, i express myself then in a clumsy way... ...But i am able to read ....
«The emperors may be had no clothes but my wife had many» -- Groucho Marx 🤓 |
@nicsadler I don’t disagree with you. Some people have been ridiculous here, and I’ve addressed it. @soundfield doesn’t get my business because from my perspective they are being petty and passive aggressive. With that being said I don’t get Amir is taking that tone here as he did with you in email. I understand he is being prodded from all angles, but don’t make claims you can’t back up. All I have wanted answered from @amir_asr is how he can claim to allow Erin’s video, be open to the discussion, call something that innocuous click bait and then close the thread so no more information can be had from it. I like top lists. I think they get to a core of what we all want. The best. He is in complete contradiction to himself and inviting more attacks by claiming he is one thing and then doing another. He literally replied to my reply and sidestepped my request to answer a simple question time and time again. It comes across as snooty and worse. Kind of like how Ellen Degeneres had a talk show where she purported to be a good person who cares and then behind the scenes wasnt nice. It wasnt a well kept secret and I could see it all over her. Not saying he is approaching her level of nastiness, but the conditions are similar where he is evangelizing himself and not realizing how down right condescending he sounds. It’s gross. This whole conversation has turned me off of audio. I come here to discuss and learn about great sound. I use all of my senses and my brain and data to do that. I don’t come here to discuss politics and it feels like I am an independent in a two party system. You calling me a thin skinned true believer supports that. I don’t even know what a true believer is. I believe it what I like and enjoy. Period. |
DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
|
The crux of the question is precisely about the fourier method and the impossibility to work with it in the time domain...
YOUR TOOLS WORK measuring gear components not hearing abilities... YOU PLAY WITH ME... It is not polite...
The article by Oppenheim and Magnasco is about LISTENING TESTS... And they demonstrate the human hearing abilities beating the Gabor limit and the Fourier uncertainty... Then your measuring tools are adequate for gear measurements components not for establishing the value of hearing experience... You act as a GURU equatiing measuring gear components tools with hearing experience...You refused to discuss the meaning of the Oppenheim and Magnasco listenings experiments... Your tools dont works in the time domain analysis and work in a time symmetrical domain... The ears /brain dont work as that... Answer this physicist who works in high end audio ABOVE , and state that clearly the ears /brain works in the time domain and your tools cannot measure hearing experience only the specs accuracy of gear ... |
"Amir claims trashing all listening experience if not based on his measurements is MEANINGLESS by psycho-acustic science..." Totally wrong. Listening tests are incredibly valuable. But they only create value if they are conducted properly. If not, they produce noise, not data or knowledge. Above has nothing to do with whether you believe in measurements or not. |
"I am interested in fundamentals about human hearing, and this fundamentals demolish your claim to equate measurements of gear and qualitative hearing perception..." Then you better hang around ASR, watch the videos I post, etc. and really learn the topic. Don't go hanging your hat on stuff you don't understand and put them forward as proof of anything. These papers such as Kunchur's have been discussed extensively and he has been shown to have no relevant knowledge of audio. Join us, ask questions and we are happy to explain and discuss. Otherwise you are not really interested I am afraid. |
Amir dont answer to true scientific question...It seems... I will repeat : Amir information about gear is USEFUL.... But Amir claims trashing all listening experience if not based on his measurements is MEANINGLESS by psycho-acoustic science... I cite 4 physicists saying the same thing on different perspective... He never answer them nor the question ... Save for one which is supposed to be ignorant in cables protocols and measurement...😊 Ok then answer the OTHERS... The crux of the matter is not CABLES here, it is the relation between hearing which work in the non symmetrical time domain and non lienarly, then Fourir methods are not enough to describe human hearings... Then the allegation to related gear measurements to be the main factor for predicting qualitative audio perception is FALSE... |
