@chayro 

This comes late, chayro, but I am now able to say what I have learned from/about Amir.

The first is that he does very thorough testing on the electrical performance of audio equipment, and that he understands the electrical side of audio reasonably well.

The second is that he firmly believes that everything evident in purely electrical measurements is sufficient to determine everything electromagnetism is about, as well is its effect on the time domain.

Thirdly, he avoids discussion on issues he does not have answers for, reducing everything and anything only to the narrowness of the things he does, and if pushed for a direct response, engages paltering, conflation, and prevarication, to avoid having to answer directly. When he has nothing intelligent left to say, he resorts to sealioning and the kind of trailer park humour he accuses others of.

Fourth, he is involved in the act of performance testing. It is about the regurgitation of answers, based on the known and the established. It is a bureaucratic task, but one that provides the place necessary for a particular kind of confidence to thrive.

Fifth, he is unable to tell apart music files of low and high resolution, and based on this lack of ability, determines that measurements in performance testing is all that is needed to determine what is heard, and what is not.

Finally, and most vitally, almost everything in the way he communicates, presents his experiences as complete, indisputable, and omnipotent; absolutely void of any possible error of judgement and correction, purely based on his knowledge on the electrical side of electromagnetism, and his lack of listening skills. The term used to describe such behaviour is narcissism. It is not a term pulled from conjecture, but entirely based on what he writes, the way he writes it, and the appeal to the infallibility with which he underlines it all.

What I do know of someone who lacks the ability to listen skilfully, is that they should not be allowed to overcompensate by persuading other less experienced audiophiles not to learn how to listen as well - it is wicked, ignorant and unbecoming of anyone aspiring to teach.

To objections over issues he has failed to address, he engages the constant refrain of “We know a ton about audio” which, true as it may be, has absolutely nothing to do with everything we do not know - his statements over issues of deeper debate, technical or conversational, are almost all examples of paltering, the appropriation of unrelated truths to justify the argument of an entirely different issue.

He conflates his position with that of a doctor, and then listening ability with that of medicine. And then takes the ultimate step of conflating the knowledge a doctor has with that he possesses. And finally, palters comment on his narcissistic behaviour with the truth of what doctors do. Then claims it is an insult to himself, when the term is used to describe exactly what he is.

Narcissism is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as “having too much interest in and admiration for oneself. Narcissistic people have a hard time seeing another person's point of view. ”TheMayo clinic defines narcissistic personality disorder as “a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.” Encyclopaedia Brittanica defines narcissists as those who “thrive on being recognised as an authority”, and narcissistic behaviour as being inclusive of “viewing oneself as exceptional, and engaging arrogance, feigned superiority, and aggressiveness upon failure to receive confirmation that others hold them in high regard."

Speaking to the indexes, tests, and abbreviations he seems to subscribe to so ardently, there is something known as the NPI, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, that is widely used used to assess narcissistic personality disorder. It is widely known that those diagnosed with this disorder cannot be trusted to be involved in any kind of discussion which is productive, until the extent of their disorder is determined.

To sum it all, Amir knows a lot. From his measurements, we have discovered how certain manufacturers either fudge test results or leave them ambiguous, in the hope of better sales. We know how certain reviews do the same, to serve agendas that do disservice to the hobby. But, as is true of every imperfect human being alive, he does not know everything, which he will never acknowledge, as he has built he entire narrative and reputation on something that happened a long time ago, an experience that we each have had at some point in each our separate journeys – he couldn’t hear a difference between audio items that claimed so. This combined with his narcissistic personality disorder he developed over the years for whatever reasons, has created the reactions and communications now witnessed from him.

For the less personally offended, the incident of not having good listening skills would not have scarred so badly, but it would not have been easy recovery for the egotestical, obviously, and not having having better listening skills, electrical testing serves the easy way out. It has resulted in this little audio crusade against the entire spectrum of manufacturers in a hobby that is not a war, but which is treats with the seriousness of one, shallow reputation being at stake.

For the rest in wonderful hobby, developing listening skills are considerably more important than allowing our abilities to intelligently decide be instead determined by numbers and measurements of half the electromagnetic spectrum. 

With that, I wish you well : )

In friendship - kevin.

@kevn 

nice post, but a couple items:

when has Amir said he knows everything? I am not a regular follower of his content, so I could certainly have missed it.

given the history and the current state of the industry, rife with snake oil, pushing manufacturers to back up their claims is 100% a good thing. 

listening is subjective, and very influenced by biases, but with the appropriate balance of objective information, you can truly develop your listening skills. 

there are way too many people on this forum (and others) that would buy a special “audiophile” air purifier for their listening room thousands of dollars, and then in every post, they are a hammer looking for a nail as resolution to all subjects and issues.

there are always two sides of the coin, and if you force a division, nobody wins.

I’m pretty sure he has not said he knows everything. He is passionate about what he does and I do see indications in his reviews that he seems to be aware of what he knows and what he does not know which is very important and is not afraid to call out others on that one.

Just calling it as I see it.  I have no cards in this game. 

Narcissists empowered by the internet and media in general is a big problem these days. Perhaps one of the biggest. The impact on hifi choices is insignificant on the grand scale of things.

given the history and the current state of the industry, rife with snake oil, pushing manufacturers to back up their claims is 100% a good thing.

That’s the bottom line. Bingo! More people need to do that if they care enough rather than fuss about it. Amir’s act shouldn’t be too hard to follow for someone who is qualified and has the resources needed. I suspect this is the motivation behind a lot of the darts thrown.  Just follow the money. 

