GARP!!
Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
1,423 responses
i take this from Wikipedia...The book is free on the internet...it is the best book ever written on this "delicate" and deep subject... Cipolla add to this matter of definition a clarity nobody can negate...
«This second essay, "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" ("Le leggi fondamentali della stupidità umana", 1976),[3][4][5] by Cipolla , an italian economist, explores the controversial subject of stupidity. Stupid people are seen as a group, more powerful by far than major organizations such as the Mafia and the military-industrial complex, which without regulations, leaders, or manifesto nonetheless manages to operate to great effect and with incredible coordination.[citation needed] These are Cipolla’s five fundamental laws of stupidity:
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager. 
By creating a graph of Cipolla’s two factors, we obtain four groups of people.
Helpless people contribute to society but are taken advantage of by it; Intelligent people contribute to society and leverage their contributions into personal benefits; Stupid people are counterproductive to both their and others’ interests; Bandits pursue their own self-interest even when this poses a net detriment to societal welfare. An additional category of ineffectual people either exists in its own right or can be considered to be in the center of the graph. As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to consider when exploring human behavior:
Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "naïve people" by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or less than he impoverishes society, and a naïve person may enrich society more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be impoverished. Graphically, this idea is represented by a line of slope -1, which bisects the second and fourth quadrants and intersects the y-axis at the origin. The naive people to the left of this line are thus "semi-stupid" because their conduct creates/allows a net drain of societal welfare; some bandits may fit this description as well, although many bandits such as sociopaths, psychopaths, and non-pathological "jerks" and amoralists may act with full knowledge of the net negative consequences to a society that they neither identify with nor care about.»
«Non-stupid people are an imperfect and inconsistent group. Sometimes we act intelligently, sometimes we are abused, or selfish villains… And sometimes we are a bit of both. The stupid, in comparison, are models of consistency, acting at all times with unwavering idiocy. However, constant stupidity is the only thing constant about stupidity. That’s what makes stupid people so dangerous. Explains Cipolla. Essentially stupid people are dangerous and harmful because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person can understand the logic of a bandit. The actions of the bandit follow a pattern of rationality: a wicked rationality indeed, but always rational. The bandit wants an advantage for his account. Since he is not smart enough to find ways to get the plus as well as provide you with a plus, he will produce his plus by making a minus appear on your account. It’s all bad, but it’s rational and if you’re rational, you can predict it. You can predict the actions of a bandit, his evil maneuvers and therefore you can build your defenses. With a stupid person, all this is absolutely impossible, as the third fundamental law explains. The stupid person will harass you without any reason, without any advantage, without any plan, at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if, when, where, how and why he or she will attack you. Facing a stupid individual, you are completely at his mercy.»
https://bonpote.com/en/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/ | |
Ok, cool. Nobody is forcing audiophiles to become more educated. But it's great that Amir is testing manufacturer's claims so that knowledge is available for the many audiophiles who actually do care (but who don't have the equipment or technical know-now to vet those claims themselves).