@somethingsomethingaudio - I have read with great interest this entire thread. I find it very hard to understand how Amir is being so consistently attacked when he appears to be offering a perspective with very clearly marked boundaries. Many accusations here are without any merit or grace. I have no personal connection with Amir. We emailed once over a year ago with regard to a Phono pre-amp he reviewed. I suggested he re-examine it using the fully balanced signal path offered, not the single ended in and balanced out which was the method used in the review. Our discussion was respectful and informative. Which is precisely my opinion of his responses here. He is clearly touching a nerve with some. But he does not deserve some of the pig-headed badgering here. It’s undignified. |
"https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf «The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊" I read through it. There is little there to comment about. Your audio gear does NOT have memory in it. He creates a simple circuit that does and shows trivial scope simulations of it. Enough to fool a layman into thinking there is some measuring going on. He also makes other dubious comments: ". Another well-known example is the upper frequency hearing limit: as humans cannot hear above 20 kHz, the reasoning is that there is no use in reproducing higher frequencies, as these will not contribute to the signal, reaching the brain. This argument has often been brought to the table to disqualify high-resolution audio. However, many high-end enthusiasts claim they can clearly hear the difference and even seniors, with an upper frequency upper limit of 10 kHz (like the author) can distinguish the difference." First, this has nothing to do with fourier transform. Second, I post ABX tests of high res that I did pass. But I am confident none of you can, including the author or said paper. You never throw such random claims in a proper paper. If what he says is true, you need to show it in controlled listening tests which he has none. Really, none of what you post has anything to do with ASR and value of what we are doing. |
i believe you ON YOUR WORDS that perhaps this physicist is not knowable in high end audio... HAVE YOU NOT OBSERVED THAT I CITED ANOTHER PHYSICIST WHO WORK IN HIGH END AUDIO ?
answer him... AND IT IS NOT ABOUT CABLES PROTOCOLS HERE I am not interest to listen a cable protocols debunking by you ...I am sure you are good at it.... This does not means that your claims about hearing and gear measurements are right... I am interested in fundamentals about human hearing, and this fundamentals demolish your claim to equate measurements of gear and qualitative hearing perception...
DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
|
@nicsadler I have no issue with ASR as a whole and it’s message or what the goal is. I think it’s debunked lots of myths in audio and am thankful for it. However Amir’s responses to these questions and how he cherry picks what to respond to leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. That is bias by the very definition of it. The way I see it is there are three points in this triangle. The ASR folks, who want to be science drive and asses everything as robot in an anechoic chamber. The Audiogon people who listen with their hearts and maybe eyes sometimes. Then there is Gearspace.com of people who are in the professional world and do this for a living. I’ve run many systems in my home space that are meant for professional use in some instances and even the "pros" want different things with non flat responses or the flattest speakers in the world don’t translate mids. There is nuance to everything and I realize the above buckets are over generalizations. Amir can say what he wants. I have no issue with any of it. I have no issue with him selling speakers he reps on his website. What I do have issue with is him saying its a totally free space and attacking other reviewers on his website because it doesnt match his strict view of science, or he feels they are monetizing like Erin. He goes on to claim he doesnt need the money, and doesnt make money from the site despite the fact that I guarantee that is in no way true. He accepts donations. If you’re gonna base your credibility on hard facts, don’t contradict yourself and then not answer to it. With the cherry on top being he acts like a jerk much of the time. True heroes admit they could be wrong, and are open to interpretation. IMO. I haven’t one time throughout this entire conversation say hey there is validity to what someone is saying. It’s: "Nope you’re wrong!" That is ridiculous. P.S. Libel always is the last point people go to. This is an online forum. Not a court of law. Better call in Clarence Thomas. |
| Post removed |
"ANSWER this physicist who design high end audio as a hobby without ad hominem attack this time..." Did you not watch the video I provided where I go through every one of his tests and demonstrate why they are all completely wrong? Here it is again: Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review I go on for 41 minutes breaking down every claim and test in his paper. Please don't keep demanding that I answer you when I have already done so. |
WHY DONT YOU ANSWER ON THE MATTER ABOUT HEARING ?
