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.
"@amir_asrWhy then did you allow Erin’s video only to close the thread? People aren’t allowed to dissent? I was considering sending you some gear to review that would have filled a nice gap in your informational catalog. Not anymore after I’ve seen how you conduct yourself here.
Clearly you are not here to make friends. 😂"
I have no catalog to fill. What do you think I run, a department store?
Currently there are probably 30 to 60 items here for review and the backlog has stayed like that forever. You should send me gear because *you* want to know how it performs and you think it would benefit your fellow audiophiles. To the extent you have no desire to do either, you are no friend of mine either.
"@amir_asr You do ask for donations! Your blindspots are immense."
So is yours in not seeing the difference between me and others. The donations are completely optional. No one gets exclusive access for donating as every other youtuber is doing by putting content behind patreon, etc. I detest that and am never going to force people to pay to get information.
The ask for the donation is also a one-linear at end of text reviews. Nothing of the sort exists in any of the videos.
Donations help me feel better when I am sitting there packing boxes, taping and labeling and schlepping them to FedEx. They also pay to buy gear that I have no personal interest in testing.
Unlike others, that is where it ends. No one is subjected to ton of ads as they read ASR or watch my videos. No monetized links as to cloud the real intent behind giving positive reviews. No company sponsorships as to make me beholding to them.
And it is not like if I didn't ask for the donations you all become fans. That is just another made up thing to complain about.
@amir_asrWhy then did you allow Erin’s video only to close the thread? People aren’t allowed to dissent? I was considering sending you some gear to review that would have filled a nice gap in your informational catalog. Not anymore after I’ve seen how you conduct yourself here.
"But Amir and (some of) his dedicated followers conveniently ignore all these objective facts and cast doubt on others so they can prop Amir up as the only person capable of providing honest and accurate reviews."
No one ignores such a thing. Indeed, the opposite is true in the number of people on ASR who defend Erin, including the very thread you were talking about (his top 5 video). Neither me, or them think Erin's videos are dishonest in any way.
The difference simply comes from a concept that you don't want to accept: ASR is not meant to be used to help someone else monetize their content. No forum allows this. You will get banned immediately on any other forum if you post a video and immediately asked for donations.
Yet, I allow Erin's videos to be posted. Other fora would just ban any such links and go about their business.
Bottom line, I love what Erin is doing as far as generating great objective data for speakers. I didn't love it when he attempted to use ASR to grow his activities and pay off the cost of his gear. I can't let him do this without the floodgates opening to everyone else wanting to do it.
I think the concept of a pure, non-commercial site like ASR is so foreign to people that they just assume there must be more going on. Well, there isn't. We have created a unique social experiment where members and some companies send gear to me, and I test and report on it. I am fortunate enough to have had a long (and hard) career in tech as not need to make a living from it. This gives me incredible freedom to do things that others can't. I for example vote that 2/3 of the gear I test. Only 1/3 gets my recommendation.
No one can survive such stats, including Erin by the way. But I am not here to make friends. I am here to provide transparency with respect to performance of audio gear. You know, the thing you said you wanted but are working hard to cast aside.
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....
"Quote: If you have not already, please go to my youtube page and subscribe. It won’t make me any money but will work to improve our influence in youtube world:"
Oh, that is what you meant. Clever of you to put that in the footnote. That comment came about because of people saying if someone has more subscribers, he must be more right. So I thought I put in a request or two in the text on ASR for the last couple of videos.
But as I stated, no video has any such requests unlike what you claimed and implied in your post. So you can't possibly compare me to other youtubers who stop the flow of the video, only to beg for subscribers, likes, notifications, etc.
@amir_asrI 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.
@amir_asr Yeah you didn’t remove the video but you shut down the discussion about the video, effectively removing it from being bumped to the top. Tomato tomatoe. Censorship at its worst. How much money have you made from ASR referring clients to your business? Or from people reading your content. Traffic is traffic. You are shooting yourself in the foot. I have not posted on ASR which I was actively participating in and getting engaging conversation going, since you took that thread down. His title is not clickbait. This is clickbait. Saying something you clearly do not mean or is meant to just get people to watch and then stating the opposite or changing the videos’s intent.
"I don’t know why the is such hard concept for you to grasp."
We measure and listen. Seems to be a better strategy than just listen. But sure, some still think they rather know less about their purchases than more.... And think they have such super human hearing ability that have no need for any instrumentation. I get it.
"It is plain to see that Amir doesn’t like Erin and uses any reason he can to justify his logic even when it clearly goes against his other actions such as failure to delete/close other threads which contain links through ASR and his own part in playing "the game" by creating content he knows will create drama and fuel views, asking for donations, asking for likes/subscribers all while running a business that sells various brands."
Nonsense. I post a review almost every other day. Few are controversial things or created to create drama. Latest reviews were a DCA headphone and TP RA3 rackmount amplifier. The latter is an incredibly nice, state of the art amplifier with beautiful display and input selection going for just $229.
Hardly anything I test has anything to do with my company whose business is custom integration for high-end residential and commercial projects. If there is such a conflict, it is noted at the start of the review, you know, the transparency you talked about:
"NOTE: our company, Madrona Digital is a dealer for Harman products (and hence JBL) for custom integration business. So while there is no benefit to us one way or the other how this review goes, feel free to read whatever bias you want into my subjective remarks."
This is how the review ended:
"I can't provide a recommendation one way or the other without evaluating the AC25 with its companion filtering. Wish the company would make this more clear in its marketing material."