| |
Thank you for your efforts to cut through the BS claims of so much unnecessarily expensive gear in audioland... particularly your efforts with cables and such. I will point out though that I got pretty thoroughly mocked on your site when I explained that I like the sound of the Heresy IV, even though they "resonate." On the other hand, the etiquette on THIS site is generally no better, as you are experiencing. | |
You really make it difficult to separate Amir from the zealous followers. Unfortunately, your own words confirm the validity of reasonable people taking issue. This frequently stated talking point is entirely fallacious. That comment is arrogant, dismissive, and disrespectful. There is absolutely no reason to take that tone in response to a description of how a person chooses to enjoy his music and system. None of your D### business. The last shred of tolerance and respect for ASR died with that response. | |
Your loss. Man oh man. Did you see those graphs above? Beautiful! Goosebumps by just looking at them. You are missing out
| |
| Post removed | |
"At the end of the day, when it comes down to it, when I or anyone else switches on their system and presses play, it becomes an entirely subjective activity; after all, for me anyway it's about the music and love/passion for music. If it sounds good/I enjoy the presentation my system gives me, nothing else matters - not measurements, cost, brand, none of it. I want to get lost in the music, end of." This frequently stated talking point is entirely fallacious. That audio gear didn't manifest itself subjectively. It came about by using science and engineering. Some companies are great at this; others not so much. Measurements are your best friend when it comes to figuring this out. Plenty of gear sounds excellent. You could buy an AVR from a big box store for $250, hook up a pair of $250 speakers and get great enjoyment. But that is not what some of you do, are you? You go and buy a $2000 USB cable and convince yourself it must be improving fidelity because it lowers "jitter" or "noise." What does have to do with what you claim? Nothing. It is a purely technical and objective assumption. My role is to test that manufacturer claim. I can test for Jitter. I can test for noise. When those tests don't show a difference, there goes your reason for buying said cable. Take this JPS Superconductor V USB Cable Review. They have already got you with that "superconductor" term as if such a thing exists in a $1000 cable at room temperature. Here is its noise and jitter compared to a $9 Amazon cable: See how the two graphs land identically on top of each other? Your threshold of hearing is at -115 dB and here I am measuring down to whopping -160 dB! Still no difference. Of course that cable transfers USB bits just the same and with right system and content, it can sound superb. That is not the issue and I have no doubt you would enjoy the sound of a system with this cable. So would I. Difference between us is the knowledge I have that this cable does nothing for the sound coming out of your audio equipment. That you perceive any difference is due to improper listening tests and nothing more. Since you are not willing to engage in such controlled tests, then measurements better be your friend, not your enemy. | |
"For me Amir, with all due respect, part of the problem for me is your manner. I want be open minded to what you say, and the points/facts/information you are attempting to impart, but for me it's about manner and delivery. Somebody else mentioned Erin's Audio Corner; I could listen to him all day; firstly he has humility, and he doesn't stop dead at the measurements he displays." Give Erin some audio cables to test and then we can talk. Until then, there is no one as open minded as me, searching for any hint to truth in products that don't have any efficacy. I spend incredible time and expense teasing out their performance, way beyond any reasonableness. I test them for example up to 1 Mhz or 20X the audio band. I search for changes in noise and distortion 100 to 1000 times lower than threshold of hearing. I don't use works like "snake oil, rip off, etc." I measure, evaluate and present the data in the most professional way possible. Ultimately though, I am here to provide a service to audio community by examining the performance of audio systems. I am not here to win an election or be liked by everyone. If you have no use for such data then whether I am polite or not is not going to make a difference. I am pretty sure if Erin presented the same data I have you would hate him with passion as well. Really, what I keep hearing is a cry to keep your fellow audiophiles from knowing more about audio products they have purchased. To what end? To validate someone else's lay and causal opinion about audio? Well, that is not going to work. Incredible number of your peers like what I do. And if as you say it is not because of my delivery, then it must be the power of the data presented. | |
"Absolute rubbish Amir. You have no idea how many here actually do listen to a variety of equipment without knowing what the equipment is or what the cost is. Again you push the line that you are the omnipotent guru." What I talk about is elementary in audio science. So no, stating the need for a controlled test is not any attempt at looking like a guru. However, it is trivial to show that your understanding of such tests is faulty. "Without knowing what equipment is" constitutes just one aspect of such tests. I explained all of that in my video but it is clear you didn’t watch it. So here it is again: 1. Levels must be matched. This applies to active devices like electronics and passives like speakers/headphones. If you don’t match levels, you better not bother. 2. Testing must be repeated to rule out chance. This is an extremely common failing of people who claim to have done "blind tests." I can predict a coin being a head, flip it and get that. I can even do that 4 or 5 times in a row. That doesn’t mean I have super powers to predict a coin toss. It just means I got lucky. You need to conduct the test at least 10 times and get 9 out of 10 right. Typical audiophile trying once or twice just generates "noise, " not data. 3. The test needs to truly be blind. No "tells." For this reason, you need to have a proper protocol to conduct the test. All of this takes less time and effort by the way that some of you put up by posting here. The truth is there for you. "There are and for what its worth Goldenone knows far more than you, but when he challenged your measurements you threw him out." There is no truth to this at all. His unprofessional/unethical conduct is what got him banned on ASR. He has been doing measurements for a year or so with no background in audio engineering or science. If that makes him more qualified than me, fine. Post measurements of his that back your claims in audio. As it is, they don’t match his own subjective claims!
| |
| Post removed | |
@hilde45 do you think this new quality would survive null testing? It's pretty easy with cables. | |
+1 @reg19
Well said -- and I agree. Necessary but not sufficient.
