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 see that your most recent reply to me has been deleted, amir, and I can only assume you have done so, since no one else would have had anything to gain doing so.
For context to my reply to that, I have attached the URL screen captures of the said reply, for anyone wanting to follow the discussion -
Thanks amir, as always, for your quick reply. Reading through it, however, I felt deep disappointment, as I had expected logical and relevant insight.
Instead, I have begun to see a pattern with all your replies not just to me, but with most participants in this thread. In every reply you have sent me, you have never answered directly. In your first reply, you referred to an unrelated topic on ‘learning how to listen’ when my question was about inherent listening ability. I let that go, and brought your attention to your misread of my question, to have you engage wordplay with my having you at ‘disadvantage’, but then prevaricate by saying you had given a clear answer and in doing so, avoid acknowledgement of your oversight. You then qualify your disapproval of the listening test I asked about, by referring to an anecdote about learning once again, this time by way of paltering over a CD on Japanese language instruction.
I then reply as thoroughly as I can, in response to a question you ask about the test in question, only to then receive a rude reply, denying the logical and conflating my reply with manhood comparisons, once again avoiding the issue that the blind listening tests you advocate are not proper tests, as they have two variables in them, the listener and equipment comparisons, lacking proper controls.
Amir, the way you communicate is through prevarication, conflation and paltering, to avoid direct answer or confrontation with the actual issues under discussion. You present completely unrelated truths to the discussion at hand as argument time and again, in more technical discussion or prosaic response, in order to drag any one attempting to engage reasonable discussion into an endless rabbit warren of linguistic subterfuge, wearing down the other participant with ever increasing divergence until the other quits, in frustration or plain exhaustion.
This lack of sincerity on your part has made me believe your words in discussion can no longer be trusted.
In your most recent reply to me, you countered the simple test for listening ability I presented (on music file resolution) through paltering once again, presenting another listening test you have taken (on injected distortion into selected music files), in complete disregard of the entirely different nature and objectives of each test - Tests on injected distortion examine hearing ability, while tests on file resolution examine listening skill - Hearing ability cannot be changed much; while listening skill, innately poor or good, can be developed. Hearing need not have anything to do with the nuanced ebb and flow of the time domain. Listening is entirely about the most subtle cues of timing and rhythm.
Aside from that, even your statistical calculations lie, as you only calculated for the probability of five correct tracks in a row - getting all six tracks correct moves the decimal one more spot left, leaving a statistical probability of 1.6 percent - well below your passing standard of 13 percent - yet another attempt to pass off a lie as truth.
You conflate and palter entirely unrelated ideas and truths to confuse, convolute and twist any discussion underway to make it appear - at least, to less observant readers - that you have the upper hand. It should be quite clear to anyone reading your replies to me that while you may have above average abilities in hearing, your listening abilities are below average - you gave quite good clue you could not even tell the different resolutions of music files apart. You opine the test was designed to have participants say there is no difference between the tested files, because you could tell no differences yourself when you tried listening to them – it is a truth only you know in your heart, but do not yet know how to confront, because it destroys the entire narrative you have built around measurements.
Amir, the missing piece of your narrative is the other half of the equation called electromagnetism, since all that science has been able to measure is the electrical side - the constantly changing shape and profound nuance of the magnetic field carrying the complexity of a musical signal defies all attempts at measurement. You will say that the electrical side carries all that information, to which I would say that’s why what you claim to do cannot be called science – you ignore all possible relationships, in focussing on just one. You might also say that everything about magnetism can be measured, which is so patently untrue, only the most ignorant would believe that. The relationships that govern electromagnetism are still mysterious to scientists, never mind the effect those relationships have on sound reproduction.
The other missing piece to your narrative, Amir, is self-critique, the humility required to take the next step to the unknown - to not always need to feel to be in command, and let that obsessive compulsion go, if even for a moment, for actual fresh discovery to be found - the stuff true science is made of. You will say all discoveries have already been made in the field of electromagnetism and resultant sound quality, to which even a half-wit will tell you, is not only patently untrue, but frighteningly anti-scientific.
The Sufi have a proverb - ‘If you want to destroy a man, praise him” - it is something I have tried to live by my entire life, not by way of destroying others, but in avoiding the destruction of myself. There is so much of this proverb I see you have allowed to be sown within yourself.
I have found my greatest teachers to have been those who welcome the smallest challenge in the hope of discovering the missing pieces they do not yet know, rather than rejecting all challenge in the possible face of losing all they think they do. True science is the discovery of everything we do not yet understand, not the constant regurgitation of everything that is already established. Electrical measurements in isolation are part of that regurgitation, of the known that merely support ignorance and indoctrination, not true teaching. Indoctrination creates followers and what others cruelly call minions, while teaching inspires new leaders who will exceed what has been taught.