You are also out of line with that "asking likes." I never, ever do that in my videos. There is not one mention of such thing in the video or even in the notes below it. The videos are presented as pure information for people to watch and enjoy, free of ads, or any kind of interruptions.
It seems you are so used to people trying to milk others for such things that you assumed I do the same when the facts are completely against your claims.
"Amir says Erin's video was removed because it was clickbait and he doesn't want anyone to earn money by having their videos shared on ASR. "
His video was NOT removed. For heaven's sake, why don't you guys spend 10 seconds fact checking stuff you write??? Here is the thread again for all to see:
All I said in there was this as a follow up from another poster wondering if he has "marketing intentions:"
"Hate clickbait titles like that. It seems every second there is another like that. This whole monetization business drives creators to make so many of these."
That comment got a lot of people to throw themselves over the railroad tracks defending Erin and getting quite personal to boot. So I eventually closed the thread since there was no substance that was being discussed from his video anyway.
"As for clickbait, let's all remember how many back-and-forth videos Amir has created about Danny @ GR Research and Paul McGowan @ PS Audio. Amir knew those would get views."
And what would views do for me on a channel that has no monetization, ads or sponsorship? Nothing. I do those videos because members and non-members ask for an answer to claims made by Danny, Paul, etc. In every case I work hard to make sure there are substantive technical information. They are not, "here are my top 5 speakers." No definition of clickbait applies to my video whereas it is clear as a day that it applies to Erin's. Erin does want the views, the ads, the sponsorships, the channel growth, etc. Again, those are fine for him. Just don't use ASR to promote content like this. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for you all to grasp.
"Effort and Value are two different things. The comments about needing to be "paid" in order to take notes at an audio show was telling. No need for notes, just listen, and report out what you hear. "
"Another classic in the form of Patricia Barber's Ode to Billie Joe
Neat channel separation. Good bass for such little speakers (I didn't know there was a woofer in the back at this point)"
[another suite]
Another Night · Cody High
Superb detail and dynamics. Excellent recording as I listen to it from youtube.
Essa Moça Tá Diferente (feat. Wilson Simoninha) · Bossacucanova · Wilson Simoninha · Chico Buarque · Chico Buarque
Nice drums!"
So I did and reported what I heard. If you had bothered to spend 30 seconds looking at my show report, you would have know that.
The poster apparently wanted me to write a full book report for every suite and hence my answer that I am not a journalist that gets paid by the word to do that.
Maybe next time I use ChatGPT to make up subjective remarks as to make some of you happy. Surely that would do a better job than word salads we get from such "reviewers."
I think the Erin fellow is just another YouTube person and I don’t put anymore stock in his opinion than the next guy. However, I’ve seen Amir make some claims about Erin’s and others that I find out of line. I’ve seen Amir do many things he accuses Erin (and others) of. We can use simple objective facts to prove this.
Amir says Erin’s video was removed because it was clickbait and he doesn’t want anyone to earn money by having their videos shared on ASR. As someone who has perused ASR a number of times this doesn’t make sense. Why? Well, there are countless threads that are shared on ASR by members - seemingly with the intention of making fun of them - where Amir engages. From GR Research to Goldensound to John Darko. Here are two recent examples:
Both of those threads are still open - after weeks - and have generated no telling how many views by the ASR membership. If Amir is truly worried about someone making money by getting views through ASR then why doesn’t Amir delete/close those threads? The answer is plainly simple but let me give some background first.
The fact is someone shared Erin’s video because they thought it was interesting and asked others to comment. Amir called it clickbait and put Erin down.* Many members disagreed with Amir. Amir got upset at that and then closed the thread after putting his last word in. In other words: anyone can share any links to anyone’s YouTube videos or website as long as it is done with the purpose of making fun of that person. In the case of Erin’s video that wasn’t what happened and Amir didn’t like that. So he closed the thread. After he intentionally derailed it with his off-topic remarks.
This makes it pretty clear to see that Amir just doesn’t like Erin and used "clickbait" as an excuse to lock the thread. If he meant what he said he’d lock and/or delete every other single thread with external links or things he thinks are harmful to the community. For someone reason, rather than helping to encourage others to look at objective data through other sources, Amir has chosen to create false narratives around those outlets so that his viewership will take his side. When it backfires, that is when Amir gets upset.
As for clickbait, let’s all remember how many back-and-forth videos Amir has created about Danny @ GR Research and Paul McGowan @ PS Audio. Amir knew those would get views. He says "my audience asked me to make this video". This is proof he knew he would get views by creating additional drama and tension in the audio community while also being an excuse for creating said content. A single video on the topic would have been adequate but he continued to play in the mud because he knew it would get him views. One of his written reviews of GR Research speakers even had the words "a joke" in the title.** Talk about clickbait.
Let’s not also forget that Amir was recently belittled by Steve Guttenberg - while Steve was speaking at AXPONA 2023 - for not having as many subscribers as Steve does. This was brought up in a thread on ASR. Steve was asked his view on measurements. Steve made a snide remark about Amir not having as many followers (without saying Amir’s name, which is childish on its own). So, what does Amir do in response? He asks his viewers to subscribe and like to get his numbers up so he can have better "influence in the YouTube world".*** Despite him having said previously and even in this thread that he doesn’t do this sort of thing.
It is plain to see that Amir doesn’t like Erin and uses any reason he can to justify his logic even when it clearly goes against his other actions such as failure to delete/close other threads which contain links through ASR and his own part in playing "the game" by creating content he knows will create drama and fuel views, asking for donations, asking for likes/subscribers all while running a business that sells various brands. No matter how big a disclaimer he puts on it he’s still generating interest and driving potential sales through his channel to his own business. A single speaker sold through Madrona Digital is far more than most of these YouTube guys make in a week. Some even a month.
