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.
You treat me as an "idiot audiophiles" as some around you called them you are pathetic...
Instead of answering my REAL QUESTION IN PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC...
What was the impact of photons on my metabolism excretion ?😊 For sure there is one because of the photonic communication between cells but no doctor use this to explain metabolism basic... Do you catch ?
I dont sell cables with quantum properties...
Go ask one seller...
And for time paradox not elementary relativity i refer you to two interesting scientists..
You used this tactic to drawn the fish with me all the time during our discussion... I concluded about your bad faith or ignorance i cannot know ... Your last question illustrate it well..
The ears/brain mechanism is not a quantum physics matter , to understand it at basic level in psycho-acoustic we dont need quantum mechanics for that nor to explain basic cables working too... I am not specialized in cable physical studies either...
ANSWER Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment CONCLUSIONS and explain to me why they are wrong...Why not thinking ? instead of turning around the quantum mechanics pot or around your measures schematics about gear ..
i thank you for your useful gear measures, thank me for helping you to separate yourself from the techno babbling zealots around you with psycho-acoustic fundamentals in hearing theories..
Time dilation does not present a paradox. If you get on a spaceship and travel near speed of light for a month, you could arrive back on earth potentially hundreds of years later. Not only will any clock you carry with you verify this, but every fabric of your being will as well! This is a consequence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity where no experiment has managed to disprove it.
Therefore, a photon is simultaneously generated at big bang 13.8 billion years ago and dissipated now in your eye at the same time. This is what the laws of universe predict and isn’t subject to opinion calling it a paradox.
None of this was my question. My question which you did not answer, was what is the impact of this on fidelity of audio devices we use?
I heard that Amir had a chart that compared the relative value of measurements based on type of audio product. So that things like cables and DACS could be 100% judged by measurements and with things like speakers that % was less.
This is selling us way too short. No device is strictly evaluated based on measurements alone. We always start with the underpinning science and engineering.
There is a company that sells you a box filled with dirt and a wire that you connect to the chassis of your audio gear and claims it improves the sound (and has real testimonials from people claiming the same). We know, a priori that what he claims is impossible. What earth, the real one does, cannot be emulated using a small box with dirt in it. The guy who built it was a farmer which kind of makes sense why his went where it did. But simple engineering says he is dead wrong.
Now, classic objectivists will stop here. Here is an example of the most well known engineering talent online, Dave Jones on matters of audiophiles and their ideas:
So we could just stop there and call it done. But such engineering explanation is not going to make sense to audiophiles as they are not technical and so will dismiss it out of hand. Indeed, this is why objectivists failed to make headway for literally decades.
What we at ASR do is go above and beyond. We measure. We measure the signal coming out of your gear and see if using a different cable changes this. Usually we find not a hair has changed in the output of the audio device. In some cases we actually find things have gotten worse with the fancier items such as a cable! Or Power "regenerator" (which didn't really regenerate).
When still doubted, we play music and capture that with generic and fancy cable. We then show the difference electronically and even offer the files for people to listen to:
Now the case gets incredibly convincing. Now the person will understand and accept the electronic explanation of why said cable couldn't have made the difference in the first place. The measurements and null test then are the icing on the cake and proof points for the non-technical.
In that sense, you are providing an extreme disservice to your fellow audiophiles to keep talking about us just measuring. Your fellow audiophiles are not dumb as that implies. They are learning the story end to end. I know because I watch them explain it to others.
Back to cables, they are the most innocent things in your audio system. They have higher fidelity than any piece of electronics and by a mile. That audiphiles based on lay intuition and incorrect listening tests have arrived at a different point of view is again, easily proven using electronics circuit theory.
So yes, once we measure something like a cable, then the story is told. We have theory, engineering knowledge and now concrete, objective data to prove the same. And we even offer listening tests with real music. But the latter is not really necessary. I just provide it to get past the objection of "well, you didn't test wiht music." OK, we did and the outcome was precisely as we said it would be.