I dont neeed gear measurements here... I never doubt that they are USEFUL to know... What i dont accept is you pretense and claims to debunk hearing experience with these simplistic tools... Ears brain work in non symmetrcal time domain in a non linear fashion and cannot be explain by Fourier Methods algorythms... Then YOU CANNOT LAUGH AND PUT ALL AUDIOPHILES LISTENING IN THE SAME TRASH BIN... do you understand? You can give your gear measures information yes we thank you for that ; but you cannot mock human hearing experience with your claims about gear and your tools to measure it... REAL PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC SCIENCE debunk your claim here... |
"@amir_asr still waiting to hear about this $100.00 BAC that smokes all other DACs in the $5K range. You are quite the shill. Or is it s schill? " What the heck is a "BAC?" If you mean DAC, easy to show. First up is your expensive DAC: Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC ($5999): Here is its noise+distortion: As you see, it ranks way at the bottom in yellow color. Here is its noise performance alone: Can't even clear the noise floor of 16 bit CD 40 years after introduction of said format!!! Multitone test shows heavy rise of distortion in low frequencies: Reason for that? Output transformer. Designer admitted that they cut costs and picked a cheaper transformer resulting in this much increased distortion. Yes, you pay $6000 for DAC and yet corners had to be cut. Here are my listening test results (sighted): "I started the testing with my audiophile, audio-show, test tracks. You know, the very well recorded track with lucious detail and "black backgrounds." I immediately noticed lack of detail in PerfectWave DS DAC. It was as if someone just put a barrier between you and the source. Mind you, it was subtle but it was there. I repeated this a few times and while it was not always there with all music, I could spot it on some tracks. For $100 DAC, I would do you one better with a $99 DAC from Schiit: Schiit Modi 3+ Review (Stereo DAC) Here is how it did in noise+distortion: It nicely lands in the excellent category of blue. For noise, it nicely clears 18 bits: Does the same in multitone: No spitting of distortion in low frequencies as the PS Audio DAC did. See? Not hard at all. Give me a bit more budget and I can get you balanced output, nice display, etc. But if sound you want, the Schiit at $99 is much more performant than the $6000 PS Audio DAC. |
I myself thank you for the information provided by your measures ABOUT THE GEAR...I did not thank you for your assault on human listening experience with mere few electrical tools used to measure GEAR ... I dont insulted you and i dont played with you..... dont play with me and ANSWER ME ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THESE ARTICLES ... But you never answered what i spoke about with 4 articles... All saying that human hearing abilities and perceptive experience cannot be predicted by the kind of measurements you provide... Debunking gear and fetichism of audiophiles DONT MEANS THAT ALL THEIR LISTENING EXPERIENCE IS ILLUSORY... The heart of audio is psycho-acoustic... Not gear mesures so useful they are... ANSWER this physicist who design high end audio as a hobby without ad hominem attack this time... DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
|
| Post removed |
"Everybody with a brain has problem with your dogmatic stance about human hearing abilities limitations in relation to audio experience and your claim that only electrical measurement tell the story to be told about listenings acoustic qualities of gear ..." I have made no such claims. You all keep making up stuff about who we are and what we do. We absolutely value listening tests and more so than measurements. What we do NOT value is joe audiophile sighted listening tests. Science doesn't care how good you claim your hearing is. Your eyes should not be involved in said evaluation. Conditions must be made equal. And statistical rigor needs to exist in the outcome. Failing that, we can measure. Measurements tell us a lot about the design of a product and audibility of its response. Take this amplifier frequency response measurement: See the comment about load dependency? The amplifier output impedance rises with frequency. That then interacts with the impedance of the speaker causing variability in tonality of sound. Same thing happens with tube amps although their high impedance tends to be across the board. A person without measurements and understanding of the above technical topic would connect some speaker to this amp and declare it as sounding warm, bright or neutral. Any of those could be true depending on what speaker he hooked up to it (and his hearing to some extent). You would not at all know then that his evaluation may not apply to you. There is no way you can sniff and tease out the above factor by just playing music with this amp. Next measurement of power shows you this: This amplifier costs less than $100 yet it produces this incredible amount of power at 190 watts (peak) per channel!!! I bet all of you would just one look at this little box and think it would produce a couple of watts: From noise and distortion testing we know that it is keeping those factors below more than half of the 240 amplifiers I have tested as well. Information does not need to be complete to be highly useful! But it does need to be reliable. So no measurements don't tell the "whole story" but they sure as heck tell you a lot more than some random, totally unreliable listening test by random audiophile or youtube reviewer.