The Achilles' heel of their approach; well said. There are several possibilities which might be responsible for identically-measuring things sounding differently: (a) User error (lack of careful testing, distraction, bias, etc.) (b) Inadequate measurement metric (we don't yet have measurements for the experiences heard). Umami was tasted before it was measured and classified. People tasting umami didn't have subjective bias; they had an experience for which there was not yet a scientific description or analysis. Happens all the time.
| |
Another vague and condescending broadside, and a good example of the hostile environment people occasionally encounter here. I suspect it is deliberately open to many different interpretations from which you may choose later.
I wouldn't use ghosts as an example myself, but I agree: Open-minded: willing to accept you may be wrong skeptic: demanding reasonable proof and falsifiable claims; pursuing a claim scientifically and in a controlled fashion.
| |
I think one has to separate out Amir’s approach from some diatribe one receives from others on that website. To be fair to Amir: he has never recommended a measurements-only approach. If anything, he espouses that (properly conducted, level-matched) listening tests are more important. It is just that they are difficult to conduct for a casual listener in the manner he suggests. He does weed out badly constructed snake oil in many occasions.
However, after studying electronics engineering for 4 years and later working in a ‘measurements and calculations are everything’ world for a few decades, I still feel that they are necessary but not sufficient. ASR asks to prove it. As a hobbyist who likes to listen to music to relax, I’m not interested in the effort. I can make out differences between *certain* speaker cables though they measure identically (with our current measurement set), for example. Or, prefer the Holo May DAC to the beater measuring Topping D90SE.
| |
Recording with microphones choices and locations is an acoustic problem with INEVITABLE trade-off choices ( bad recordings exist) .... Transfering acoustic recording choices of the recording engineer trade-off art into ANOTHER acoustic environment : our room; is another problem in acoustic ...( bad room acoustic exist) The fact that the gear components, digital as analogue, work, conveying recorded information ( recorded as a SPECIFIC set of choices) between this translation of one set of acoustic choices by the recording engineer and the other set of acoustic choices in my room; in this acoustic translation the end results has not so much to do with the gear choice alone , as subjectivist or objectivist think in their opinionated focus on gear, but has way much to do with acoustic control over speakers/ears/room ...( i supposed the components are relatively well match and good for sure) That is my experience... Saying that dac choice matter or amplifier or speakers choice matter is only spewing common place evidence that cannot nullify my observation but displacing the main problem of audio, room acoustic, to a secondary one : which gear to purchase... Because nothing can replace acoustic disposition of the room... Except Dr. Choueri filters... That is my opinion...
«In acoustic if the timbre perceiving experience is not good, nothing is good. Spatial soundfield localization is second .» anonymus acoustician | |
Then we understand each other... I never claimed that my room was perfect,... But a tuned set of one hundred Helmholtz resonators located in specific spots ( an other acoustic devices) around and near ears and speakers was my own mechanical equalizer... Not perfect AT ALL... But astonishing if compared to my room with no passive acoustic treatment and especially with no mechanical large band equalisation ... Someone can use EQ but it cannot do the job i did with my resonators mechanically adjustable and vice versa my mechanical equalizer cannot do the job of an electronical equalizer ... When there is astonishing improvements for someone though , even if it is imperfect, i will not call that "a circle of confusion" ... I spoke a lot about the BACCH because it is a revolution not much well known that can make headphone sound as speakers and can make a sounfield for speakers in your living room as in a virtual acoustic room... We dont need anything else... It is the hard designed proof of what i claimed : psycho acoustic is the heart of audio, not market gear claims, nor falsifications of these claims...Thinking otherwise is entering in "a circle of confusion" : quarrel between opposite extremist side...