I have no issue with anyone monetizing their efforts as long as there is transparency. Unfortunately, Amir criticizes others for doing all the things he says he doesn’t do. These are facts and easy to verify with simple searches online. I’ve provided some below. But Amir and (some of) his dedicated followers conveniently ignore all these objective facts and cast doubt on others so they can prop Amir up as the only person capable of providing honest and accurate reviews. Amir cannot say all these things about others and expect us to ignore the fact he does the exact same things.
Quote: If you have not already, please go to my youtube page and subscribe. It won’t make me any money but will work to improve our influence in youtube world:
The short answer is no. I'm fine with measurements but the conclusions he draws from them are of dubious worth, I find him smug, which is a trait I really don't stand for in anybody. There is occasional interesting discourse on the site but for every interesting thread there are three in which some evangelical devotee posts third-party measurements and the usual suspects have a field day bashing the product that they never have heard and (let's be honest) in many cases can't afford.
Amir has to stop with the medical analogies for their obvious flaws. Having cancer and not heeding your doctors advice will result in your dying of cancer.
Enjoying the sound of a component and not following his advice that it measures poorly and therefore, should sound bad, will result in your still enjoying the component, unless you're very insecure.
I think 10 out of 10 doctors would agree with that assessment and are thankful that Amir didn't choose a career in medicine.
I couldn't agree with you more. This is tribalism.
The evangelists at ASR can be quite nasty. I had to bow out from discussions there entirely. I'm not commenting on Amir as a person or what he is trying to do. I don't really know if I have the full picture or get the point of such efforts.
I do, however, think that the ASR website is not a friendly place where one can learn much about this hobby.
My claim studying this article above is not FIRST AND LAST to justify subjectivist trusting only their "taste" hearing for gear, NOT AT ALL, it is about deconstructing the DOGMATIC techno babble inference used by Amir to predict on the electrical measures in the linear and symmetrical time domain modeling what humans will hear from their non linear and non symmetrical time domain historical standpoint of observation and to infirm the Amir conclusion about what they cannot hear on the basis of these electrical tools used for verifying gear specs...
Amir and prof where is your answer ? Do you have a better hearing theory unknown to physicists Oppenheim and Magnasco ? Do you think they will take hearing claims of ASR seriously ? 😊
Who read this article ? It is not a review in stereophile, or technological babble about hearing, it is a pure scientific article in the frontiers between physics and psycho-acoustic ?
As i said multiples times, i am not subjectivist nor an objectivist because i focus on acoustic and psycho-acoustic not on gear pieces...I tuned my room WITHOUT need for a blind test... Acoustician used measuring tools for rapid efficient practicalities but their ears works also to the beginning till the end... There is a reason why...
@ossicle2brain..."they don’t do a fraction as much for audio science as Amir does".
Effort and Value are two different things. The comments about needing to be "paid" in order to take notes at an audio show was telling. No need for notes, just listen, and report out what you hear. Audio science not required, just listen and share. Most here who’ve been to a show always remember the systems that sound best to them. Does not require a notepad.
Again, the majority here at Audiogon do not need a meter or graph to know what sounds good. Listen, then measure. Completely different philosophies that may never agree. A for effort, maybe. Then again, what’s the goal. Different goals it seems. Leave it to agree to disagree since the goals are vastly different.
... the tribe leader doesn’t tolerate ’backtalk’ (otherwise known as intellectual challenges) in his own house so he and a few chosen minions (or alternate handles) come here to ’defend’ their honor ...
That’s part of what’s so odd about this thread. It’s using A’gon to debate ASR in a way that wouldn’t be tolerated on ASR’s own site. That alone tells me all I need to know about ASR.
Objectivist as subjectivist tribes focus on gear, one tribe use electrical tools mainly the other his ears... But it is NOT THE GEAR electrical properties measured or not , verified or not, which is the key in audio; Psycho-acoustic basic knowledge in a room is the crux and key of audio improvement... Nothing else...
But for sure my sympathy goes to those who learn how to listen with their EARS... so useful measures of gear can be useful information, they dont say as much as Amir claim they said about all the aspects of sound qualities for a human ears...
Psycho-acoustic hearing facts will solve this debate...
Read my article...I posted it 4 times waiting an answer...To no avail...
Amir did not answered it nor prof... Are they not scientists?
why is this even a topic we care about? ... it’s just tribalism in the hifi context... and the tribe leader doesn’t tolerate 'backtalk' (otherwise known as intellectual challenges) in his own house so he and a few chosen minions (or alternate handles) come here to ’defend’ their honor
at a human level, i view it as pathetic, and ultimately trivial
Why is this a thing? Its the audio equivalent of comparing and contrasting different religious texts. Those who lean in one direction aren’t really interested in compromise are they? Who cares what goes on over “there”? The fact that he comes over “here” doesn’t impact his relevance.
Amir and prof if you read this article what does it means for the possibility you claimed erroneously as a FACT : the reduction of the non linear non symmetrical time domain ears/brain way to extract information to simple electrical linear modeling tool in the symmetrical physical time domain ?
Do you think it is possible ?
No it is not.... Human ears/brain non linearities structure and internal "tools" beat the Gabor limit if not in resolution in precision in the time domain......