It’s a fair question to ask Amir what he has learned of value from this thread?

@fredrik222 

Thanks for your message - in truth, I did not make a statement that Amir says he knows everything, only that as an imperfect human being like the rest of us, that it is not possible for him to know everything about electromagnetism - something that he will never acknowledge in staking claim to his measurements. He says electrical testing yields every result we need to know whether a sound difference can be heard in equipment comparisons. That is the equivalent of saying that he knows everything about how electromagnetism affects the quality of sound waves arrive at our ears, just based on the electrical tests he conducts. It would be actually funny, if not for the increasing numbers of people who believe it to be true. 

Then again, it is also true that narcissists, by virtue of their addictive, if misleading confidence, inspire the most followers.

You are absolutely correct that manufacturers should not be allowed to falsify specifications or get away with ambiguous claims. But in all fairness, neither can acoustic performance be claimed based on tests only on the electrical half of everything electromagnetism is. It would be hypocritical otherwise. 

And I am not referring to basic magnetic flux here, but the profound complexity that a constantly changing electromagnetic field is, since the signal is carried as much in the magnetic field, as it is in the electrical current. We have not yet learned how to measure this, let alone understand its impact on sound quality.

There is so much we do not know about the relationship between electromagnetism and the nuance of sound reproduction. To ignore, let alone belittle this fact belies deep ignorance that runs counter to everything science truly is. Science concerns the investigation of experiences and questions we have yet to find answers for. Not the bureaucratic repetition of tests on things we already have proof of answers for.

Yes indeed, listening skill can be very subjective - those blind tests ever so referred to are as subjective as the best, because two variables exists in such tests - something that has not yet been acknowledged by those who champion it.

It was the reason why I suggested a listening test with just one variable, the listener. The sound files had two precisely determined resolutions, which the listener had to identify and tell apart. Direct and simple. Amir did not think much of the test because he could not hear the differences, and he accused those who might have done well as having benefitted from guesswork, despite the accuracy of a six for six correct answers falling well within his own threshold of acceptability. No answer from him when challenged. 

I am a mere hobbyist and the technical knowledge Amir has in electrical matters far exceeds anything I could ever aspire to. But I can say that the observation of electromagnetic nature I am not yet able to explain, and the passionate questions and hypotheses that follow engage science to a far more profound degree than a performance testers  tedious refrain that if it measures the same, it sounds the same.

Yes fredrik, there are indeed two sides to this amazing coin of electromagnetism - how divisive that Amir only fixates on the electrical half, the half his machines only read. Performance testing is not science. It is repetition of the known.

@kevn if you know a better approach maybe there is big bucks and satisfaction similarly in it for you if you were to take it to market and offer it as a competing or complementary service, if you have not already done so. I personally am  all ears when someone can help me make better informed buying decisions.

I dont like attacking personality... Amir acted as a gentleman at least...

The way he answered with specific USELESS measures for the debate , about some products instead of adressing my questions and articles,

The way he NEVER gave even the beginning of an answer to the relation between measures and hearing theory,

The way he asked for proofs confusing measures with proof, whereas the problem precisely is to RELATE our set of measures to what we CAN hear from them and with them and to what we CANNOT hear with them and from them ...

The way he answered never as a scientist because ignoring ALL psycho-acoustic facts i presented CLEARLY with 4 physicists , two he attacked ad hominen, never on the ground of their perspective in psycho-acoustic,

The way he drowned the fish of the psycho-acoustic fundamental question about the relation between electrical linear measures and audible hearing qualities, by teleguiding others questions and debate toward measuring this product or this product so and so and then coaching others in the dead end alley of THIS product debate or THIS one, and inviting others to quarrel about these products value measures INSTEAD of his claims about hearing...

The way he ignored even basic physical small room acoustic and feel confort ONLY around equalizer and measuring toys...

All that spoke volume...

I lost my trust even in his measures not because they are not well done, i cannot know that nor verify, but because i noticed clearly what he knows ( limited measures) and what he dont knows ( psycho-acoustic) , and when someone dont want to learn or even knowing anything about what he does not know because it does not suit an agenda, it is a bad omen for what may come after...

it is clear that he is a crafty seller...not a narcissist sorry, nobody here is a psychologist and anyway no diagnostic done in this way reflect any reality, just a seller with experience with a limited set of measures, useful to falsify market gear specs NOTHING ELSE ...

But Amir want to sell his measuring toys as the first and last truth in audio experience, he want consumers listening to his reviews and only to his reviews... Gullible people will...His measures cannot predict audible  musical qualities..

As i said reviews means something only in a statistical numbers and are indicating of value for past or vintage products,... few reviews means little.. Measures only cannot indicate in a direct way the values of audible qualities; these qualities only exist when a component is coupled with others, in a specfic room, for specfic ears... it is why only statistics about each acoustic factors separately from few dozen of reviews can guide us... lIstening in person is the best way but not possible in most case for most of us...

He used blind test to eliminate any contestation about his limited set of measures and any contestation coming from human hearing.. he analysed human hearing only about his acuity and resolution in HERTZ and DECIBELS nothing related to the Fourier context and the measures of human hyperacuity in the time domain and in a non linear way, why ? Because it will shatter his false science relating his electrical linear set of measures as a predictor of REAL AUDIBLE QUALITIES in music , in speech or even in pure acoustic...

Any other critic of him will miss the target and being stated on his CHOSEN ground you will loose or there will be no conclusion ... In the psycho-acoustic debate with me he lost because he was UNABLE to contest any of the facts i surmiss..NONE...