Part of regaining your humility, Amir, as well the ability to self-critique, is to be less cognitively dissonant and more self-aware in understanding that you engage the practice of paltering, prevarication and conflation that characterise politicians and their ilk - it attracts many, who admire those who appear to be in complete command of themselves, but who in fact live very small lives. It also, unfortunately, gives those with unpracticed ears and mind the easy way out, in not bothering to train their listening minds to develop profoundly.
Your method should scare any audiophile beyond belief, because the fear of losing their skills for listening and independent thinking should shake them into training their listening skills well, because any lazy listener can merely adopt your numbers to ease themselves the effort of developing their listening abilities, claiming, as you do, that the difference cannot be heard.
I do not expect my words will make any difference to you, since narcissists commonly suffer cognitive dissonance to such degree, their entire world collapses with the loss of the narratives they have built up around themselves. But even so, I have hope that if you are able to regain the humility to self-critique, you will see that the label of ‘teacher’ that you wear so proudly, is the very one destroying your very ability to think critically, as a student of deeper learning. You could make tremendous contribution to true knowledge.
Nonetheless, I wish you well, and the strength to question your presumptions, assumptions, and ingrained dominant paradigms.
Friend of mine recently bought a Benchmark AHB2. He was basically sold on the spec’s and then to some extent- the reviews/price. To say that once he bought it home that he was disappointed, would be an understatement. Luckily, he was able to sell it on and lost little on the transaction.
@amir_asr I have never said that price (high or low) alone justifies a product...never. I have also never stated that measurements should not have an important part in the design process, or in the ability of the consumer to consider a product. BUT, i do not believe that measurements are the B all, and end all, of the decision making process; they are a data point (pun) and to me..that is all. Listening to a piece of gear in my room and my system is the deciding factor. I would state that if a piece under consideration measures well and sounds good, that is a good sign, but if it measures well and sounds marginal, it is no longer in consideration. Do I need to listen blind and with perfect AB comparisons etc., heck no, i trust my ears- and more importantly, what I am attempting to achieve with the sound that i get in my listening environment...and that is all. YMMV.
I see that your most recent reply to me has been deleted, amir, and I can only assume you have done so, since no one else would have had anything to gain doing so.
Your assumption is incorrect. The post was reported and deleted:
"Hi amir_asr
Your Post was removed by a moderator
2023-07-08 18:18:45 UTC
@kevn Thanks for taking time to reply : ) - may I assume that my having you at a disadvantage is your acknowledgement you had not directly respo..."
Briefly, I congratulated you for getting 6 out of 6 right. I advised you to in the future to capture the output of the program so there is no doubt. I also recommended that you run the test twice in a row. 6 trials is not much and it is possible to get that by guessing. Again, good job but next time be clear when you are asking me a question. Don’t hide your real intentions.
BUT, i do not believe that measurements are the B all, and end all, of the decision making process;
This line keeps getting repeated even though I have answered it multiple times. For large class of products, measurements are absolutely "B all." Take fancy wires. Measurements including music null tests and knowledge of engineering conclusively prove that they bring no advantage over generic ones. DACs and amplifiers that beat the threshold of hearing fall in the same category.
Incredible number of audiophiles have put the above to test by trusting the measurements and be better for it. They walk away with full understanding of what these products do and how they are engineered.
they are a data point (pun) and to me..that is all. Listening to a piece of gear in my room and my system is the deciding factor.
Whatever you do is obvious is your business. The issue is that you are advocating for such by posting here. I am here to tell you that most of the tests that audiophiles run are incorrect and generate noise instead of data. It is trivial to get you to like something at home without it having merit.
Reminds of the strategy behind dog treats: "they have to look appetizing to the owner not the pet!" You think a dog cares about the treat looking like a dog bone? No, it is the owner that is made to think it must be tasty treat for the dog, the real facts be damned.
We have simple protocols and rules for how to get proper results with home listening but you don't to go there. Why? Because it invalidates your public point of view and past purchases Well, that can't be helped. The truth is the truth.
So please don't repeat these lines to me. I have addressed them countless times.
but if it measures well and sounds marginal, it is no longer in consideration. Do I need to listen blind and with perfect AB comparisons etc., heck no, i trust my ears- and more importantly, what I am attempting to achieve with the sound that i get in my listening environment...and that is all. YMMV.
We have no disagreement on "sound in a listening room" mattering. The problem is that you keep talking about "ears" where in reality you have no idea what went into them. Measurements tell you that but you refuse to acknowledge that.