So reduces us to just measuring at your own peril. We are about knowledge and true understanding of what makes your audio devices tick, and what doesn't. If that is scary and uncomfortable to know, I get it. You don't have to come to ASR. But please don't keep repeating the same fallacious tag line as if I am not here to correct you. That my friend, makes no logical sense.
You treat me as an "idiot audiophiles" as some around you called them you are pathetic...
You keep complaining but not answering my simple and brief question. What is the impact of a photon of light not experiencing time has on performance of our audio system? Does this have an answer or not?
That serves only as a misdirection. You are claiming/showing a purported successful test. By you.
Nope. You lost the plot there. Dear member @kevn made this comment I was responding to:
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.
He says I am unable to tell such files apart and by implication, he can. Can he AJ? Are his claims correct that he can hear such differences and if you can't, that will be a sign of resentment on your part?
You wanted in this conversation. There you are. What is the answer or must we ask it 10 times and only get non-answers?
What is the impact of a photon of light when you hear an informative qualities perceived from two singers whose tone interact ?
None i know of...And even if there is one, the basic of psycho-acoustic is not based on photonic...This is another level i am not at all able to adress nor you and unnecessary for the discussion about sound qualities perceptible value..
my audio system work only if Maxwell and Einstein are right and some other scientists so what ? What is the relation with psycho acoustic basic fact ?
Unable to answer my question in psycho-acoustic which is directly related you want to ridicule me with emgineering physics ?
Your electrical measures are necessary for design and useful as qualitative information about gear coupling etc... They cannot predict ALL aspect of audible qualities perceived by the ears/brain listening to a an audio system in this room with this ears or this other room etc ...
You can say this amplifier work well because the measures well demonstrate his linear well predictive working on some stress factors...Thts Ok.. This does not describe and means that ALL listening impressions will be ALL reducible to this set of measures...If not we must call them you claim it so , delusions or artefacts or illusions .. The reason why we hear what we hear are in psycho acoustic about the way human ears works First and last...Not in electrical engineering..
it seems finally that you are like the techno zealots around you... 😊
I will repeat it to be clear, the center and crucial matter in audio are first in acoustic and psycho acoustic not in the gear measuring... Even well and good gear design take his basic fact from psycho-acoustic ...Not the reverse... Psycho-acoustic can use tools and measures but it is to study human hearing... And human hearing is not first and last illusory, it is a relation to reality... it is studied as such in works around hearing impairment...You want to save face by drowning the fish: psycho acoustic explain audible qualities as real not electric engineering by itself ..
But such engineering explanation is not going to make sense to audiophiles as they are not technical and so will dismiss it out of hand.
That is just a prejudicial statement. As with any group, all audiophiles are not alike, although I understand why it’s convenient for you to portray them that way.
Indeed, this is why objectivists failed to make headway for literally decades.
Most objectivists do just fine in the audio world, as is demonstrated on this site every day.
What we at ASR do is go above and beyond. We measure. We measure the signal coming out of your gear ...
But you’re not an objectivist, you’re a measurementalist. That’s how you can sweep aside any empirical evidence that doesn’t fit your agenda, which is to drive traffic to your forum and website. And it’s how you can just positively know how something will sound, without ever having gone to the trouble of actually listening to it.
And we even offer listening tests with real music. But the latter is not really necessary. I just provide it to get past the objection of "well, you didn’t test wiht music." OK, we did and the outcome was precisely as we said it would be.
Expectation bias; even measurementalists are not immune. In fact, they may be especially vulnerable.
Your use of bold face fonts does nothing to further your argument, btw.
Hmmm, so the Great Amir can't measure it, but can hear it. My my, that sure sounds audiophile myth familiar doesn't it? Coming from the Great one??
There would be nothing wrong or inconsistent with that, and it would be consistent with a scientific mindset.