The point i indicated are so fundamental that the way he refuse to adress their validity and never even reference nor any concepts i proposed or any names with the exception of Van Maanen , because being not only a physicist, van Maanen is an audio designer, he could then dismiss all his facts as seller marketing leaflet... it is here i lost my respect for Amir audio knowledge... i read van Maanen and nothing Amir said about him is valid and touch the heart of the matter... He could not anyway, because Van maanen as a designer and physicist work in audio around the fundamentals facts of psycho-acoustic for his design : the time dependant domain and the non linear working of the human hearings... Van Maanen searched for improved design and is able as other designer everybody know did explaining for us psycho-acoustic elementary facts used in their own design in the past...Van Maanen is not ALONE...I pick him because being a top physicist in fluid dynamics he know acoustic physics and was a hobbyist designer all his working life and at full time after his retirement as physicist..

@mapman

i hear you, believe me. I mean, who wouldn’t want to save the expense it takes to get things right? Trouble is, and I’ve mentioned in another thread, that there are almost no shortcuts in this crazy hobby of ours. Very little substitutes for the effort of trying as many things as possible, just one change at a time, in the system we know best, in the familiarity of our specific listening spaces.

The wonderful byproduct of the effort, however, are the listening skills we pick up along the way by default - the repetition of a certain track, perhaps, that enables us to make comparisons to a completely different track with the same instrument and parsing out the unique qualities of the space each recording was made in. It is a journey many have made, and all of us have dreaded, at one point or another, only to have discovered it was not so bad after all, when we could actually hear a certain cable let us down, or another pick us back up. With critical listening, it is not possible to fool oneself - the experienced listeners will know what exactly this means. Critical listening breeds no bias, just the need to know what brings more realism. There can be no bargaining with self-honesty, and may I say, the narcissist can never be truly self honest - the trick is not to have vested interest in anything other than discovering a better way forward, mistakes and reputation be damned.

The critical listener is not afraid to discover, regardless of bias, because learning is the goal, not the byproduct. What works better is the only truth they care about.

It takes time and money, unfortunately, because no one can replace what we hear for ourselves. And admittedly, very few can afford to demo with the range and variety it takes to know.

And I’ve found that’s what discussions and forums found on audiogon, among so many others, are for. It takes a whole other amount of effort to weed out the ones whom we believe listen the way we do, based on similar equipment being talked about we might also have had familiarity with, collating the comments, and making as good a critical guess as we can.

And there are those out there who have heard a lot whom one can read and ask, regarding their experiences.

jjss49, as example, is a member who has heard tons, whose sense of sound I trust.

My concern are those with vast amounts of experience, who choose not to share what they know, for fear of being smirked at by the likes of the electrical half-measurers, the ones who think they know more because the measurements say so, and cause discomfort to those who can really advise on what different equipment sounds what way in the specific contexts of the system chains they are in, and the specific listening spaces the sound is heard.

Connecting with and learning from these individuals with experience are the few shortcuts I know to attaining realistic sound without spending huge amounts of money.

Some reviewers are good listeners too, but I’ve also found them to be somewhat less reliable than ordinary peeps, who are not under any pressure to get a review done, or tell any audience what narratives want to be heard.

And then there are some reviewers who cannot be trusted at all : )

Our wonderful journey of resonant air brought to us by the world of electromagnetism is such an amazing combination of the art and science of understanding listening, as fredrik said, it’s silly to fixate on just one or the other, when we can have both.

In the absence of greater knowledge regarding the electromagnetic world, our thinking ears and electrical measurements are the best tools we have to bring us closer to reality. Let’s just hone each one to its highest level of development, rather than cripple the journey with just one tool.

In friendship - kevin.

I think this power cord might be just the thing.

@anome I say test that sucker for that asking price but there are surely a few audiophiles out there just looking for the next great toy that don’t care if it works as advertised.

Ironically for most any common household item or even a car they might care. Toys are toys. Some adult toys just cost a lot of money for rights of ownership.

@kevn there is only one way to find shortcuts when comparing products. That is of course to do the homework and understand what the differences really are. That ‘s what measurements provide. In a simple case analogy it’s how you decide what pair of pants will fit. You look at the size indicated which is determined by measurements. The difference with good sound is it is of course much harder to properly assess the measurements. Some can and some cannot. That’s where recommendations from someone who you trust come in. You either trust them or not. That’s your choice.

So thankfully it is not just a total crap shoot. You can obtain info that helps including auditioning yourself and specs or measurements.

Now if you have yet another paradigm that is not merely theoretical but can be practically applied then you are on to something. I wish you luck! A better understanding of em fields can’t hurt as long as the understanding is based on facts and not marketing propoganda or hearsay.

@mapman My man... you appear to be deep into Amir's well, no matter how hard you try to hide it. Just say it and be done with it 😂

there is only one way to find shortcuts when comparing products. That is of course to do the homework and understand what the differences really are. That ‘s what measurements provide.

I thought you would say "by listening" but, here you are...

And this, very bad analogy:

In a simple case analogy it’s how you decide what pair of pants will fit. You look at the size indicated which is determined by measurements.

Nope. It's by trying them on. This can be in fitting room at the store, or order a bunch online and pick the best AFTER you try them on. Say you are 36/32 on pants size. Are you saying any pants that are of that size would just fit you the same? 😁

@thyname I respect and see value in what he does that’s all.  Call it what you will.  He seems competent in what he does and is no more egotistical than many talented engineers I have worked with over the years.  So he does not bother me.  yMMv. 