Then why claiming that your tools can decide what is perceived and what is not "a priori" by someone listening chorus music in an acoustically controlled room ?
How can you claim A PRIORI, with your simple measuring specs tools designed for gear standars verification, that no change will be perceived at all by changing some materials parameter, some gear component, or some acoustical modifications ?
How can you claim this using electrical tool working in the electrical linear modeling symmetrical domain, if the ears is able to extract "precise tracking" information and change in the non symmetrical time domain ?
Here is the original non vulgarized article beginning :
«Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle
Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo O. Magnasco∗
Laboratory of Mathematical Physics, Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10065
(Dated: March 13, 2015)
The time-frequency uncertainty principle states that the product of the temporal and frequency
extents of a signal cannot be smaller than 1/(4π). We study human ability to simultaneously
judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit,
sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Our results establish a
lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing
transient sounds, rule out simple “linear filter” models of early auditory processing, and highlight
timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing.
PACS numbers: 43.60.+d,43.66.+y,87.19.L-
Fourier transformation turns signals “inside out”, in
the sense that low frequencies dictate what happens at
long times, while high frequencies create fine temporal
detail. This property is demonstrated by Fourier’s un-
certainty theorem, which states that considering the ab-
solute value squared of a signal x(t) as a probability dis-
tribution in time,
P (t) = |x(t)|2
∫ ∞
−∞ |x(t′)|2dt′ (1)
and the absolute value squared of its Fourier transform
˜x(f ) as a distribution in frequency,
P (f ) = |˜x(f )|2
∫ ∞
−∞ |˜x(f ′)|2df ′ (2)
then the product of the standard deviations
∆t = √var(t) and ∆f = √var(f ) (3)
is bounded from below [1]:
∆t∆f ≥ 1
4π (4)
whence it is inferred that short signals require many fre-
quencies for their representation.
The theorem refers to the original signal and its Fourier
transform. In time-frequency analysis one attempts to
describe a signal in the two-dimensional time-frequency
plane, akin to a musical score where time is the horizontal
axis and frequency the vertical axis. Here the uncertainty
principle begets the Gabor limit [1, 2]. This remapping
emphasizes the uncertainties as a property of the trans-
form itself, rather than the the signal. In time-frequency
analysis, it has been proven that linear operators can-
not exceed the uncertainty bound [2]. Nonlinearity does
not by itself confer any acuity advantage, and in fact
most nonlinearities are merely distortions and thus dele-
terious. However, by the above theorem, any carefully-
crafted analysis that can beat this limit must necessarily
be nonlinear. For instance, precise frequency informa-
tion can be obtained about a sine wave by measuring
the time between two adjacent zeros of the waveform,
a clearly nonlinear operation. The nonlinear distribu-
tions can be classified in families according to their de-
gree of nonlinearity or history-dependence, such as the
quadratic (Cohen’s class) distributions like Wigner-Ville
[3] and Choi-Williams [4], and higher-order ones, such
as multi-tapered spectral derivatives [5, 6], the Hilbert-
Huang distribution [7], and the reassigned spectrograms
[8–12]. To understand how they differ we need to make
an important distinction between resolution and preci-
sion. Resolution refers to our ability to distinguis two
objects, while precision refers to our ability to track the
parameters of a single object, given prior knowledge it is
only one component. This distinction is well-established
in optics, where it is known the wavelength of light limits
resolution: two glass beads cannot be resolved as different
in a microscope if they are closer together than a wave-
length. Precision is not limited, since a single bead can be
tracked with nanometer accuracy. All the above distribu-
tions achieve higher precision than the Gabor limit when
applied to isolated signal components, yet give interfer-
ing results when two signals are closer together than an
uncertainty envelope. Our experimental test is designed
to directly measure precision, not resolution.
A key goal in neuroscience is to establish which algo-
rithms the brain uses to process perceptual information.
Psychophysics, by establishing tight bounds on the per-
formance of our senses,may rule out entire families of
perceptual algorithms as candidates when they cannot
achieve the expected performance [13, 14].
We shall show below that human subjects can discrim-
inate better, and occasionally much better, than the un-
certainty bounds. This categorically rules out any first
order operators, such as the standard sonogram, from
consideration, and puts a stringent bound on the perfor-
mance of any candidate algorithm, demonstrating that
the nonlinearities in the cochlea constitute are integral
to the precision of auditory processing.»..........
«A key goal in neuroscience is to establish which algo-
rithms the brain uses to process perceptual information.
Psychophysics, by establishing tight bounds on the per-
formance of our senses,may rule out entire families of
perceptual algorithms as candidates when they cannot
achieve the expected performance [13, 14].
We shall show below that human subjects can discrim-
inate better, and occasionally much better, than the un-
certainty bounds. This categorically rules out any first
order operators, such as the standard sonogram, from
consideration, and puts a stringent bound on the perfor-
mance of any candidate algorithm, demonstrating that
the nonlinearities in the cochlea constitute are integral
to the precision of auditory processing.
The conclusion of this article :
«We have conducted the first direct psychoacoustical
test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hear-
ing, by measuring simultaneous temporal and Our data indicate that human subjects
often beat the bound prescribed by the uncertainty the-
orem, by factors in excess of 10. This is sometimes ac-
complished by an increase in frequency acuity, but by and
large it is temporal acuity that is increased and largely
responsible for these gains. Our data further indicate
subject acuity is just as good for a note-like amplitude
envelope as for the Gaussian, even though theoretically
the uncertainty product is increased for such waveforms.
Our study directly rules out many of the simpler models
of early auditory processing, often used as input to the
higher-order stages in models of higher auditory function.