|
I find this hostility toward Amir more than shocking. Some of the accusations here border on the libelous and certainly do not reflect reality. This is becoming akin to a forum for those seeking to prove that, despite measurements and ample evidence, the wold is indeed flat because, well, because... Objective testing to a given set of criteria does not indicate whether that piece of equipment will be "to your taste". I have the exact same issue with colleagues in the motion picture industry that judge lenses purely on the basis of measured performance using specific techniques. While this is very useful in understanding how a lens might look, the data is a guide to understanding what you might prefer. The same is true of audio. I've spent enough time in the best recording studios on the planet to know that even these carefully calibrated environments have their own sonic signatures. The speakers I use at home had a former life sitting in a mastering suite at Abbey Road and are the exact speakers so many recordings I love were mastered on. But I am foolish to think they sound exactly the same as they did in the environment they were made and calibrated for. Still, I'd be very interested in seeing what the results would be in him testing them, if they didn't weight 140lbs each, I'd ship them to him to find out. But it wouldn't really alter the fact that I like the way they sound, in the space I have them working. |
DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR : This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
Instead of AD HOMINEM ATTACK about the physiciss i cited ( as they know nothing in high end audio) debunk this last one who say the same as the one you attack as ignorant in Audio matter.... Are you serious? ANSWER about time domain and the Fourier uncertainty and the impossibility to reduce human hearing to Fourier tools and frequencies analysis..TIME domain is fundame4ntal and the relation between hearing and natural sounds impose a time symmetry breaking and the brain non linear tools... |
"@amir_asr ever consider changing ASR to Amirs Measurements Science Review, since zero listening tests are/will ever be done?" Not at all because there is a ton of discussion of audio science. Audio Science is not just about blind tests. But sure, we have a number of blind tests posted. DAC blind ABX in-home test: Hegel h390 internal DAC vs Mytek Manhatten ii DAC Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5 I have also been posting blind test results for literally decades. Here is a sample: foo_abx 1.3.4 report If you believe in blind tests, how come you are not arguing with folks here saying they are not useful? Not convenient for business AJ? Yet another example of someone claiming what we do ats ASR, only to trivially be shown to not have any idea whatsoever.
|
I speak about human hearings and abilities, i cited his article and you answer that his protocols in cable listening is not good...😊He is a physicist then i aqm not surprized that his protocols for cables measuring and hearings may be criticized... This dont invalidate all of what he say about the capacities of human hearings... What about what he say about hearings ? What about Oppenheim aqnd Magnasco article about human hearings in the time domain ? I DONT SPEAK ABOUT CABLES PROTOCOLS... I speak about citing these articles of 4 different physicists, about the impossibility with simple electrical me3asures of gear components TO PREDICT QUALITATIVE HEARING IMPRESSION IN THE TIME DOMAIN .... The ears is non linear... it is impossible as you claim to correlate human perception of qualities in a linear correlation with your measures of gear... thats is the point... You can debunk gear specs by falsifying them , but pretending to inmpose your TOOLS over human listening experience is DOGMATIC cultist ideology not science...