What you do acknowledge is that you are not following a proper protocol so your brain is forced to only judge the sound in your room. You are refusing to believe that you are human and how a human reacts and perceives stimulus.
Let's say I give you two pieces of equipment that produce identical sound. You vote them as being different sounding to you. You made a mistake, right? But how do you? Without a protocol, you have no idea. You make your judgement and then go online and rave about some product when you could be dead wrong.
Compare that to doing that test blind. Get a friend to switch A vs B 10 times and see if you at least differentiate the two items 9 times. One of two things happen: you do get it all right. Or you fail. See the power of using a proper protocol? How it will guard against you fooling yourself?
Run the above a few times and you will sober up real good. You will no longer go around and say "I trust my ears" because you will have evidence that what you thought was input from your ears, clearly was not.
Thank you for your response, Amir. I realise you must think that I’ve only been leading you on all along instead of calling you out directly, only to hurt you after gaining your trust, but that was not my agenda in the least. Please accept my apologies for this seeming so, and also for incorrectly assuming you deleted your own post.
My posts began as a sincere desire to more fully understand you, and as an attempt to intellectually and morally challenge you over issues of discourse you may not have been aware about, having nothing to do with your intelligence, which you obviously possess, but over cognitive dissonance, which we all suffer, in varying degrees.
In the course of our exchange, I began to see the pattern I described in my last post, and was trying to figure a way to broach the topic without having you hunker down and close off to deeper discussion, as I have seen repeatedly in your other exchanges here in this thread. I wanted to word what I was trying to communicate in a way so as to not make you feel threatened, hence my polite deferral to how occupied you must be with all the replies you were engaged with, among many other things.
That said, you are still paltering and prevaricating in your most recent reply. Everything you have said about doctors and diagnosis is true, but are completely unrelated to the statement I made, which you have quoted. True science is indeed about everything that you are not doing, as you merely perform tests based on established theories of what is known. Nothing you have said in your recent post refutes this.
The third paragraph in your reply is the perfect example of paltering - you should address the problems I found in your earlier replies before repeating the same problems in attempt to confuse the discussion. Poor Magister had it the worst - he might not have realised there is an actual term that defines exactly your type of behaviour in communication, and got drawn into your rabbit-hole of semantic subterfuge. Amir, everything you reference, from ITU protocols and bibles, to blind listening tests with multiple variables and just half the measurements needed to understand electromagnetism; everything you reference shows how entrenched you are in the established, the norm, and the tired bureaucratic world of performance testing. You are a performance tester, not a scientist. Not a bad thing, if you still have questions as a proper student of science, rather than the staid answers of the teacher you want to be.
I would still like to keep communication channels open with you, if you are willing to engage with less of a need to defend everything and all you believe in – I have found that singular viewpoints only result in opinions, while a discourse over the relationships between multiple viewpoints is what feeds the power of shared knowledge, and the wisdom that follows.
And I would still like to hear your views (note views and not mere view : ), on my remarks on electromagnetism, and the case being that measurements only engage half the equation.
In somewhat more growingly distant acquaintanceship - kevin
Was not familiar with this fellow until just now. I will only say as a musician and engineer that it's silly for someone who is not a highly experienced recording engineer, highly experienced musician, or a respected music maker in any legit capacity to claim definitive hearing abilities. And if he is claiming that balanced audio interconnects are all basically the same sounding things, nothing past that is of value.
Sensitivity and repetitive practice are key to build our listening skill. AB comparisons at times are needed, yet it's always with the intent of learning how to trust our evolving listening skill. Frame of Reference is key. If our frame of reference is objectivist measurements, we've missed the point of music making and music listening completely. Music is not a science project. Faulty premise.
Measuring one thing in a chain of things as a way to judge it is good for those who have not learned to trust, or who are afraid to learn to trust themselves.
You will see them after the listening, the correct sequence unlike all your "reviews".
To do so, you need to come back with an ears only test. Why is it so difficult to accept when all you talk about is "trust your ears?" How come you must see what you are testing?
Exactly. See, your own words say it best. You will only need your ears at PAF 2024. Or excuses ;-).
@somethingsomethingaudio: so you will choose the Benchmark DAC over the Topping because you like its appearance? LOL! You know what they say about America - "It's a free Country!"
I cited Oppenheim and Magnasco to set the right hearing context theory with their important experiment after 60 years of acoustician thinking around this who goes in the same direction as these two physicists ..
Because the ears/brain are non linear and work in a time dependant DIRECTION,not on a mere frequencies basis in a time independant linear way as our tools works...