Of the plethora of time-frequency distributions and au-
ditory processing models that have been studied, only a
few stand a chance of both matching the perfrequency
discrimination. formance of
human subjects and be plausibly implementable in the
neural hardware of the auditory system(e.g.[6, 7, 12, 28],
with the reassignment method having the best compara-
tive temporal acuity. Elucidation of which mechanism
underlies our subjects auditory hyper acuity is likely
to have wide-ranging applications, both in fields where
matching human performance is an issue, such as speech
recognition, as well as those more removed, such as radar,
sonar and radio astronomy.»
I made few posts on his site in the past, but got disinterested very quickly. Good measurements do not always mean good sound, and I chose not argue with his followers proving it. So I never post their again.
Translation: We'd like to be able to slag Amir and his site publicly, without any push-back or correction to any nonsense we may be spreading.
Nah.
Neither you or Amir are the arbiters bestowed with any authority to label anything nonsense. Free exchange of ideas and experience here at Audiogon.
If you are going to slag someone publicly, don't complain if they show up to set the record straight.
Amir is the leader of ASR, the unrivaled place for slagging others, and then banning them if any defense is raised. Amir refuses to do anything about the insults, personal attacks, and slander his followers engage in. Until he cleans up his own house, Amir is fair game for criticism.
Amir is not setting any record straight. Instead has turned this thread into a platform to spread his gospel, readily available at ASR for those so inclined.
When Amir threw the term "fallacious" at @painter24, he revealed himself in full alignment with the disrespectful behavior of his followers. I will support reviewers like Erin that behave respectfully, do not engage in insults, and do not have an inflated ego.
It seems Amir nor Prof read the article i posted twice...Not one proved to me that they read it and UNDERSTAND IT...Here i put it, in an easy and clear way to read vulgarized, for the third time with my helping comments...Are they not scientist ?
Or they did not understand it to begin with ?
Too much techno babble ideology biases instead of psycho-acoustic science in their mind ?😊
SCIENCE IS NOT TECHNOLOGY...This article is psycho-acoustic pure science, not debunking propaganda from objectivist claiming what is impossible : deducing from their time symmetrical linear electrical modeling tools how the human ears works, and what we WILL HEAR and what we can never hear by simply adding measured decibels levels or substracting them , and what information the ears will catch or not ... 😊
First: repairing or falsifying designed components to verify or put back the components to their their standards norms is one thing...
Assuming that ALL of what human may be able to hear between components coupled together in a room will be COMPLETELY determined by these electrical standards for each separate component, and claiming that, is missing the fact that they must be COUPLED together and their audible sums cannot be predicted COMPLETELY in each room for all human ears,...
Why ?
Because hearing dont live only and merely in the time symmetric linear frequencies range kingdom of the electrical gear measuring tools modeling ...Ears/brain works non linearly...
Our brain beat the Fourier uncertainty barrier up to 13 times in one case of psycho-acoustic experience in a laboratory...
We extract information in one privileged direction of time , because of the brain habit with the sound of the natural world.
As the two physicist in this article put it said it : « Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry.»
«There’s a theorem that asserts uncertainty is only obeyed by linear operators (like the linear operators of quantum mechanics). Now there’s five decades of careful documentation of just how nastily nonlinear the cochlea is, but it is not evident how any of the cochlea’s nonlinearities contributes to enhancing time-frequency acuity. We now know our results imply that some of those nonlinearities have the purpose of sharpening acuity beyond the naïve linear limits.»
You begin to catch why the ears/brain HEAR something extracting it from the time domain which cannot be there in your linear symmetrical modeling electrical measures of gear design ?
All your electrical measures refer to hearing models which are obsolete anyway... And anyway electrical measures of gear has nothing to do with psycho-acoustic measures in a laboratory able to test hearing information extracting abilities in the time domain ...
«The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing.»
now try to imagine the wealth of information which is extracted from simple speech (or from musical event coupled to acoustic soundfield) and try to imagine HOW THIS INFORMATION EXTRACTED BY THE HUMAN EARS/BRAIN CANNOT BE PREDICTED BY ELECTRICAL LINEAR SIMPLE GEAR DESIGN TOOLS ; listen this two physicists :
«"In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted).
"The issue is that many fields, both basic and commercial, in sound analysis try to reconstruct only one of these, and for that they may use crude models of early hearing that transmit enough information for their purposes. But the problem is that when your analysis is a pipeline, whatever information is lost on a given stage can never be recovered later. So if you try to do very fancy analysis of, let’s say, vocal inflections of a lyric soprano, you just cannot do it with cruder models."
By ruling out many of the simpler models of auditory processing, the new results may help guide researchers to identify the true mechanism that underlies human auditory hyperacuity. Understanding this mechanism could have wide-ranging applications in areas such as speech recognition; sound analysis and processing; and radar, sonar, and radio astronomy.
"You could use fancier methods in radar or sonar to try to analyze details beyond uncertainty, since you control the pinging waveform; in fact, bats do," Magnasco said.»
Do you catch now why it is impossible to predict ,with linear modeling electrical tools designed for measuring circuits performance , what humans will hear from audio system parts coupled together in different acoustic settings environment ?
now read that ATTENTIVELY :
«Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing.
"Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you’re testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.