| |
@mahgister i prefer to make everything as accurate as possible in the reproduction chain and THEN EQ (or BACCH, as you’ve mentioned a dozen times) to taste. If your electronics are adding fixed EQ or distortion, if your speakers aren’t flat with even dispersion you are in the circle of confusion. Certainly we can season at the end, but if you don’t start with fidelity to the original, you are nowhere, and varying masters will cause no end of trouble. I’ve not heard BACCH. I do use convolution filters I created from REW (something I learned at ASR!). They make a huge difference, especially if you start in the right place. You can’t solve for poor dispersion with EQ. You can’t correct distortions, or FR varying with weird loads in the electronics. | |
Audio recording reproduction is related for sure to the gear design...But it is relative to the room acoustic potentials too... We can use this analogy between piano and tuning though , because a small specific room coupled to specific speakers and gear is not a perfectly designed DSP system as in Dr. Choueri perfect design compared to it... The gear coupled to the room is like an imperfect out of tune instrument... It resemble an instrument to be tuned for the ears pleasure, because the different distribution of the pressure zones of the room are like the cord of a piano must be controlled and acted upon to compensate for the gear limitations and the owner hearing limitations using measures and listenings to improve it or "tuned" it ... Small room acoustic is not Great Hall acoustic, different acoustic architecture completely because of the difference in reverberation time positive and negative part among other things... The acoustician , or here the improvised acoustician, the room’s owner, may and can tune it like a piano tuner tune a piano indeed ... Imperfect results are not bad results if they astonishingly improve the experience at no cost... Electronical Reproduction of a recording and small room acoustic translation are two different things.. They fuse together in the revolutionary design of BACCH filters system for example in a virtual room processing technology...It will be my ONLY upgrade one day... But when i was alone in my room i tuned it, as imperfctly it may be at the end , it was astonishing for my ears, and with them... With succees FOR ME and for my experience AT NO COST ... And i learned a lot in the process... Audio is about psycho-acoustic first and last, not about the gear market nor it is about the welcome falsification of the market claims by Amir , so useful it can be and it is...
| |
Indeed, piano tuning is a bit of an art, as you have to set the temperance intervals slightly out of tune deliberately, and it will be slightly different for every piano. Tuning it like open guitar strings with a tuner would sound horrendous. But all of that is still just physics, and measurable. Pianos are musical instruments, not music reproduction. | |
Amazing to see this thread still going. If Amir is worthless or a charlatan as some here claim, why are you bothering to read and post about him? Are you trying to protect people from him? Are you St. George slaying the dragon? Or, perhaps you have too much time on your hands and this is the best you can come up with for amusement?
Pretty much nails it. I'm not an active participant on ASR, but for pete's sake, the notion they are all zealots following a cult leader...come on. This is not the 118th Congress! | |
I’m at a complete loss as to what the moderator is up to, they are even deleting pleas for civility. It seems like some of you on either side of this debate are having the same problem. It’s only possible to answer specific claims. Vague broadsides are just that. You have to show how Erin or Amir measured incorrectly, or there’s nothing to discuss. It’s very similar to the attitude I take towards cables etc., you have to show any difference exists in the first place before it is useful to discuss the character of the difference. As for group pile-ons, I don't think one site has a lot on the other in that department. I’ll close with my signature quotes from ASR, which are a good guideline to avoiding a pile-on over there.