We cannot equate linear time independant measure which are good to create a well working circuits as being equally the perfect norm for "musicality" evaluation,
I explained in detail, even using the many articles of a competent physicists and acoustician and designer , Hans Van Maanen , who explain clearly all that matter,
He disparaged the Magnasco and Oppenheim experiments as non significative save to be a mere usual treshold hearing experiment throwing the baby of the essential non linear working of the brain out of Gabor bounds with the bath waters of hearing trivial thesholds relative measures,
he treated Van Maanen in an ad hominem attack as a vulgar seller , knowing perfectly that anybody who is able to understand science will know that his papers are serious thinking...
Especially his paper titled : "Often disregarded Conditions for the correct
Application of Fourier Theory"..
After that the nail in the coffin , i pointed to the fact that the ears/brain working non linearly in his own time dependant domain , the level of resolution of the perceived signals cannot be enhanced LINEARLY by perfect linear INCREASE in the signals, but INSTEAD can be enhanced in some case with the right amount and right type of noise, then the signal to noise ratio behaviour cannot be measured better than by hearings experiments as with Magnasco and Oppenheim .
To no avail...he never adressed any of the main point i gave...
Anybody reading his answers will read him as a marketer who drawn the fish of hearing theory in the water of marketing bad faith...
There is one thing i did not understand at all...
i know there is plenty of competent people on ASR, and scientifically inclined professionnaly or by taste, if one of them read my discussion with Amir, and his bad faith answers smearing any valid point in the noise of blind test and his limited set of measures with ad nauseam examples from his reviews instead of arguing AGAINST my point... And the complete distortion of the main point with ad hominem attack against three competent physicists, my question is : why Amir is not ashamed and in fear that some competent member of ASR read his techno babble as it is : MARKETING of TOYS...Anyone can see that he never adressed the hearing theory context where any set of measures can be evaluated ?
Explain that to me... I discuss always in good faith and i will be ashamed to miss an argument EXCEPT if i dont understand the subject matter by my own fault...
is Amir completely ignorant ? or is Amir without shame ?
i dont know which one of this alternative is the good one...
I never discussed ONLY to win an argument, i discussed to learn first .. I spoke a very bad English because i never spoke english in my life... And i read only the limited clumsy abstract limited vocabulary of scientists and philosophers not great novelists... i read the great John Cowper Powys for example in translation ( too slow to read for me in english because of my lack of concrete vocabulary ), but in french i learned how to read multidisciplinary analysis methods and taught it... My knowledge is limited but i can read anything and compared it to anything...i can even think about for example the relation between non commutative geometry and the musical scale perception and the laws of physical and qualitative invariants behind it and put this in relation with the hearing theory and the time dependant domain in speech and in music.. I did not adressed these questions with Amir because he was unable to adress the basic in good faith, i even can explain why meanings arise in symmetry breaking in linguistic levels as in music ... in short i know nothing but i know how to read people who know something as Alain Connes in mathematics the father of non commutative modern geometry or Gustave Guillaume in linguistic, the greatest linguist over Chomsky himself or Akpan J. Essien in acoustic ( he is unknown by the way ) etc ...
Amir know how to sell something and he know how to use his toys tools... Thats all for me...And he know how to "boss" people around him...
@magisterGreat post. Glad you have finally see Amir clearly as the Sheldon of the audio hobby. Just like Sheldon, Amir claims to know everything and dismisses everyone else as ignorant. Just like Sheldon, Amir is threatened by mention of anything not in alignment with his belief system.
@kevnYou nailed it. Amir never actually engages in an honest discussion, instead replies with dismissive language, tangential topics, and long ramblings. Anyone that wants to examine all the charts, graphs, measurements, and opinion Amir produces can find it on ASR. Repeating all that ad nauseum here is proof positive Amir has no ability to communicate without constantly beating his chest - "Look what I did". Repeatedly points to previous audio research or papers to support his position. Others point to papers or subject matter experts that question Amir's orthodoxy and they are dismissed as not applicable.
A prediction. At some point in the near future Amir will reference this Audiogon forum thread as proof of his far reaching audience and immense influence on the audio hobby.
Go ahead and spam this forum with sponsored links and see how long you last.
You have continually posted snippets of your reviews with direct links to your website here and even one of your own videos*! (link below for bookkeeping)
On a single page (page 18) of this discussion I counted where you have provided FOUR links to your website. A website where you ask for donations after every review. There are numerous other posts by you in this thread where you have linked to your own website but I won’t bother to count them. If you consider posting one’s reviews to ASR as "spamming with sponsored links" then you, sir, are doing the exact same thing. I don’t care if you make zero money from anything you have ever done... you are still spamming this very forum with your own reviews. Multiple times a page. Yet you talk about others spamming forums. It’s comical.