Often enough observation of a phenomenon comes first, then we try to explain it more rigorously with other empirical evidence, hypothesis testing, measurements etc. Anyone could reliably observe that certain reptiles, e.g. chameleons, could change their color well before we understood and quantified the phenomenon.
What counts as an observation that requires such inquiry will necessarily interact with our current body of (tentative, but reliable) knowledge. If it contradicts well known and reliable fields of knowledge then you don't have to pay much attention to claims that would undermine that theory, unless they had very strong levels of reliable observation behind them - e.g. someone claims to have seen a Perpetual Motion Machine in his friend's garage isn't going to count as an observation that requires rigorous inquiry.
But, for instance, if it turned out people were reliably able to detect sonic differences between A and B, in well controlled tests, where this is unexpected on current theory, then yes that becomes a reliable observation you'd want to explain.
And then seek perhaps evidence to support a hypothesis as to what is objectively happening, e.g. try to find relevant measurements.
In other words: there is nothing in principle wrong with reporting hearing a sonic difference that one has not measured (or been able to measure as of yet).
This is why Amir has been pretty consistent in often emphasizing the relevance of listening. (But...under conditions controlling for variables, when seeking higher confidence levels).
But you’re not an objectivist, you’re a measurementalist.
Is that what you call your doctor? Because he measures? Or do you rely on his knowledge and experience and the fact that he uses measurements as a tool to aid in his diagnosis?
That’s how you can sweep aside any empirical evidence
What evidence? I posted results of double blind listening tests. You don't even dare to run a listening test without your eyes involved. It is an insult to the word "evidence" to call that such.
Really, all the complaining in the world is not going to change the fact that your fellow audiophiles are finding a path to knowledge of audio systems on ASR. We are not perfect but we do try to stick to what is provable, not what is imagined.
Hmmm, so the Great Amir can't measure it, but can hear it. My my, that sure sounds audiophile myth familiar doesn't it? Coming from the Great one??
Don't play game of Calvinball. You claimed the measurement gear behind me in new videos I produce can tell you the difference between files in blind tests. I explained to you that those devices are not capable of detecting such things as bit depths in music files.
That was your claim and it is falsified by the fact that you can't show any of these devices to do what you said "in theory" they can do. They can't do that in theory or otherwise.
Remember, we are talking about analyzing music here, not equipment. Analyzing music can be quite non-trivial depending on what you are searching for. Simple thing like dynamic range of music cannot be determined from any commercial software. Or even accurately using custom software. We can make a statistical analysis but exact answer would be hard or impossible.
What is the impact of a photon of light when you hear an informative qualities perceived from two singers whose tone interact ?
None i know of...
That's right. Sometimes the simple is the answer. We don't need to dabble in philosophy or obscurity to analyze performance of something as simple as a DAC, audio cable or amplifier.
You asked questions about the papers you presented. I answered them simply and clearly together with proper back up. You keep saying I didn't and go on posting about philosophers. No one is engaging you on the topic from your camp because stuff you are writing don't make sense or are relevant.
Instead of writing more, come back with the results of any controlled listening tests you have run that disagrees with measurements and are basis of your theories. That is all that matters, right? The sound we hear.
I am the only one posting results of listening tests here where only my ears are involved.
It’s been shown how your listening "tests" and your claims about them are more than a bit suspect. In any event, the results of any tests I’ve been part of wouldn’t refute your tests, even if they were valid. That’s not how it works. Of course, your interest is to continue argument ad infinitum, so as to drive traffic to your forum and website. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that as long as you're honest about your intent.
And it’s how you can just positively know how something will sound, without ever having gone to the trouble of actually listening to it.
Same way we know you can't breathe oxygen on the moon. It is called science and engineering. Again, your doctor doesn't have to become sick like you to diagnose what is wrong with you. As I explained to you in my response, we analyze audio performance using many factors. Measurements are tools. Conclusions are based on far more than that.