@thyname  I did say auditioning provides useful information as well so it appears you are selectively quoting to make your case.  Do you work in the media?  😉

Ok @thyname you are free to try on pants without considering sizes. I’m sure it all turns out well in the end. 😉. See what I did there?

Well this is frustrating.  I agree with virtually everything said by everyone here except for the personal attacks on Amir.  Even with what Amir has said.  He is  focused on measurements but he's an engineer.  

What bothers me is that I want to argue and disagree but I can't.

And just to repeat, Amir has made me realize how little measurements actually matter.  I would not buy or avoid any mainstream audio product based on measurements except perhaps obvious things like watts and sensitivity.  Too many examples where none of the other crap matters and can actually lead one astray.

I should add that I love science and have degree in it so it's not like I'm a science denier.  

OK everyone stop now so that I have the last word.  

All the best,
Nonoise

Very good last words!

OK everyone stop now so that I have the last word.  

@kevn 

Fifth, he is unable to tell apart music files of low and high resolution, and based on this lack of ability, determines that measurements in performance testing is all that is needed to determine what is heard, and what is not.

Hey partner, you are pretty wrong about both of those but especially the first one:

1. You have not told us about any listening tests you have passed of high-res vs CD.  That NPR test has a headline about high-res audio but the test is actually CD vs 128k and 320kbps MP3.  It kind of says so in the text:

"Many listeners cannot hear the difference between uncompressed audio files and MP3s, but when it comes to audio quality, the size of the file isn't (ahem) everything."

To be sure, I analyzed the javascript/html and confirmed what I just said.  Here are the file names for one of the tests:

theres-a-world-wav.wav

theres-a-world-128.mp3

theres-a-world-320.mp3

Pretty clear, right?

Keep in mind that a high-res vs CD test can NOT be done in a browser.  The browser uses the standard audio pipeline in the operating system which in the case of Windows, Android, MacOS and iOS, resamples all audio to a fixed sample rate/bit depth.  By default this is 48 kHz.  I know because my team at Microsoft wrote the audio stack.  And I have done a ton of testing showing the limitation of default playback on phones.

To play high-res audio intact, you need to use a dedicated audio player and of course a device capable of producing better response than CD.  Your phone running the above test in a browser is NOT capable of doing this. 

So no way, no how you have run a test of high-res vs CD that you have shared with us.  If there is another test, then by all means, post it so we can examine it.

2. I have most definitely pass double blind tests of high-res vs CD.  Unlike you, I have the documentation to prove it.  I post that earlier in the thread but you must have missed.  Here it is anyway.  Note that these are public challenges put forward for the public to run with the assumption that no one can.

First is Archimago (a great blogger) who created a clever test.  He took a high-res file, brought its bit depth down to 16 and then converted it back to 24 bits with some countermeasures added to it.  This made it impossible to tell the files by analyzing them using computer software.  I passed this test:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\01 - Sample A - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\02 - Sample B - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac

13:52:46 : Test started.
13:54:02 : 01/01 50.0%
13:54:11 : 01/02 75.0%
13:54:57 : 02/03 50.0%
13:55:08 : 03/04 31.3%
13:55:15 : 04/05 18.8%
13:55:24 : 05/06 10.9%
13:55:32 : 06/07 6.3%
13:55:38 : 07/08 3.5%
13:55:48 : 08/09 2.0%
13:56:02 : 09/10 1.1%
13:56:08 : 10/11 0.6%
13:56:28 : 11/12 0.3%
13:56:37 : 12/13 0.2%
13:56:49 : 13/14 0.1%
13:56:58 : 14/15 0.0%
13:57:05 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/15 (0.0%)

As you see, 14 out of 15 right which is almost perfect.

Notice how I ran a lot more than the 6 trials that you ran in the MP3 test as to get probability of guessing down to 0.0%,  not the usual 5%.

I not only passed this test, but I created a video on how I managed to do that.  It required knowledge of signal processing of what you lose when going from 24 bit to 16 bit, and of course, training required to be able to hear such small differences.  Here is the video which again, I post earlier:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk

In there, I show results of other difficult double blind tests I have passed -- again with appropriate documentation. 

As a bonus, here is another public test created by my friend, Mark Waldrep of AIX records.  The challenge was put on AVS Forum and I managed to pass it while no audiophile dared to even try:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 21:01:16

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_B2.wav

21:01:16 : Test started.
21:02:11 : 01/01 50.0%
21:02:20 : 02/02 25.0%
21:02:28 : 03/03 12.5%
21:02:38 : 04/04 6.3%
21:02:47 : 05/05 3.1%
21:02:56 : 06/06 1.6%
21:03:06 : 07/07 0.8%
21:03:16 : 08/08 0.4%
21:03:26 : 09/09 0.2%
21:03:45 : 10/10 0.1%
21:03:54 : 11/11 0.0%
21:04:11 : 12/12 0.0%
21:04:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)

So please don't imply you can pass such tests and I can't.  Facts speak clearly state otherwise. 

In friendship - kevin.

Right back at you my friend.....

@ossicle2brain 

And just to repeat, Amir has made me realize how little measurements actually matter. 

So you are saying that you learn nothing from measurements of these two speakers?

Imagine if this were a watch forum and someone went to extreme lengths showing you how your brand of watch is way overpriced for what it does and that a cheaper one is much more accurate and he had the graphs to prove it!

Toss in some sycophants posting links to reviews of watches, ridiculing what they had to say about them and a few straddling the fence playing both sides against the middle.