And what about the human ability to beat the Fourier uncertainty in the time domain ?
|
"«Claims that differences in upstream components Kunchur has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to matters related to audio. His expertise is in physics and has nothing to do with this domain. I have done a full video on his last paper with totally incorrect test protocols: Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review In every field, you can find people who write official looking stuff that will impress the layman. Don't fall for it. Learn the topic yourself and then you see that such "experts" are not that at all. |
You dont get it Amir... No one with a brain had problem with your measurements information... Everybody with a brain has problem with your dogmatic stance about human hearing abilities limitations in relation to audio experience and your claim that only electrical measurement tell the story to be told about listenings acoustic qualities of gear ... have you read what i posted ?
|
"So you deny that knowing the measurements before listening may cause bias?" You are asking a loaded question as to say, "if measurements can bias listening tests, let me use my eyes just as well to do my listening tests." Answer to that is that if you know such biases exists, then you better not do any sighted listening tests. On my end, when such knowledge can create corrupt outcomes, then I don't even do the listening test. Example is DACs. Unless distortion is very high, I don't do sighted listening tests. In other cases, measurements provide incredible value in creating the proper listening test. If for example I know from measurements that a headphone amplifier has trouble driving low impedance headphones, I use that information to drive a such a headphone with content specifically designed to push that corner of fidelity. For speakers/headphones, it goes without saying that we can tell the difference between them so blinding is not needed on that front. What I do in my listening tests there is to use the measurement as a guide to see if I can improve the response using EQ. If I can, then I publish that EQ for others to try as well. Knowing measurements there is therefore a wonderful tool just as it is for your doctor. People who claim they should listen first and measure second, just have it wrong. They will then be giving you a random subjective opinion in a sighted test with no reliability factor. Who is to say their ears tell the truth? Or that the speakers are setup in the way that the room is not dominating the response? Or the content? I have done a video on this very topic: "Reviewing Speakers - Measurements and Listening Tests" In there I show published studies involving professional audio reviewers and how unreliably and poorly done their assessments are. If they can't produce reliable evidence for speakers, what hope is there for amps, DACs, etc.? Answer is none. So once again, measurements are your friend, not your enemy. Don't try to convince yourself otherwise with an argument like that. |
Now the nail in the coffin of Amir debunking audiophiles hearings by DOGMA with his electrical linear modelling tools used to verify the gear specs: This dude is a physicist i will not reproduce all 33 pages of his article of 2023 , Amir can read it himself...He wrote also about human hearings beating the Fourier uncertainty limits... There is a section dedicated to audio application which is very interesting... Only a short extract where this physicist seems to think the opposite of Amir about the "super" hearing abilities of human : «Claims that differences in upstream components http://file:///C:/Users/Utilisateur/Downloads/SSRN-id4437822.pdf |
Amir doesn't monetize or accept payments. Just donations. So you'd have to "donate". Interested in those ML amps at Madrona that have better bass than any AB amps, according to Supreme Leader? Donate at the cash register. |
The conclusion of another interesting article by a physicist:
The result presented here has relevance for the perfor- ......................................................
Temporal Resolution of Hearing Probed by
|
«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
His bio resume : Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen was born in Arnhem, Netherlands where he attended primary and high school. After finishing his high school education, he started working at the Shell laboratories in Amsterdam. As it was clear to him that he would need more education, he studied at the University of Amsterdam in the evening hours, from which he received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Physics with Mathematics, Information Science and Chemistry, both with honours. At the Shell laboratories, he worked on flow measurement techniques, fluid mechanics, chemical engineering and turbulence, resulting in several publications. Then he worked on the application of small computers in experiments and the related data-processing. He applied his experiences to the dataprocessing of Laser-Doppler Anemometry data, which he laid down in his Ph.D.-thesis for the Delft University of Technology. In 1997, he moved to the Shell laboratory in Rijswijk (Netherlands) and worked on multi-phase flow rate measurement in the upstream sector of the oil and gas industry. He was heavily involved in wet-gas measurement, for which he extended the work of Rick de Leeuw and others for horizontal Venturis. This resulted in a mathematical model for the multi-phase wet-gas flow in Venturis. After leaving Shell in 2010, he became an independent consultant for Hint Europe and in that position he extended his modelling to vertical upward Venturis. He presented his work on many different conferences and published numerous papers. His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems and riding a motorcycle in a touristic way.