Yet, you are still here. No one has banned you or deleted those partciular posts. Nor has a moderator come in and closed the thread. But by your own implied admission above, you should have expected it to happen.
Once again, however, I am certain you will rationalize your posts as being something different. A diversion attempt, as it were. And yet another example of your extreme hypocrisy.
At this point, for me, it’s more about pointing out his hypocrisy to others so they can understand how he operates and his true motivations.
His data is fine (for the most part). But the person and the means of how he tries to separate himself by others by discriminating against or degrading them otherwise is not something I will let slide. I’ve never liked bullies in all my years. Now that I've retired I don't mind spending my time exposing them when I see them. And Amir is exactly that. Anyone who doesn’t agree with him or gets more recognition than he does is suddenly an enemy of his even when their share the same goal of providing technical information to an audience. I’ve seen him do this countless times and is doing so again as I mentioned regarding a thread on the 5128 headphone measurement rig where he is currently belittling other headphone reviewers to make himself look better than them. :(
The problem is he cannot nor want to learn anything from anybody even physicists and acoustician... he sell marketing points...
But without discussing about his false "theory" of hearing, i will never had learn so much about what is at stake in hearings theory...
We cannot discuss with stupid people, but we can learn from ideological people... For example discussing with a marxist you must learn Marx economy theory..
If discussing with a neo liberal economist i would learn about the chicago school hidden roots...Bernard Mandeville the genius behind Adam Smith for example ...
Discussing with A chomskyan linguist we learn about other roads... ( Gustave Guillaume genius for me ) etc
Amir seems to me to mostly address relevant issues. Seems he is the one being attacked first and he seems to show restraint on his responses trying to stick to the issues.
That’s just my take. He is bringing a lot of good information to the table whether one cares or not. We need more of that not less. Technology is the key to good sound and it doesn’t just happen by magic.
My suggestion to Amir would be to learn to tailor the message to the audience.
search posts by user almarg who posted here for many years. Al was a technical guy with tremendous technical knowledge and a lawyer. Not to forget most importantly a model gentleman. He knew how to present his technical cases to the jury effectively and was beloved here for it.
We need more gentlemen like Almarg these days everywhere Beating people over the head with things seems to be more the style these days and people are getting tired of it
Just trying to help. Almarg set a very high bar to try and match.
Anybody welcome a set of measures and we thank him for that ...Nobody buy his ideological stance about their meanings ...Save naive techno babbling minds for sure.. 😊
Simple...
It is not the gear listenings or measuring who rule audio, it is the psycho-acoustic knowledge behind it... it is why the division between subjectivist and objectivist, created by techno babbling objectivist to begin with had no scientific meaning at all... It is marketing of the measuring toys against marketing the gear... It is marketing in the two cases... Amir against the designers, debunking them with his erroneous hearing theory , industrial one or craftmanship one...
it is simple to figure out why he is wrong...he dont know that hearing theory contradict his claims... And he believe blind test as some marketer use them too replace hearing knowledge and training...
Does he listen and perceive classical music nuances and meanings ? If he did he will know the difference between sound and music and the way they interpenetrate one another through human hearings paradoxical powers history in the recursive relation between productive sound ability and the way we perceive them ( non linearly and in a time dependant domain ) ...
No measures mean something out of his context of application and out of his interpretative context ... i learned it in the book of Benoit Mandelbrot about fractals and a complete redefinition of geometrical concepts first published in french, not in english, in autumn 1976... I read my first Mandelbrot article in the french pleiade about science in 1975 and here Mandelbrot described his idea about modelization of phone signals errors in phone lines , the first sketch of fractal geometry and the reason i bought his book the first day he was delivered in north America in french.. I read it in ectasy... Suddenly i realized i did not understand anything about space at all before reading it.... one of the best books i read in my list of books... now fractals geometry is everywhere... i like geometry... 😊
As Alain Connes suggested we can " listen" number theory rythms and we can "see" music shapes ...he is totally right... By the way this is not "poetry" but mathematical facts...
@milpaiWow...this forum certainly has a lot of time on hand to waste on someone whose opinion they don’t care about. Have fun folks!
Oh they "care" alright, firstly about disinformation, and other experiences that come into play for those with an open mind and willing to discover additional considerations which can be helpful sometimes.
This thread has exposed very different points of view from different camps and schools of thought - which can be helpful for those willing to sift through the nonsense in order to take away a few nuggets they might be interested in retaining.
As just a “normie” who spends some money on audio, a pox on both your “measurements rule” and the “golden ears” side that dismisses anyone not “trained”..