This thread has sucked the joy out of listening for listenings sake which, I think, was the purpose of it, or it was highjacked for that purpose. This is beyond silly. No wonder many online reviewers and the zines that use them no longer take comments.

Some reviewers have even taken hiatus for the constant abuse they get, like the base of a political party that harasses and threatens the livelihoods of those who oppose them. It’s not that far a thing to say we’re now burning audio witches.

All the best,
Nonoise

"So you are saying that you learn nothing from measurements of these two speakers?"

Yeah they have different frequency response charts by your methods.

I would avoid looking at that before listening so I know I don’t have a bias.

And flat FR is sometimes boring.

Virtually useless and perhaps harmful for deciding which sounds better.

Maybe I like resonances at those fregs.

@kevn here is my take on true narcissism; “I don’t know a topic, therefore no one knows this topic”.

there is very little a physics perspective that is not known about EMI, close to 0. You may not know much about it, per your own admission, but physicists do, and asserting that we need to learn more to understand the interactions because you don’t, but others do, is the very definition of narcissism.

amir_asr

You have not told us about any listening tests you have passed ...I have most definitely pass double blind tests of high-res vs CD ... This made it impossible to tell the files by analyzing them using computer software. I passed this test ... I not only passed this test, but I created a video on how I managed to do that ... I show results of other difficult double blind tests I have passed ... here is another public test ... I managed to pass it while no audiophile dared to even try ...So please don’t imply you can pass such tests and I can’t ...

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

Some might argue that, if a specific listener claims to expect a difference between, say, a hi-res and lo-res signal, that an ABX test with him is "testing the listener." But that’s mistaken. Such a test could only reveal whether that listener could distinguish a difference under the conditions of the test. Again, this why is why multiple tests yield more useful information.

It’s rather odd that Amir is so preoccupied with conducting measurements that he sometimes doesn’t bother to listen to the devices he tests, and yet on the other hand issues such proclamations about the tests he’s claimed to have "passed."

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected. When they are improperly conducted, such a test has no advantage over a sighted test and can yield misleading results.

@ossicle2brain  let’s listen to a magico M9 with a SVS prime, that’s a good combo, right?

ignoring measurements puts you at a very expensive disadvantage. 

@fredrik222 

ignoring measurements puts you at a very expensive disadvantage. 

It certainly does.

It also brings to mind those wise words often attributed to Mark Twain

"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."

"So you are saying that you learn nothing from measurements of these two speakers?"

 

Yeah they have different frequency response charts by your methods.

I would avoid looking at that before listening so I know I don’t have a bias.

And flat FR is sometimes boring.

Virtually useless and perhaps harmful for deciding which sounds better.

Maybe I like resonances at those fregs.

40+ years of research into this topic shows that you are highly unlikely, when you don't the identity of those speakers, to prefer one with resonances and all those frequency response errors.  

Regardless, let's state that your assertion that I responded to is profoundly wrong:

And just to repeat, Amir has made me realize how little measurements actually matter. 

In the hands of anyone with any familiarity with them, they are powerful tools to determine fidelity and tonality of those speakers.  And clearly, absolutely clearly, show the design mistakes in one of them.

The right response from you would have been that you were talking about electronics and not speakers and headphones.  But you are deciding to double down with "I may this" or "I may that."  W

I have most definitely pass double blind tests of high-res vs CD. Keep in mind that a high-res vs CD test can NOT be done in a browser.   I know because my team at Microsoft wrote the audio stack. 

So Amir, if you knew all about blind testing at MS, how do you explain this AFTER you retired?

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/establishing-differences-by-the-10-volume-method.1136745/#post-16216826

I did not level match anything. However, once I found one source was worse than the other, I would then turn up the volume to counter any effect there. Indeed, doing so would close the gap some but it never changed the outcome. Note that the elevated level clearly made that source sound louder than the other. So the advantage was put on the losing side.

Which version of Amir is to be believed above?

I not only passed this test, but I created a video on how I managed to do that.  It required knowledge of signal processing of what you lose when going from 24 bit to 16 bit, and of course, training required to be able to hear such small differences.  Here is the video which again, I post earlier:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk

Ah, the video where you are sitting in front of all the electronic analyzers that you used to visually real time analyze the ABX signals?

How many tests have you passed not run by Amir?

Would you do a proctored one at PAF 2024? Or only doctored?

@nonoise 

Imagine if this were a watch forum and someone went to extreme lengths showing you how your brand of watch is way overpriced for what it does and that a cheaper one is much more accurate and he had the graphs to prove it!

You have the start of a great analogy.  Sadly you got the middle and ending quite wrong.

Do imagine that this is the watch market except that all that anyone cares about is accuracy of time keeping.  Manufacturers learn this and claim that their watches are more accurate than any other watch.  Except, unlike the real watch market, they provide no measure of that accuracy.

Imagine further that companies realize that since no proof is needed, any all things can be sold under the guise of better accuracy. Companies come to market selling aftermarket watchbands that they say improves fidelity.  Ergo, they can charge more for some of these bands than you can buy entire watches.

This goes on for a while until a retired engineer, technologies and manager from said watch market says to people on his watch forum that he has highly instrumentation to measure such accuracy.  He starts to measure a few watches he has bought and shows how some of very accurate while the others are not even though they cost more money.

He publishes that result and next thing you know, watch owners want to know where their watches land.  So they start to send him their watches -- some cheap and some very expensive and he tests and publishes them.  Soon it becomes obvious that how much you paid for something does NOT at all predict how accurate said watch is.  And that the claims made by companies can trivially be shown to be wrong.