"We are also studying with these same methods the notion of simultaneity of sounds. If we’re listening to a flute-piano piece, we will have a distinct perception if the flute ’arrives late’ into a phrase and lags the piano, even though flute and piano produce extended sounds, much longer than the accuracy with which we perceive their alignment. In general, for many sounds we have a clear idea of one single ’time’ associated to the sound, many times, in our minds, having to do with what action we would take to generate the sound ourselves (strike, blow, etc)."»
is this article have been read by Amir or prof?
Are they able to understand why their simplistic assumptions about hearing PREDICTED on the basis of verified gear electrical standards cannot be used to predict how, and why, and when , a musician or an acoustician or any ordinary people will hear in some determined room acoustic environment coupled to an audio system ?
It is not a question about an alleged claim they accuse audiophiles to assert: their "golden ears"... A description used as an insult is not a scientific claim...
Here two physicist explain from their psycho-acoustic experiments conclusions how the human ears extract information from the time region where and WHEN there is, as in natural sounds environment, a broken time symmetry dimnension, and then why the human ears/brain BEAT THE FOURIER UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE UP TO 13 TIMES...
It is important to observe here that this fact about the symmetry breaking et the perception in the time domain is also related to the way human are able to PRODUCE sound sources vibration and not only perceive them...
As i said : thanks Amir to debunk gear specs claims, but do not pretend to do MORE...Insulting people even uneducated one is not a sign of high education, as demonstrated by those who you provoked because of the mortal sin of using their ears and who insult you in return...Insults beget insults...
As i said objectivist and subjectivist are twin brothers born from the same gear market conditioning mass publicity claims focussing on the gear piece...
Psycho-acoustic and room acoustic experiments is the heart of audio...
The heart of audio is not tasted "branded name" gear for "golden ears" or measured numbers verified at specs gear for pretended to be " unbiased" objectivist ears reading electrical graphs ...
Will it be necessary to have an answer to post these articles a fourth time ?
«Science is what you eat, technology is what you shit, the balanced recycling is called knowledge»--Groucho Marx 🤓
S/PDIF is just a protocol. It can be used with RCA, BNC, or optical connectors.
Absolutely, but most manufacturers have utilised RCA, and there is always a problem if a manufacturer does use BNC: people would complain that their other kit is RCA and they have to use an adaptor. So marketing would wonder why the engineers have picked a technology that annoys customers!
1. SPDIF must use a coaxial cable.
2. SPDIF characteristic impedance of the cable must be 75 Ohm
3. SPDIF cables are often orange
4. It's a digital signal and as long as the cable is well made, there should be no difference in errors and so no difference in sound
I personally like #3 😉
As long as 1 and 2 are observed the colour is irrelevant, of course, But some manufacturers seem to colour code them so people don't accidentally plug them in the wrong hole. It's not the case for all kit I've seen, but I've bought three digital products which were shipped with an orange cable for S/PDIF in the box. Perhaps it's an EU thing?
It's a real pity S/PDIF uses Cinch/RCA, since BNC would have been better and less prone to mistakes.
1. SPDIF must use a coaxial cable.
2. SPDIF characteristic impedance of the cable must be 75 Ohm
3. SPDIF cables are often orange
4. It's a digital signal and as long as the cable is well made, there should be no difference in errors and so no difference in sound
First of all, how dare you classify me as "you people"? You know nothing about me, you merely make yourself look small and mean.
Secondly - I do listening comparisons. I've also worked on thousands of different bits of audio kit using measuring tools - because it was my job! You cannot return a bit of repaired audio kit without first proving you've eliminated the reported problem and ears+brain are insufficient for that task, you have to use signal generators, meters and audio analysis kit. I also used to play some music to check all was OK.
I've encountered a great deal of genuinely faulty kit which still sounds OK-ish, ears+brain are a very low grade mechanism for checking things are not broken...
By the way, Amir owns a Mark Levinson No 532 power amplifier that costs $20,000. I find it strange that Amir couldn’t find a much cheaper well designed amp.
But How Does it Sound OK, lots of technical talk but does any of this impact the sound? You may know that there are two schools of thought here. One that says all amplifiers more or less sound the same. The other says the exact opposite with each sounding different like the smell of two different flowers. I won’t take a position in that food fight :). But instead, speak of a much less controversial issue of pure power delivery.
As I noted earlier, with the trend of less of efficient speakers and somewhat limited power available from our wall sockets, the amplifier can run out of steam before your desire for dynamics does. This usually translates into the amplifier sound becoming leaner at higher volumes, together with increased high frequency distortion, and less than impactful bass.
In comparison testing I have done, switching amplifiers using the classic class D configuration always sport incredible low frequency control and power. They beat out linear class AB amplifiers almost regardless of price. What they give up though is high frequency fidelity which I find somewhat harsh. The distortion is highly non-linear and challenging to spot but it is there. The Mark Levinson No 53 is the first switching amplifier I have heard which does not have this compromise. Its bass is amazingly authoritative: tight and powerful. Yet the rest of the response is absolutely neutral and pleasant.
If you have not heard these unique amplifiers, I highly encourage you to come into our showroom for a listen.
I think you guys are being too hard on Amir, he's a lot more like you than you think.
The reformed new Amir does do some nice measurements occasionally though.
I did not read anything from ASR. Well, I seldom read reviews of any kind. I do not have to read reviews which are based solely on a measurements - I'll elaborate: If manufacturer did not disclose them already, there is a problem; on the other hand, calibration of the measuring equipment is yet to be standardized worldwide. So, why would I trust something that is probably corrupt? More about corruption later.