| |
Darwin is not the problem, most Darwinists are... Freud is not a problem, most Freudians are... Marx books are not a problem, most marxists are ... Etc... Amir hobby to put useful information and his own opinion is a service then Amir is not the problem, some rude ideologue Objectivists may be the problem...As are some impolite and rude subjectivists ... Someone as me experimenting for himself, is not the problem , gullible people passive consumers thinking that a cable is the key to audio, are not even wrong, because in spite of some difference beween cables it is never a main factor in audio... I concur with this post :
I concur with this post too :
| |
Correct me if I am wrong, but on ASR forum general consensus seems to be that, investing in tubes, analog rigs, cables or 'expensive' dacs is something that will not lead to a better sound, to say at least and if a person express different opinion will be ridiculed. There is no need to say that everyone knows that the price does not equals the qualitiy or that there are many expensive and yet, poor sounding products. Still, the criteria that people over there use in building their systems (which exclude all of the above mentioned products) seems very limited, imho and certainly is contrary to my humble experience. There are so many products to choose from when building your system and despite how they messure, it would be anwise to buy any without prior listening Building a 'good' sounding system requires experience, good hearing and certain level of craft with all that and its quite easy to get it all wrong. 'Poor' selection of cables with components that do not match with, is all it takes for a such result. Even among the people who share my point of view there are big differences between experience,taste and of course systems and the way they sound. So I am asking this question again. Why 'worry' or argue what Amir or anybody else thinks or does? Is he perhaps dictating how yours or mine system should look or sound? If anybody wishes to follow him or his methods, let them be. Their system, not yours. Why argue about such trivial things (like hi fi) ? | |
Back at the beginning of this thread I asked if the OP uses an auto tuner to tune their instrument or do they do it by ear? The OP responded both ways. That is the interesting point. Many of us have the ears, the fine hearing to tune an instrument, or a stereo, but still need the assurance of measurements. Being an engineer I also tend to want confirmation by measurement of what I am hearing- although less so these days as I have learned to trust what I hear more. At some point the best learn to work without a net. A remarkable memory from years ago: I knew a musician with great hearing. He came over to my house and with a single tuning fork he tuned our piano. It sounded better than ever. Even something as basic as tuning an instrument by a skilled musician can sound better than just adjusting the strings (or tube length) to a set and measured frequency. Something about the feel of the instrument in a master’s hands that is superior to measurements. A good example was some decades ago a renowned flautist was being interviewed after giving a concert. The reporter, in jest handed the flautist a plastic recorder to see if he could play it. The master played an amazing tune on that plastic toy. Very impressive. Measurements go only so far. The feel, the emotional response of the music and the memories make a human connection that no analyzer can quantify. | |
Amir and ASR get slagged on forums like this, where strawmen accusations and inaccurate claims are made about him and the site. It’s completely his right, and certainly worthwhile, for him to engage with some of this criticism to correct some of the misinformation. That is rich to complain about Amir and ASR being slagged! ASR has developed slagging others into an art form. An ASR moderator stated ASR members must treat other ASR members with respect. However, continued to say non ASR members are NOT afforded the same respect. Let that sink in. Speaks volumes about ASR. ASR lack of respect is demonstrated repeatedly. Amir may have started ASR with pure intentions. For the most part, he has stayed out of the mug his followers like to live in. Unfortunately, die hard followers routinely engage in slagging others. The issue is not whether criticism is deserved, it is the descent into a mixture of hostility, snark, insults, and skirting slander. ASR feels justified in starting a fight, but is quick to cry foul when there is a response. Perfect example is an ongoing back and forth ASR started and escalated until a response appeared. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. ASR throws grenades, stop whining about grenades being returned. To be clear, measurements are valuable, but do not characterize everything. Amir providing measurements as a service is fine, The issue is the uncontrolled vitriol of the hard core followers. | |
So mahgister, I guess that you will not helping my go fund me account to help develop the "No trino" cables? What if told you that neutrinos cannot be measured? Let's see Amir shoot that one down! It's a foolproof scam, I mean plan. 😄
I'm joking.