That is on top of the fact that I listen to a ton of new products I review. I do more listening tests in a month than audiophiles do in their entire lifetime. You know this to be a fact yet you keep repeating otherwise. From my review of Neumann KH120 II just a couple of days ago:
"Neumann KH120 MKII Listening Tests
Going into this review, I expected to focus on tonality as I always do with my female reference/test tracks. But what I immediately noticed was the warmth of the bass out of this little speaker! Even on a track that doesn't show case this, there was nicely present low frequency response. And it wasn't just the ears that detected it. Low notes were accompanied by cool puffs of air landing on my nose! This was at 1+ meter/4 feet which again, is impressive for such a small speaker."
I went through the "trouble" of listening to it, right? And this is on ASR.
It's been shown how your listening "tests" and your claims about them are more than a bit suspect.
Nothing whatsoever has been "shown." I grabbed the files as presented by creators of those tests, put them in foobar2000 abx plug in which is the gold standard for such tests, and i reported on the results. That a person is so incredulous as to a) claim impossibility and b) I must have cheated is just nonsense.
Once more, I have not only passed these tests, but show how. I explain my qualifications in my abilities here (e.g. knowledge of what to look for and formal training to hear small impairments) in my video.
All you have to counter this is just a claim where the claimant can't even make a correct technical point. He thinks a digital scope with ADC resolution of 8 bits can tell two music files apart that are dynamically changing?? You might as well believe in alien abduction while you are it.
“None of this was my question. My question which you did not answer, was what is the impact of this on fidelity of audio devices we use?”
Absolutely none.
There, your question is answered.
That you cannot recognize your own boorish, snobby elitism and the insulting implementation of such, is not surprising.
“I am here in a thread specifically addressing who and what we are at ASR. Lots of misinformation is posted by members that are easily refuted. So I refute. :)”
So you are here to advocate for your own website. I would call that advertising.
“I tolerate an inordinate amount of abusive snobbishness in this thread. Doesn’t bother me none as long as we get to the truth of who and what we are at ASR. ”
Really, I did not know that you had any measure of control whatsoever on this site to make any kind of decision on what you will or will not “tolerate” on a site you do not own. Just another example of your snobbish, elitist and entitled worldview.
So answer Amir, should we all “recalibrate” or “retrain” our sense of taste and switch to insect based protein, or vegan, because it objectively “measures” better and the technocrat class won’t tolerate anyone not following their “recommendations”?
Or should anyone disagreeing with you just be sent to a re-education camp, of your design, until they get “on-board” and stop disagreeing with you?
"This is selling us way too short. No device is strictly evaluated based on measurements alone. "
I understand that. But what is the confidence level of measurements by audio product type. On ASR there was such estimates. What are they are now?
I know that you do not think that measurements alone can tell us how exactly a DAC or speaker will sound. And that certain audio products are better defined by measurements than others.
I would just like to hear from you something like " DACs are 90% defined by measurements and speakers perhaps 50%.
You know some nuance, grey area and a little humility that maybe all these measurements are limited in what they can say about how a product will sound.
This is the only reason to get upset over what we do at ASR. You are being you, a human that is dogmatic to N’th degree and refuses to accept new information
I understand that. But what is the confidence level of measurements by audio product type. On ASR there was such estimates. What are they are now?
That is a comment I made in passing which is being misunderstood by you and even some reviewers (Darko comes to mind). The point I was making that in some cases like speakers and especially headphones, correlation of measurements with listening preference while strong, is not conclusive. I said that speaker measurements can on the average, in my opinion, predict listener preference 70 to 80% (something like that). And that for headphones it can sink even lower to say, 60 or 70%. Those are about the ratios I see in my own comparisons of speaker/headphone measurements to my listening tests.
For electronics I said the measurements rise to 100%. When I measure for example a wire from many vectors and find that it is identical, not close, but identical to another cable, then that is that. There is no room left for doubt like there is in speaker/headphone measurements. We know the operation of these devices and when measurements confirm what we know, the job is done. Really done.