Our technology at the present time is obsessed with making money and showing power, - in short, providing bread and games to the masses - it does not have time for finding answers on all our questions. In audio, we are still measuring rudimentary stuff. Since our science established those values that audio world measures, Physics went over the hills and far away... Technology has yet to catch up.
I often compare music to wine. Sometimes, I ask sommelier for advice. That is usually when I am not familiar at all with what is on the table.
Measurements of any kind, in regards to the food we eat and wine we drink, can not possibly capture all the aspects of the tested subject. On top of that comes pairing - which is a very nuanced subjective, foggy area. I met plenty of people who would always pair any chicken dish with white wine, because that is the rule. In short, learn rules to break them better: just once, stop listening authorities and try nice Bordeaux Merlot with your chicken...
Using science to explain yet unexplained sometimes leads to a breakthrough. Unfortunately, as we are corrupt as a species, it leads to the misuse of the facts to suit one's needs... Just read how Edison tried to discredit Tesla.
I am waiting on someone who is going to attempt to measure human reactions on Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata... with encephalography, of course. And playing Apple phone with pods vs. serious audiophile headphones / amp / source. And headphones vs. speakers. Those measurements might tell us more about anything in audio than everything ASR or any other reviewer could ever possibly do. Whole another area would be to use same encephalography approach on, say, 30 pianists while performing it. Now, imagine using those measurements to compare, and subsequently review a piece of equipment.
So, my conclusion is rather simple: when one is insecure so much that can not trust your own senses, measure things. And measure three times, to cut only once.
I have seen repeatable evidence that well designed audio has an inherent ability to reject mains-carried noise and that (as long as it’s well made
What if a product promoted by ASR or by you doesn’t sound good, should I base my desicision on my ears or your measurements?
Do you people ever do listening comparisons?
By the way, Amir owns a Mark Levinson No 532 power amplifier that costs $20,000. I find it strange that Amir couldn’t find a much cheaper well designed amp. Perhaps you could guide Amir to some well designed cheaper components.
I mean components with identical measurements sound the same, right?
Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything?
Yes, I think so. I'm an electronic engineer and have repaired broken audio equipment. I always had to measure before (if it's working sufficiently) and after to confirm I'd fixed the problem. With this skill and knowledge it's hard to live in the purely subjectivist world. For example, I have seen repeatable evidence that well designed audio has an inherent ability to reject mains-carried noise and that (as long as it's well made) a mains cable can not change how a piece of well designed electronics works.
What have I learned from @amir_asr ? The courage of my convictions! Also, like the OP, to not be surprised that I can hear a difference when I make a change, but to check that the change is real and if so, valuable,
I can just see Amir going along to the Met with his Klippel, testing the voices of the sopranos and suggesting which one to give a contract to for the next season of Madame Butterly or La Boheme. I am amazed the Met has not hired him yet. Oh wait a minute, Yannick Nezet Sequin listens to voices and does not measure them.
Amir showed how the measured signal of the Nordost lined right up with that of a cheap cable. That tells you they will be audibly indistinguishable (in any likely set up).
You made a theory or a claim here. That’s all. Saying "they will be" is not good enough.
Why not prove it with a YT listening comparison of the two cables?
Since you/Amir made this claim, then the burden of proof is on you.
you COULD put what you think you hear to blind test controlling for bias. But most audiophiles won’t do that
First of all, you and Amir should follow your own advice.
You made a baseless claim here.
Audiophiles A/B all time when choosing components and cables, or when making tweaks. Because a listening comparison is the ONLY method used for judging sound quality.
There are many A/B tests on the YT and even blind tests.
@profI am not here to prove you right or wrong. I’m expressing my point of view and my take on the review.
I also don’t know of any Miles Davis recording under the name of “Kinda Blue”. I’m very familiar with his “Kind of Blue” album as I have 2 vinyl albums of it, one by MoFi on a 45rpm and one by Analog Productions on their fantastic HQR Clear Vinyl. I also have the original CD as well as remastered one plus a DSD file. They all, just like different cables, sound very different. I can tell you what album version is playing blindfolded. Just like I can tell you when you switch from generic XLR cables to Nordost Tyr 2. In my system that I am very familiar with. There are no singing angels on “Kind of Blue”. Just awesome music performed by amazing musicians that were recorded by a very talented team of sound engineers. You can disagree with me all you want. But the Topping DAC and amp don’t cut it here and like I already mentioned, headphones aren’t capable of reproducing the fine layers and depth of soundstage you’d experience with a properly set up 2ch stereo system.
I guess Amir would agree with me here or else he’d be using the Topping amp in his reference system in place of his $23,000 amps. I stand my ground on his testing being flawed and the results of his review being inconsequential without conducting a proper listening test. You can continue sticking to your guns. You have an argument but it’s just not a valid one. That is my take on this matter. If it doesn’t make sense to you, I’m completely fine with that.
@amir_asralso just FYI…I watched your review on YouTube…
Tyr 2 is the top of the Nordost Norse line. Cables in that line cary the names of gods in Old Norse (Germanic Mythology). Not an indicator of how the cables sound by any stretch of imagination. But a quick search prior to recording your review would have helped you learn something new that you can relay to your viewers and prevent you from appearing ignorant while poking fun at the names Nordost chose for their cables. It did make your attempt at sarcasm and humor fall flat on its face right out of the gate, at least to those familiar with the subject.
measurements are important and that’s without a doubt. But alone, the measurements cant tell you how a component will sound or what sonic changes a cable can make.
Yes actually it can. Measurements really can tell you what you won't hear in a cable. Amir showed how the measured signal of the Nordost lined right up with that of a cheap cable. That tells you they will be audibly indistinguishable (in any likely set up).