| |
Your post is an example of despise that innerve everybody here... You talk about what "neutrinos" coming from a cable? And you mock subjectivist hearing them... It is very easy to mock subjectivist extremist views... I dont like extremist of the subjectivist or objectivist kind... Why ? Because they focus on gear "magical " properties , MEASURED OR NOT.... The measuring crowd argue against the listening crowds that some qualitative phenomena cannot be there and the other side insulted claim and argue they are there... Myself i dont focus on the GEAR....As this two sides did... Audio is about acoustic and psycho-acoustic AT THE END... Then i was able to tune my room to my likings with a result so astonishing that i learned this fact : there is no relation between before and after... Is my small room could be deemed PERFECT acoustically like a great acoustic Hall designed by a pro? no... Is my small room designed and tuned for my ears and biases ? Yes Small room acoustic is not great Hall acoustic...( For example time and timing play in a different way for the ears reverberation can be used positively Etc ) i then learned why subjectivist and objectivist miss the boat in their respective living room... In audio the most important component is a dedicated acoustic room... This is my truth... And for the immature dude who will say that my hearing is not perfect, i will answer for sure my hearing is not perfect ...But i was able to tune 100 Helmholtz resonators around my room distributed on critical spot by ears , and i did it in my imperfect way as a piano tuner tune a piano... It takes me 1 complete year of fun each day... End results : extraordinary at NO COST...It is not perfect precisely because my ears is not perfect but for me it was way better than no acoustic tuning ... There is NO COMPARISON ON ANY ACOUSTIC FACTORS between before and after.. The lesson : the gear is SECONDARY.... The hearing biases are not there to be ELIMINATED in the small owner’s room but to be used positively AS A SET OF BIASES TOOL to tune the room for the owner ears...This room is not a HALL for the crowds it is for me...( great hall acoustic is not small room acoustic, the same acoustic principles are used in a different way here) if someone dont want to study basic acoustics and learned a lot by experiments; i recommend Dr. Choeri BACCH filters... It will be the same as my room but on a level of perfection reducing it to nothing to be compared.... My imperfect ears cannot beat DSP wisely used in a revolutionary psycho-acoustic design... As in my room the sound from speakers ( or from your headphone) will be there in 3-D perfectly localized without timbre degradation... A feat i can only grossly and imperfctly approximate in my small room... I am neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist extremist IDEOLOGUE quarelling as childs ... i dont focus on gear, measured or not, i focus on acoustic... The key to the best world system is acoustic and psycho-acoustic ...Ask Dr. Choueri... He dont mind the brand name of speakers, amplifier or turntable or Dac and their measures or their reviews...What matters first and last is the properties of the ears/brain experience as described in psycho-acoustic, or as used in an imperfect way in your room...Pick any good basic system and put it on his top level with acoustic... This is the way...I dont mind if you choose it by ears or by the numbers...I dont mind extremists...
| |
You put in my mouth what i never said,,, It seems extremists in subjective and objective schools will never understand anything out of their blindness spot... I ONLY said what i said, not that my three past dac sounded the same... I mean the difference which are there is not huge and does not compare to other embeddings controls especially acoustic one... I said confirming Amir on this point that dac technology is mature technology and we can have very good dac at low price... Once this is said i LISTEN to deetermine my choice or the need for a change...
| |
At the end of the day, when it comes down to it, when I or anyone else switches on their system and presses play, it becomes an entirely subjective activity; after all, for me anyway it's about the music and love/passion for music. If it sounds good/I enjoy the presentation my system gives me, nothing else matters - not measurements, cost, brand, none of it. I want to get lost in the music, end of. If the enjoyment of music is distilled down into a debatable set of measurements, or reduced to pure scientific theory, the soul of music is dead."
Well said +1 | |
I have zero issues with measurements based music listening & enjoyment as a hobby, but phrases like this, from the Master’s mouth is the problem with all this GREAT debate and bickering:
People should be allowed to express their opinion on any audio gear or system openly and without fearing backlash from the measurements crowd, always trigger happy to spoil the party by throwing & yelling “proof” in their face. also, phrases like this:
Everything with “you don’t know the truth”, or “I show you the truth”, or “only I can fix this” has an element that I don’t particularly perceive as scientific or even delusional. God like.