I buy what is pleasing to me. Don’t give a dang about “measurements” which mainly are measuring that which is beyond audibility for anyone over 40 that has actually had any kind of “blue collar” job.
Can I tell the difference between consumer grade klipsch vs magnepan and tektons? Absolutley. (I have all 3).
Can I tell the difference between an underpowered amplifier and one with sufficient power for the dynamic range of what I listen to and how loudly I listen to it? Yep.
Can I tell that I prefer tube amplification for mids and highs, using SS amps for lows and subs for under 100hz (for music)? Yep.
Can I tell the difference between a 192/24 vs mp3, especially as volume increases? Definitely.
Can I tell that I prefer a $2000 tube amp over the same power $20000 tube amp?
Or at least hear no difference..? Yep.
What I buy, and what equipment provides me with hours on end of continued listening enjoyment, at a price point I am willing to pay, has NOTHING to do with some elitist, sneering, snob telling me that I am “wrong” because my equipment doesn’t “measure up” or that my choice is wrong because some “golden ear” says so.
@jasonbourne71because I like the aesthetic which matters when it’s sitting out on the table. And I said because the benchmark is made in my country. Their customer support is phenomenal and from what I gather sounds incredible. I’ve never had a benchmark Dac fail or not work properly. And they allow you to upgrade certain parts instead of buying a new unit.
@j_livingstonyou took the thought out of my head. I was going to mention his links to asr. Clearly he is trolling some of these posts.
@soundfieldno amount of winking is going to get people to buy your speakers with zero measurements or pictures or info. Amir isn’t doing your listening test. Actually wait I found one source. @amir_asr there is a measurement of his here
Nobody buy his ideological stance about their meanings
Well first it’s never a good idea to speak for everyone.
Second, I really do not detect an ideology other than Amir is only interested in facts not opinions. Of course now everybody has those and Amir is no different. His ideology seems to be opinions are opinions but he does not care about those because each is different. Whereas metrics done correctly are measurements not opinions but facts. Other facts I see him consider when reviewing are things like physical construction and usability. For example I read him indicate that a particular power cord was highly flexible which can be of value. Or that a certain amp appeared to have good ventilation. All these are observable facts, not opinions. Remember Joe Friday? Just the facts ma’am! That seems to be Amir
Do I believe he does this out of the goodness of his heart and no monetary reward involved? Please…. He provides a service and has a business model for it. Good for him! If I can find a product that measures as well as some other more expensive one that measures similarly I am all ears. That is valuable information! Take it or leave it. Everyone gets to decide.
“All these are observable facts, not opinions. Remember Joe Friday? Just the facts ma’am! That seems to be Amir ”
“Insects have been measured to be superior to cattle for human consumption. If you don’t eat the Insects, it is because you have not “trained your palette ” to like what measures best. So your “opinion” of what is pleasing to your palette is not only vulgar, but dismissed. You are obviously nothing more than a plebe”
Ideology here means: someone who use tools to measure, which is a good thing , no one refuse information; but when this person impose his measures out of any Interpretation context, and here the context to interpret measures is not only the behaviour of well designed material components but their relation to sounds qualities, this is the domain of hearing theory...Or psycho-acoustic... No objectivist or subjectivist exist in psycho-acoustic sorry only experiments protocols about hearing...
Imposing a limited set of measures to replace hearing theories and perceived sound qualities when the measuring context ( Fourier linear and time independant tool with a frequencies based hearing theory ) is put under the rug is technological ideology contradicting psycho-acoustic facts : Human hearing work in a non linear way in the time dependant domain constrained by his evolutive history with speech and musical produced sounds and natural sounds QUALITATIVE perception ..
you did not read my posts... 😊 You did not pass the exam...
I know my posts they are too long and with too much articles...😊
Second, I really do not detect an ideology other than Amir is only interested in facts not opinions.
“Insects have been measured to be superior to cattle for human consumption. If you don’t eat the Insects, it is because you have not “trained your palette ” to like what measures best. So your “opinion” of what is pleasing to your palette is not only vulgar, but dismissed. You are obviously nothing more than a plebe”
@mapman"technology is the key to good sound" is overreaching. Class D is innovative tech. Measures well. Not the best sound to all. Neve 1073 style microphone pre amps (transformer/class A) are very old tech, still preferred by many top music makers.
Truth is there are times when a brilliant equipment designer will choose something that measures worse because it sounds better. That is taste. Listening skill. Listening always trumps measuring for the truly intelligent.
How do we measure a great piece of music? A great recording ? Can't be done. Relying on measuring comes from fear of trusting ourselves. It's missing the whole point of music making and music listening.