You apparently reject this because you believe whatever you think you hear. That's the problem.
It's no doubt the same problem that lead you to claim:
Testing Nordost Tyr 2 on a Topping DAC driving a Topping amp using headphones won’t tell you much for few reasons - Topping components aren’t high end by any means
On what basis do you conclude the Topping is not "high end?" What do you think that means? Amir actually has measurements showing the excellent performance of the Topping, with noise below our hearing threshold.
It's not "high end" in being expensive...but you shouldn't judge gear based on price, but on performance! And not on manufacturer's claims either. Amir actually tests manufacturers claims.
And if you simply reject the objective evidence Amir provides because your "ears" tell you, after listening to the Topping, it's not "high end" then that just brings us back to my point: it's the Golden Ear refrain. "I Know What I Hear...measurements be damned."
It's not actually unfalsifiable, because you COULD put what you think you hear to blind test controlling for bias. But most audiophiles won't do that, so in their world "what they perceive" is unfalsifiable. Just like my claim to hear angels on the Miles Davis record. And since I won't be blind tested, and I reject the primacy of measurements, well...nobody can prove me wrong.
I have an educated bias when it comes to purchasing audio equipment.
I do not want to purchase a cartridge with a rising high end and I haven’t in 54 years.
I do not want to purchase a speaker that requires high powered amplification. Medium power (20 watts to 125 tube watts generally).
I do not want to purchase a tangential tracking tone arm.
I will not purchase a stat speaker again (tried them for 20 years).
These are among my biases, mostly based on measured statistics concerning those audio products.
Measurements are important mostly as a starting point. Listening to equipment in a system in a room will either please me or not (I’ve walked out of most of the audio 1000s of showrooms I’vve heard due to bad sounding systems, often due to acoustic and electrical issues in showrooms).
@audphile1 Absolutely. Using higher end equipment (tweaks included) may or may not work well with lesser equipment, particularly if the lower end result will lack resolution of some audio factor (detail, body, dynamics, PRAT, etc etc). I wouldn’t know that my higher end DAC was good without an equally excellent transport. They work in symmetry. Imagine using Hallographs on Bose speakers. Nope.
@profmeasurements are important and that’s without a doubt. But alone, the measurements cant tell you how a component will sound or what sonic changes a cable can make.
Testing Nordost Tyr 2 on a Topping DAC driving a Topping amp using headphones won’t tell you much for few reasons - Topping components aren’t high end by any means and listening in headphones, no matter how good they are, can’t give you the full scope of a tested component and can’t reveal changes to imaging and soundstage simply because headphones don’t do soundstage like a pair of high end speakers can set up with right components in the properly treated room. It’s just not the same. And there’s no way around it.
Amir, having a very decent system from what I understand with mega-buck components and speakers, chose to test the cable in much less than ideal configuration. And this is not just with that cable. There are more instances of such listening tests conducted by Amir. If you tell me this isn’t a definition of flawed testing, I don’t know what is.
When I play an acoustic instrument (guitar, for example), I hear it a certain way: I am holding it, my ears are above and behind the soundboard, vibrations are being transferred to my body, etc. I am not hearing it as the audience does. I do have considerable control of what the audience hears, but it is inconvenient and disorienting trying to hear what I sound like through monitors while performing. I am more relaxed and musically lucid if I don't obsess over what I must be sounding like and just play for my own sensory satisfaction, trusting that my presentation is set up competently. I am seeking emotional connection, not audio perfection.
Perhaps this could help explain why musicians generally are not audiophiles. As a musician, I have an adequate hifi. I have heard more startling and revealing systems, but after the novelty wears off I end up allowing myself to be engaged in the program (lyrics, melody, harmonic content and rhythm). If the hifi is too good, I find it harder to subject myself to the emotional content and end up just admiring the equipment.
The discussions on ASR are interesting, but the objective testing has little to do with how I select components or listen to music. What I look for is a general level of excitement in a review, or a suggestion of possible synergy with equipment I already own. That may provoke me to find out more about a component. So, yes, ASR has been valuable to me – if not "changing" my mind certainly expanding my mind with new considerations and possibilities.
1. The said Topping audio chain is not as transparent as you thought it was
2. Your ability to detect differences between components and cables is impaired by either your measurements results based bias or your ears just don’t work as well as convince yourself they do.
Ah...the old "the problem is your gear or your ears" refrain from the Golden Ears.
Really...it's the only response they have, which is why you see it over and over and over and over and.....
I can hear angels singing on the Kinda Blue record. What, it's not measurable and you can't hear them? Well, it couldn't be my imagination...so it must be your gear isn't resolving enough or your hearing isn't acute enough.
The cozy, unfalsifiable world of the audiophile...
@amir_asr As a former pro studio musician, I guess I do not fit the mold. LOL.
Nonetheless, as I stated before, if one has little experience with the sound of the ’real’ live instrument in an un-amplified setting, then I guess relying on someone else’s expectation of what the instrument sounds like, and therefore the measurements that are assigned to this sound, is the choice that is left. IMO, if something sounds good and measures poorly, then the measurement device is off, the same applies if something sounds bad to our ears and the measurements are great...then the measuring device is measuring the wrong thing.
Personally, I trust my ears above all else, regardless of what the measurements may or may not be showing me. Same goes for when i pick an instrument to play, my ears ( and well, my hands also) are the final decider, regardless of other ’expert’ opinions as to the instrument quality ( or lack thereof).YMMV.
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.