| |
For me Amir, with all due respect, part of the problem for me is your manner. I want be open minded to what you say, and the points/facts/information you are attempting to impart, but for me it's about manner and delivery. Somebody else mentioned Erin's Audio Corner; I could listen to him all day; firstly he has humility, and he doesn't stop dead at the measurements he displays. At the end of the day, when it comes down to it, when I or anyone else switches on their system and presses play, it becomes an entirely subjective activity; after all, for me anyway it's about the music and love/passion for music. If it sounds good/I enjoy the presentation my system gives me, nothing else matters - not measurements, cost, brand, none of it. I want to get lost in the music, end of. If the enjoyment of music is distilled down into a debatable set of measurements, or reduced to pure scientific theory, the soul of music is dead. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say, but that's how I feel when I read the ASR forums. I wish you the best of luck in your work, and your endeavors with ASR, but it's just not palatable to me personally. Other's mileage may vary, as this my purely subjective view 😉
| |
"Well "Prof" if you come to erroneous conclusions or use poor methodology why should you get cut slack?" You all have been asked repeatedly to state what is wrong with the methodology I use yet nothing specific has come up. Not a thing. You just linked to two random online threads as if that is supposed to be something. As to conclusions being wrong, that is an opinion you have that is not backed by any facts or data. You just claim it and expect it to be taken at face value. How on earth is that the right "methodology?" Do a controlled test as the entire audio science world demands and then we can talk if your results are different than what measurements show. Until then, you are just unhappy that what you think is right, really isn't based on objective facts, science and engineering. That is a huge hurdle to get over.
| |
"None of you bother to eliminate sources of bias and errors in your listening tests before claiming you hear this and that. " Absolute rubbish Amir. You have no idea how many here actually do listen to a variety of equipment without knowing what the equipment is or what the cost is. Again you push the line that you are the omnipotent guru. There are others who have far more knowledge and experience than you, yet you push your video on "listener training" Please!. "If there were flaws in my work by now there would be riots in streets with manufacturers countering them." There are and for what its worth Goldenone knows far more than you, but when he challenged your measurements you threw him out. | |
"I have already said Amir is rude and intolerant. A number of posters have already been banned from ASR for posting contrary opinions, yet Amir is here posting his." I am only here because you all are discussing me and making stuff up that are simply not true. I am thankful that the host is allowing me to reply. Should they want to disallow that, I would accept it and go about my business.
You need to do more than "look for it." You need to understand the topic at a very deep level. Otherwise you are just running with talking points that can be shown to be false claims. To wit, you linked to a youtuber who uses an analyzer just to ignore the data that it generates and run off with a bunch of subjective nonsense not backed by said measurements. His video there shows that there are settings in the analyzer that change the results. Well duh! Use the same settings as I do and you get consistent, and repeatable results. I am getting close to 2,000 measurements I have performed. If there were flaws in my work by now there would be riots in streets with manufacturers countering them. Yet not only do you not see that, but manufactures that do proper engineering continue to send me equipment to test. And participate in ASR as well. I earlier linked to the Focal speaker review I did which was sent to me by the company. My work is somehow proper to them but not for you??? | |
"See, this is where the comment breaks down. You can get a very good measuring one, but it may not sound that good. " There is a "break down" but not in the way you realize. None of you bother to eliminate sources of bias and errors in your listening tests before claiming you hear this and that. It is trivial to show that two identical audio products will get different subjective impressions even though the sound is identical between them. Until this lesson is learned, you will never know the audio truth and wind up chasing ghosts. Here is a video on that: I also cover the topic of listener training that was mentioned earlier. | |
@Mahgister "For example in dac... Dac is a mature technology, and we can now afford a very good one at relatively low price..." See, this is where the comment breaks down. You can get a very good measuring one, but it may not sound that good. However ASR minions will argue that all Dacs that measure the same sound the same. Rubbish! ESS based Dacs sound shrill in the mid range. Also what is this "mature technology"? Over the years technology tends to improve. Despite your name, (though the Latin is magister), you are not much of a teacher. If you want more, look at some of Amir’s headphone reviews and then read the following: Then you get people like Matt Hooper, who is actually one of the members of ASR who has less of an attack dog mentality, and who posts under the name "Prof" here, though heaven knows what sort of Prof he is, who post nonsense like "The thing is his critics will never cut him slack." Well "Prof" if you come to erroneous conclusions or use poor methodology why should you get cut slack? | |