Watch owners love the clarity the above testing brings to market and increasingly support that activity by visiting the site, sending more product, and helping offset the cost of running this activity.

You would think every watch owner would be in favor of this.  But no, prior to this development, folks were looking at a watch and without any evidence, claiming that they have found the most accurate watch.  But here comes the above testing showing that to be the wrong statement.

A logical person would abandon the old ways and join the new.  They would not go on another forum and make up accusations that are trivially shown to be wrong.  For example, claim gets made that the engineer above doesn't even wear a watch.  All he does is look at the graphs of watches.  He shows that he not only has a watch, but multiple ones at all price points.  No matter. 

Folks start to get personal with him.  They accuse him for being in this thing for money.  They can't find any evidence of it but hey, if you make the accusation often enough, maybe it sticks.

In a direct one on one exchange, the very same folks don't have any facts to back their assertion of being able to tell how accurate a watch is based on just wearing said watch and measuring how long it takes for an apple to fall from the tree by counting under their breath.  No amount of telling them that is not accurate enough to count to fraction of a second gets them to listen.

So here we are.  We, I and literally tens of thousands of your audiophile friends try to bring more data and science/engineering to the table.  You don't like that?  No big deal.  Just don't make contrived analogies as if that will amount to anything.  

Ah, the video where you are sitting in front of all the electronic analyzers that you used to visually real time analyze the ABX signals?

There is no such video.  Stop making stuff up AJ.  I have never, ever used an analyzer when taking these blind tests. 

You don't even understand the nature of these tests and whether an analyzer can even help you.  Take the Archimago test.  That test relies on bit depth of content, not anything that you can analyzer with an audio measurement device.  If you don't believe me, go ahead and show the difference using said analyzer.

Why is it that you are not complaining about @kevn?  Did he or did he not pass the test of high-res vs standard not just by himself, but a few of his friends?

You are not going to answer that, are you? 

@soundfield 

Would you do a proctored one at PAF 2024? Or only doctored?

I would *love* for you to set up such a blind test for everyone who comes to your room there.  Are you going to do that and publish the results at the end?

Or is it that you don't want to alienate potential buyers of your speakers so that is the last thing you would want to do?

@soundfield 

And flat FR is sometimes boring.

Virtually useless and perhaps harmful for deciding which sounds better.

As a speaker maker, what do you have to say about this?  Is CEA-2034 frequency response measurements "virtually useless" and "perhaps harmful" in determining the fidelity of the speaker?  

Wise and right on the target...

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

Some might argue that, if a specific listener claims to expect a difference between, say, a hi-res and lo-res signal, that an ABX test with him is "testing the listener." But that’s mistaken. Such a test could only reveal whether that listener could distinguish a difference under the conditions of the test. Again, this why is why multiple tests yield more useful information.

It’s rather odd that Amir is so preoccupied with conducting measurements that he sometimes doesn’t bother to listen to the devices he tests, and yet on the other hand issues such proclamations about the tests he’s claimed to have "passed."

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected. When they are improperly conducted, such a test has no advantage over a sighted test and can yield misleading results.

Just don't make contrived analogies as if that will amount to anything.

Practice what you preach. Are you incapable of feeling shame for what amounts to a contrived (and poorly constructed) analogy in your rebuttal? Practically everything you came up with reeks with desperation in an attempt to draw parallels of what passes for the rigors of testing in audio reproduction (if there really is such a thing) to what can be accomplished in ensuring accuracy in watches and the way they are measured, not to mention what even the highest standards of watch accuracy are and how they're determined. 

Have fun with your scopes.

All the best,
Nonoise

I would *love* for you to set up such a blind test for everyone who comes to your room there. Are you going to do that and publish the results at the end?

Only if you promise to be one of the everyone.

It wouldn’t be my first large scale/show blind test, only the first where participants would be aware.

amir_asr

@soundfield 

And flat FR is sometimes boring.

Virtually useless and perhaps harmful for deciding which sounds better.

As a speaker maker, what do you have to say about this?  Is CEA-2034 frequency response measurements "virtually useless" and "perhaps harmful" in determining the fidelity of the speaker?  

He must be talking about an amplifier or DAC. Loudspeakers have an infinite number of FRs radiating 3 dimensionally, not "A" flat FR.

Speaking of which, your Salon2s have good on/off axis FR and full bandwidth, no subs needed. You game for a blind test vs some garage speakers at PAF '24?

I don't have a pair of large remote turntables and AVA ABX remote box, etc, etc, nor do any blind listening tests, so have no fear, they'll do just fine. 

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected.

Well, a good test would have both positive and negative controls. Training also.

There is no such video. Stop making stuff up AJ. I have never, ever used an analyzer when taking these blind tests.

Umm, over your right shoulder, in background

Edit, can't embed image but its on the video

@soundfield

He must be talking about an amplifier or DAC.

Nope.  I presented him two speaker frequency response measurements and asked him if he gets nothing out of them and that was his answer.  Here is the post again (cant get the link, it is just a few posts above yours):

@ossicle2brain 

And just to repeat, Amir has made me realize how little measurements actually matter. 

[amir] So you are saying that you learn nothing from measurements of these two speakers?

Only if you promise to be one of the everyone.

Why?  Set up the test.  Show the people here that they can't tell the difference between high res and CD as you like to claim.

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

What the audiologist does is exactly that: whether a signal can be detected under the conditions of the test.  They even play noise and then a tone to see if you can hear one over the other.  Seems like you have neither taken an audiologist test, nor an ABX.