Science is one means towards an end. Not an end in itself. I love science. It's not the authority here however.
It is way more deeper if we speak about sounds and music though ...
No measurements win the race because of its validity ALONE...
The measurements must be evaluated in their CONTEXT of application and in their LIMITED bounds of application.. Thats my point discussing hearing theories and what means linear measures for a non linear Ears/brain , and what means out of the design process , measured numbers of material designs which are interpreted in a time independant way for a time dependant unrelated qualitative phenomenon ..
Amir said: no need for that, trust the tools and forget your ears save for a blind test...
Acuity in hearings for him is not recognizing nuances in soprano voice expression here, for him it is only hertz and decibels... Then the Amir ears are untrained by non amplified classical or persian or Indian or African or Chinese or japan music... he trained his ears with studio and computers... He call that training ears in resolution and acuity ... He dont know that even in perception the ears/brain to perceive something as meaningful and not only as audible noise in background must have the different experience of different musical contexts because without concepts we dont perceive things in a qualitative way ...
We reduce them to hertz and decibels... We are then NOT EVEN WRONG... Amir is not even wrong because he miss the question to begin with... He gives an answer to a question he never ask,...
What is technology in relation to science ?
it is answers for question we never asked... or it is a possible new question for an answer we never imagined.. 😊
An example : Mankind discovered fire by accident... It was an answer for a question about cooking we never asked for...
No one can dispute a well made measurement. The issue it’s validity.
“No one can dispute a well made measurement. The issue it’s validity.”
I would say, with respect to WHAT is being measured, it’s: validity, application, meaning, relevance and relationship to a narrowly defined comparison or to any ineffable, unmeasurable or variable purpose. Especially in the area of human perception, ethics and values; “measurements” are often meaningless, or maybe less than meaningful.
“No one can dispute a well made measurement. The issue it’s validity.”
I would say, with respect to WHAT is being measured, it’s: validity, application, meaning, relevance and relationship to a narrowly defined comparison or to any ineffable, unmeasurable or variable purpose. Especially in the area of human perception, ethics and values; “measurements” are often meaningless, or maybe less than meaningful.
Perfectly measuring gear is just spin for sales. Everything made goes through measurements and is made to spec and gets that CE approval so you know it won't burn your house down.
Now if a designer wants a certain sound and it means adding some distortion in order to achieve that goal, there's nothing wrong about doing that. It's already been pointed out by musicians, technicians and recording engineers. Again, nothing remotely wrong about that.
So what if something has 40-50db of headroom? You're not going to appreciate it in your room unless you want to blow your ears out. That's very misleading. All those graphs that make some go "oooh" and "ahhh" make me laugh, a little.
It's great that something can be so fiendishly designed so as to look picture perfect but the proof is in the listening and how it jives with your long established tastes and not meant for one to surrender their wallet. Some think they've caught the audio brass ring on the cheap without giving it a serious listen, relying on someone who says "it's perfect because, measurements."
As for cats, I like the dark grey ones with the bright green eyes.
Back to the cable thing, is this gentleman saying that the entire cable industry is without musical merit? If so, he's literally deaf, or has a terribly low quality playback system/room
Was not familiar with this fellow until just now. I will only say as a musician and engineer that it's silly for someone who is not a highly experienced recording engineer, highly experienced musician, or a respected music maker in any legit capacity to claim definitive hearing abilities. And if he is claiming that balanced audio interconnects are all basically the same sounding things, nothing past that is of value.
Sensitivity and repetitive practice are key to build our listening skill. AB comparisons at times are needed, yet it's always with the intent of learning how to trust our evolving listening skill. Frame of Reference is key. If our frame of reference is objectivist measurements, we've missed the point of music making and music listening completely. Music is not a science project. Faulty premise.
Measuring one thing in a chain of things as a way to judge it is good for those who have not learned to trust, or who are afraid to learn to trust themselves.
This is exactly the point that Amir seems to be missing. Music is an art form. The reproduction of music is a combination of art and science. IMO, the art aspect is at least as important as the science, which I think Amir completely dismisses.
Back to the cable thing, is this gentleman saying that the entire cable industry is without musical merit? If so, he's literally deaf, or has a terribly low quality playback system/room
As just a “normie” who spends some money on audio, a pox on both your “measurements rule” and the “golden ears” side that dismisses anyone not “trained”..
I buy what is pleasing to me. Don’t give a dang about “measurements” which mainly are measuring that which is beyond audibility for anyone over 40 that has actually had any kind of “blue collar” job.
Got it. Thank you.
Can I tell the difference between consumer grade klipsch vs magnepan and tektons? Absolutley. (I have all 3).