The problem is not Amir, but some of the extremism and opinionated "disciples" so to speak... It is the samething here with people who think sound is only about their uneducated "tastes" and nothing else......Extremism is on the two sides... There will be no quarrel at all if people were able to understand basic psycho-acoustic ... Human hearing is very complex and we cannot say that if it is not measurable by oscilloscope and others electrical tools it does not exist as a perception ... Spoken sounds and musical sounds are qualities "wholeness" entities extended in a time/timing ten of milliseconds region, the way we perceived them is studied in psycho-acoustic and cannot be analysed in the more simple way we measured electrical thresholds in gear design... Human perception is primary in acoustic... Acoustician who designed the architecture of great music hall in the past were doing it as an art and craft using their ears not a mere mechanical mathematical formula... For sure A.I. could soon replace them...But my point is, so much useful electrical measures of the gear could be, they cannot replaced acoustic and trained ears... Even those who measure and think they can hear only what they electrically measure from the gear , as those who claim to perceive gear differences and claiming that one "taste" better by virtue of their "taste"; All those, most of them, never trained their listenings and hearings with acoustic...They then ignore that we cannot perceive some phenomena at the treshold limit of our OWN hearing without creating the conditions for the phenomena to be perceived and manifested first ... Is it illusion or placebo, sometimes yes, sometimes no...The main thing is experimenting by ourself... | |
no. | |
All debates with no arguments attacking valid information and facts are useless... General accusation are only mirror reflecting opinionated people... We need measurements as we need our ears... But we need to focus less on the gear , their measures or the listening impressions and more about the way to learn how to listen in controlled acoustic conditions ...I dont means blind test here, i spoke about small room acoustic... Because at the end any audio system must be judged in a specific room... The optimal room transform a system in a way no upgrade can... For sure all people cannot embark in acoustic experiments journey... Headphone can be a solution then... Or i recommend Dr. Choueri BACCH filters system... But the only way to learn how to listen and understand sound is acoustic experiments as the only way to learn how to listen and understand music is playing an instrument... Perceiving something without the clear concept about what is about to be perceived, hide and distort the phenomenon to be understood... To describe something even to ourself we need concept and the corresponding word...Without it the phenomenon most of the times did not exist or is unoberseved or confusely sensed... Listening is not then about innate "taste" except in the marketing litterature... We are all limited...i was able to design my own acoustic room but i did not play an instrument... 😂 😊 The desire to learn and the orientation of attention can compensate for our limitations for sure...
| |
| Post removed | |
My point about electrical measures is simple : they are INFORMATION we must take as information, often very useful ... Amir give us much more information about the design of a component , then we can only thanks him for his " knowledge" ...
My other point is : Information is not knowledge... In audio as in any field the difference between information and knowledge is simple and explicitly given by the great mathematician of this century : Alexander Grothendieck : " an information may add something to us but did not change us, knowledge change us "... ( in his book " the Key of dreams") 😊 In audio, acoustic knowledge and basic psycho-acoustic experiments change us IMMEDIATELY, because they make us TOUCH and FEEL what is timbre for example or dynamic or transients or immersivenes, sound sources apparent localizations, or the listener envelopment and the sound source ratio etc , by experiments varying acoustic conditions in our room. These experiences not only add something as a mere information, as information about the design of a component can do, but when put in place in some order transform our hearing being completely and without coming back , we begin to be conscious of new aspect of us in relation to the sound and to the soundfield that we could not even imagine before it ... This why i said that we must learn how to listen, it is not given by purchasing 20 amplifiers or 30 headphones...It is information we gain by purchasing brand names not knowledge... We can buy information not knowledge... We can buy a book but we cannot buy the understanding experience of the book... This is why Acoustic is the heart of audio... Not electronic design by itself alone...Anyway revolution in electronic design also often comes from psycho-acoustic principles, facts or discoveries : Smyth realizer or Dr. Choueri BACCH filters among many others... I remember atmasphere explaing here 1 year ago very interestingly how his psycho-acoustic knowledge inspired him for the better design of his tube amplifiers for example...
« Sorry for your theory but my wife’s information is already knowledge»--Groucho Marx 🤓 | |
this is correct and entirely consistent with my experience there are different mods on duty at any given time, tammy is the most thoughtful one, others will just delete stuff if requested without much if any thought -- all this is mostly just harmless drivel as they see it (a bunch of bored old men, sad nerds, and a few habitual troublemakers sparring) -- and they are largely right |