As to multiple trials, that is exactly what I showed.  Each row represents a randomization of the samples and you are asked the question again:

Difference between 24/96 kHz and 16/44.1 with file provided by the late ArnyK:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/24 20:27:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling amir-converted 4416 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

20:27:41 : Test started.
20:28:07 : 00/01 100.0%
20:28:25 : 00/02 100.0%
20:28:55 : 01/03 87.5%
20:29:02 : 02/04 68.8%
20:29:12 : 03/05 50.0%
20:29:20 : 04/06 34.4%
20:29:27 : 05/07 22.7%
20:29:36 : 06/08 14.5%
20:29:44 : 07/09 9.0%
20:29:55 : 08/10 5.5%
20:30:00 : 09/11 3.3%
20:30:07 : 10/12 1.9%
20:30:16 : 11/13 1.1%
20:30:22 : 12/14 0.6%
20:30:29 : 13/15 0.4%
20:30:36 : 14/16 0.2%
20:30:41 : 15/17 0.1%
20:30:53 : 16/18 0.1%
20:31:03 : 17/19 0.0%
20:31:07 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 17/19 (0.0%)

0.0% probably of chance.

Above, the test was repeated 19 times and I got 17 right making the probability that I was guessing less than 0.0%.

As to multiple listeners, that is if we want to establish detection thresholds for a population.  In the case of a personal challenge, if  you pass a test like above, it is a significant factor that calls for standing up and paying attention.  This is orthogonal to what an ABX test is.

So no, there is no confusion here.  @kevn said he passed the test of high-res vs CD but provided no evidence whatsoever.  And the test that he said he did run, is not about high-res vs CD.  For my part, I took whatever challenges were common at the time and ran the in a proper program to see if I could tell the difference.  

Have you taken an ABX test and if so, can you post the outcome of any?

Some might argue that, if a specific listener claims to expect a difference between, say, a hi-res and lo-res signal, that an ABX test with him is "testing the listener." But that’s mistaken. Such a test could only reveal whether that listener could distinguish a difference under the conditions of the test. Again, this why is why multiple tests yield more useful information.

Meaning what exactly?  When someone here says DAC A sounds great and DAC B sounds like crap, how is that not a claim made under his test conditions?  Heck, you don't even know his test conditions.  At least with ABX tests, we have a protocol and way of documenting the results as I have been showing.

If you are saying someone can create a test where you can't tell the difference even if an audible difference exists, that is a truism.  This is why we have specification such as ITU BS1116 on what a proper test is. 

The issue is that audiophiles as a whole are terrible as a group in detecting small differences.  This is why @soundfield is so confident that anyone saying or even showing the result of passing such tests must be lying or cheating. 

As I have explained, we have a responsibility to create a proper test and give listeners every chance to pass a test, not work hard to make sure they don't.  Before you say ABX tests make it hard, well, I am showing you that I can pass them.  So that is not a valid excuse if you are really hearing what you are claiming.

Really, audiophiles routinely claim that making a tweak to their system makes a night and day difference.  So much so that the wife in the kitchen hears it as well.  If so, it should be walk in the part to pass the same in ABX test.  If you can't with identical stimulus do that, then you need to learn why your sighted test was faulty.  Don't go looking for problems in such a blind test.

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I’ve seen it done and it’s not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected. When they are improperly conducted, such a test has no advantage over a sighted test and can yield misleading results.

This is a bunch of nebulous claims. I don’t know what you have seen. What was hard about it. Or how it generated worst results than sighted.

Such claims have been examined. For example audiophiles claim they need long term testing vs short. Clark led such a study for his local audiophile group by creating a black box that generated X amount of distortion. Audiophiles took these home but could not hear the distortion. Yet, another group with an ABX box and quick switching, not only detected that difference but eve a lower one! See my digest of that paper here.

AES Paper Digest: Sensitivity and Reliability of ABX Blind Testing

The second of the tests consisted of ten battery powered black boxes, five of which had the distortion circuit and five of which did not. The sealed boxes appeared identical and were built to golden ear standards with gold connectors, silver solder and buss-bar bypass wiring. Precautions were taken to prevent accidental or casual identification of the distortion by using the on/off switch or by letting the battery run down. The boxes were handed out in a double-blind manner to at least 16 members of each group with instructions to patch them into the tape loop of their home preamplifier for as long as they needed to decide whether the box was neutral or not. This was an attempt to duplicate the long-term listening evaluation favored by golden ears.

This was the outcome:

The results were that the Long Island group [Audiophile/Take Home Group] was unable to identify the distortion in either of their tests. SMWTMS’s listeners also failed the "take home" test scoring 11 correct out of 18 which fails to be significant at the 5% confidence level. However, using the A/B/X test, the SMWTMS not only proved audibility of the distortion within 45 minutes, but they went on to correctly identify a lower amount. The A/B/X test was proven to be more sensitive than long-term listening for this task.

See how I provide specifics to back what I say? Why do you think mere claims should be sufficient otherwise?

@soundfield 

Umm, over your right shoulder, in background

I see where you got confused.  Almost all of the ASR video content has the analyzer in the background.  None of these tests were run during that video.  Every test I have been showing predate my youtube channel by 5 or more years (see the dates in ABX tests and the ones for videos).  In the video, I am just showing the results, not running them then.  This should have been quite obvious.

As such, your claim that I had an analyzer running at the same time of the ABX testing is totally false.  