Nobody was debating that but thank you again for stating that.
Can I tell the difference between an underpowered amplifier and one with sufficient power for the dynamic range of what I listen to and how loudly I listen to it? Yep.
Excellent. Again, no one was debating that. Question is how you can tell that before you get the equipment to listen to. I provide that information with measurement and sometimes with listening tests.
Can I tell that I prefer tube amplification for mids and highs, using SS amps for lows and subs for under 100hz (for music)? Yep.
So you say. We have no way of knowing if you really can or not.
Can I tell the difference between a 192/24 vs mp3, especially as volume increases? Definitely.
So you say. We have no way of knowing if you really can or not.
Can I tell that I prefer a $2000 tube amp over the same power $20000 tube amp?
Or at least hear no difference..? Yep.
The second part I can believe. The alternative, "we have no way of knowing if you really can or not." :)
What I buy, and what equipment provides me with hours on end of continued listening enjoyment, at a price point I am willing to pay, has NOTHING to do with some elitist, sneering, snob telling me that I am “wrong” because my equipment doesn’t “measure up” or that my choice is wrong because some “golden ear” says so.
Back to the cable thing, is this gentleman saying that the entire cable industry is without musical merit? If so, he's literally deaf, or has a terribly low quality playback system/room
First, if that is what I hear and I am supposed to trust my ears, I don't know why you would say I am deaf.
Second, why are these system requirements not documented some place? Never seen that from any cable manufacturer for example. How would a potential buyer be informed prior to buying these things that their system is not "low quality?"
Here is a picture of my system. Would you please advise if it is low or high quality?
This is exactly the point that Amir seems to be missing. Music is an art form. The reproduction of music is a combination of art and science.
Interesting thought. Should we start rating designers as to how much they know about art? And if they don't, dismiss their work out of hand?
What does an amplifier know about art anyway and how did that knowledge get into it? Can it tell that I am playing nails scratching on a chalkboard from Mozart? If so, how does it do that?
Perfectly measuring gear is just spin for sales. Everything made goes through measurements and is made to spec and gets that CE approval so you know it won't burn your house down.
There is a difference between performance metrics and safety. A car can accelerate fast/slow and be safe or not safe in a simulated crash. These concepts are orthogonal to each other. On that topic though, safety certifications and regulatory certifications are often missed from audiophile products. Especially shameful is when it is a power cord where safety matters.
Now if a designer wants a certain sound and it means adding some distortion in order to achieve that goal, there's nothing wrong about doing that. It's already been pointed out by musicians, technicians and recording engineers. Again, nothing remotely wrong about that.
Well said. Simple request would be to a) show measurements so that people know you have put that in there and b) do a controlled listening test with a group of audiophiles showing the benefit. Having me doing the measurements for them and you doing the listening tests doesn't make much sense.
Friend of mine recently bought a Benchmark AHB2. He was basically sold on the spec’s and then to some extent- the reviews/price. To say that once he bought it home that he was disappointed, would be an understatement. Luckily, he was able to sell it on and lost little on the transaction.
I'm curious what point you wish to make with that anecdote.
What did your friend expect from the AHB2 that he did not get? Is it possible his expectations were not realistic as to what he should hear with that amp?
It’s great that something can be so fiendishly designed so as to look picture perfect but the proof is in the listening and how it jives with your long established tastes and not meant for one to surrender their wallet.
Again well said. The problem is, someone saying this and that sounded this way is not "proof." After all, I can get someone to say the opposite. Provide proof and we would all line up to believe you! :)
Interesting thought. Should we start rating designers as to how much they know about art? And if they don’t, dismiss their work out of hand?
Tesla was a great amateur of Art, poetry among other thing... Edison not at all... Guess who was the real genius ?
I dont remember any great designer who is not able to relate his design idea to art experience and history...
i dont speak about techno worker, i speak about genius in science...
Do you know who created the philosophical basis of set theory ?
A mystic of the 6th century...Cantor was a theologian and take all the basis of set theory from a mystic... Ask me i will explain it to you in details...People here will kill me if i explain it from my own impulse... 😊 the "salt" and "pepper" of this affair is about the convergence of Fourier series... 😁
i will never trust an audio designer who dont love music at heart... Sorry...
You prefer blind test, i prefer musical training...
Ask Furtwangler to pass a blind test about musical sounds if you dare...say to him in his old age with a slight lost in hertz resolution and decibels perception that he can no more perceive musical timing and details... he directed till the end and was never rival by anyone..
« The ears see way more than they hears»-- Acoustical paradox from a blind kid who is also a bike amateur
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.