|
| Post removed |
I will not post for a fifth times the article proving that we cannot deduce from gear measurement tools what human hearing is about and able to do... We can debunk cables or gear alleged specs yes with the tools Amir use or help a room acoustic embeddings nothing else, especially not predicting the perceived quality of an audio system with electrical measurements of gear specs... It takes few minutes to understand this article neither Amir nor prof make a comment.... They answered to insults but not to science it seems ... 😊 I am the only one i think in this debate to argue with a HARD psycho-acoustic science argument , no technological babble about hearing and measures and blind testing "golden ears" and debunking them etc ... The problem is that Amir cannot at all prove any relation AT THE END between gear measures and listening experience... He will never be able to prove it because it is impossible to do it with his tools... The ears dont work as our tools works...Period... If it was not the case the article of these two physicists will be proven wrong...
here simple remarks about Fourier method conditions of application by a Physicist, Hans Van Maanen: «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
Now imagine Amir with his linear modelling gear measuring tools saying to us WHAT WE MUST HEAR... Amir thanks for debunking gear, but stay there; dont try to judge people from your DOGMA and tool prejudice and stop debunking people hearings experience, history or even alleged "golden ears" ... You cannot do it with your tools if someone read any science ... |
@soundfield like I said I would pay to see this, and he won't answer you because he has selective hearing. |
@amir_asr ever consider changing ASR to Amirs Measurements Science Review, since zero listening tests are/will ever be done? I seem to recall some very funny excuses as to why no AVA ABX box. What are your thoughts of being subjected to an actual valid listening test at PAF 2024, with no peeking at your measurement devices for the first time ever and putting it on Youtube? |
@amir_asr I wasn’t complaining about the lack of work on the show report, or saying you didn’t put in effort. I was showing you what the other person commented on which you denied. There are sections and booths where you just didn’t add any information on the product. What am I being entitled to? I don't even want more information on the show. I was just citing an example of what you denied. You sense entitlement because people are holding you accountable and you refuse to answer and address basic stuff. This is not going well for you or ASR. @piaudiol Totally |
@amir_asr You didn't bother to answer the question I had bolded underlined and in italics. WHY DID YOU CLOSE THE THREAD?! People do not have to view Erin's video, they can comment on the discussion if they want. You are a hypocrite. The fact that you haven't fessed up to one iota of responsibility on your end in this discussion leads me to believe you are in fact narcissistic and have no interest in adopting other view points. |
"@amir_asr I dont think he was asking for a book. It would be great to hear about these speakers but you provided no detail other than things like "nice recording" that gives zero insight into what you liked or didnt like." A lot of things would be "nice to have." I am not your man to give you all this. I have my own life to live and am not going to invest 10X more energy in providing a show report that some of you are demanding, while at the same time throwing every rock you have at me. People who read my show notes enjoyed seeing the pictures, the commentary and importantly, discover of new music. Some members were kind enough to make Tidal, Spotify, etc. playlists out of them. You want more? Go do your own show report. This self entitlement is really getting out of hand..... |
"Good news is that countless fellow audiophiles of yours are seeing the value and helping us grow by reading the content, spreading the good word and sending in more gear to be tested. That upsets a few of you here. Why? Because your casual evaluation of audio is being proven wrong in objective testing. So what to do? You can start learning what audio is really about. Or complain I guess...." The lack of self-awareness, condescension and unbridled arrogance in that paragraph reminds me of every would be despot in history: inflated self worth and importance with no latitude for dissent... or facts. Keep trying to prove a negative. I'm out... |