Hi Chayro,

Sensory Evaluation classes in the Wine Industry teach us that the olfactory sense of smell is interpreted; the only one of our senses that is not 'technically' hard-wired.

Some humans can be 'trained' to distinguish up to 1,000 different smells.

Each humans mouth, nose etc. are different.  For example when we would place and old 3-ring binder life-saver on our tongues and place a small drop of blue dye in the middle hole we could count the taste buds in the center of the life-saver-shaped hole.  Those who had lots of little taste buds were 'super tasters' and medium amounts 'tasters' and those with few big blotchy ones were called 'non-tasters'.  Each of them totally valid for the person whose tongue we were looking at.

We tried different taste sensation like bitterness from caffeine, or sweetness from sugar.  Each taste was sensed from a different area of our mouth.

The lesson we learned was we are all physiologically different.  What tastes good to you may not taste good to me; so make sure you put at least 3-different wines on the table to try and please everyone!

You can see where this is going, if you like a wine reviewers taste then you will like his wines, no matter how he measures his taste in the wine, you both have a similar set of physiological taste buds and olfactory sensory apparatus.

So it's not too hard to understand that audio senses are also interpreted to some degree based on lots of physical inputs and from most importantly life experiences.  We could never understand why the teachers promoted the old school European wines over the fruit forward California ones, until we had enough tastes under our belts to gain a base-line of understanding from which our sensory evaluation could take place.

Thus no matter how many types of audio equipment one may listen to or measure, if you don't have the same taste in sound as the reviewer then it matters not because like it or not sound is an interpreted experience.

Trust me we put super expensive, super highly revered wines next to those that were not, and it was always the same thing, 30% liked, 30% did not like, %40 didn't care that much.

If you put 30 people in a sound testing environment, good math and statistics will tell you the same spread will recur over and over, cost is irrelevant, and personal choice is all that matters.

So, find a reviewer that has your taste in sound and follow them.

Cheers Mate

Why?  Set up the test.  Show the people here that they can't tell the difference between high res and CD as you like to claim.

Umm, where did I claim that? Plus its a fools errand to seek negative proof, not mine. I'm far more interested in you demonstrating that you can, especially with someone else running the test. Sans any view of the signal analyzers of course 😉.

I see where you got confused.  Almost all of the ASR video content has the analyzer in the background.  None of these tests were run during that video.  Every test I have been showing predate my youtube channel by 5 or more years (see the dates in ABX tests and the ones for videos).  In the video, I am just showing the results, not running them then.  This should have been quite obvious.

Ok, so you confirm those are indeed signal analyzers, Oscilloscopes etc that could theoretically real time analyze and identify signals, visibly. Cool.

As such, your claim that I had an analyzer running at the same time of the ABX testing is totally false. 

Well, there is no way for us to know that definitively now, is there?

That's why you didn't grade your own Math tests in school (and score 100% all the time!). It's good to have independent oversight.

Pick a component to test an upgrade , in your own system room, let say an amplifier...

Let say you are not a fool you read the specsof the seller before buying to know if this amp, will pair well with your dac and speakers...

Let say you are not a fool and you read before buying Amir measures just to be sure that the specs about this amp are confirmed by an independant tester...

Let say you know well your dac, your speakers and room and your old amp working BEFORE replacing by the amp you just bought ...

Let say you know the definition of timbre in acoustic...

Let say that not only you know this definition of timbre but you are able to improve it or degrade it by just playing with the materials passive treatment in your room and the ratio absorbtion/diffusion and their optimal location and the timing of the reflective surfaces...

For those who dont know HOW COMPLEX the acoustic definition and perception of timbre is here the main factors :

"For example, J. F. Schouten (1968, 42) describes the "elusive attributes of timbre" as "determined by at least five major acoustic parameters", which Robert Erickson finds, "scaled to the concerns of much contemporary music":^[4]

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration" WIKIPEDIA

---- DIFFERENTIATING IMAGING....It is the way sound sources are differentiated one from another laterally and in detph...

Blind test had nothing to do directly with a training of the ears in music , or in acoustic implicating an incremental thousand listening experiments all INTERRELATED to give at the end an acoustic room , not a perfect one, but an incredible one able to give me all factors of a good musical experience...

An acoustic concept as holography, listener envelopment or timbre cannot be perceived only for the reason young ears are able to take an audiologist test...The young person must learn the concept before perceiving the complex object , being it timbre or holography, acuity is not enough at all...

These concept must be understood by EXPERINMENTS in a room and then to be under the control of the ears/brain imposing the right acoustic constraints to create them or controlling them... A room is like the varying lense of microscope, it is the variation of the acoustic conditions that make you able to FOCUS on the right aspect of the phenomenon... Then imposing blind test to an acoustician or a musician is a valid test in experimental psycho-acoustic , but the way Amir use this valid test is a kind of abuse against people And his bragging about audiology test resemble a teen bragging...... Not science... When i did my room acoustic and tuning i was already old, and my ears was not the same as 40 years ago... But my ears are healthy for a man of my age and i learned and created the room acoustic so imperfect it was, i created it FOR ME , not as a MODEL IDEAL room for all ears and PERFECT... But so imperfect it can be i can aussure you that there is no relation with the same speakers inside the room between before and after the completion of the process... This was the goal... LEARNING ACOUSTIC was the goal too... And in this i learned why audio is based on psycho-acoustic , not on the electrical measures of Amir...

Yeah @amir_asr your posted results for the listening test are meaningless and unverifiable. No way to know you did that unless it was proctored like @soundfield says