Now, maybe the one in a million happens and someone comes forward with a controlled listening test shows that while measurements as I perform are identical, the two items sound different to statistical significance. If so, and we can confirm and repeat that experiment, this will be major news. This, as you well know, has not happened. This is very different than speakers where we can see that the measurement predictions while correlated, don’t explain everyone’s preference.
Net, net, if I review a headphone and i say it measures poorly, and colors the sound like it should be and you come out and say no, you love the sound, you won’t get an argument from me. Or anyone else on ASR. You may get told that you like colored sound but that is it. Heck, I sometimes say I like a headphone or speaker that doesn’t measure great.
But, if I comprehensively show that a power cable doesn’t do anything for the waveform coming out of your audio gear, and explain why, then we are finished. Measurements helped prove what we know from engineering and science.
@amir_asr You are way off base here. I do want independent evaluation. I want scientific research. I want to enjoy audio. I’m not subjectivity or objectively preferential. They both influence the other. Go back to pro audio. They all want a speaker that measures flat. They all want less distortion. More clarity. All of the things you tout as the holy grail. Yet, and yet, they find some speakers to be more pleasing to them. Some monitors are better at showing them the mix. Some want passive. Others lean toward active designs. If your reviews were the end all be all of objectivity then producers would pick all of your best recommendations. But they don’t. Neumann is liked, so is genelec. What speaker do I hear more than any other constantly touted as the best? atc. I’m going to wade into the data and guess they wouldn’t measure as well but people prefer using them.
You don’t get it. I was a huge fan and supporter of yours. I talked to you on several occasions. I even was considering donating to your “cause”. Not now. You are rude, you belittle people and think your opinion is better. Your are everything you described in that last paragraph and can’t see it. I’m not dogmatic. I start with every audio component with an open mind and eliminate or buy it if it fits in my system. I am human as are you I think. And you want to strip psychology out of something that is dependent on it. Your brain is the first and only tool you use to evaluate everything. And it’s misguiding you. You can’t see the forest.
I’ve been practicing what you yourself preach for longer than you have. I bought into the ruler flat fr of most pro gear before it was what it is now, because if the producers use it then I want to hear how it was intended to be heard. But you can’t eliminate the last 25% of the equation which is entirely subjective. You think you can but you aren’t a robot.
You know some nuance, grey area and a little humility that maybe all these measurements are limited in what they can say about how a product will sound.
Do you want me to lie to as you buy humility? Fact is that my instrumentation and suite of measurements are at levels way beyond human ability. The right criticism is that we find problems that are not audible to people. To which I say fine. If you are going to buy something though, and I find a product that is cheaper while being more performant, why not consider that?
What I am not going to do is to tell people, 'everything we know about audio engineering combined with measurements show this device to be transparent to the source. But.... if you want to think it still "has a sound," you go right ahead.' That makes no sense. You don't want me the one to be misleading you. Heaven knows the industry is doing that en masse.
By now it should be clear that pleasing a few people who keep complaining and complaining is not a goal. If folks want to get bent out of shape over my testing, so be it. They need to think though why, without exception, the people who send me such gear are happier to know the information, than not. This is the power of what we are doing at ASR. The yearn for knowledge is that strong among huge swath of audiophiles we serve.
What is the impact of a photon of light when you hear an informative qualities perceived from two singers whose tone interact ?
None i know of...
That's right. Sometimes the simple is the answer. We don't need to dabble in philosophy or obscurity to analyze performance of something as simple as a DAC, audio cable or amplifier.
You asked questions about the papers you presented. I answered them simply and clearly together with proper back up. You keep saying I didn't and go on posting about philosophers. No one is engaging you on the topic from your camp because stuff you are writing don't make sense or are relevant.
Instead of writing more, come back with the results of any controlled listening tests you have run that disagrees with measurements and are basis of your theories. That is all that matters, right? The sound we hear.
A Simple answer is not a SIMPLISTIC answer...
I never "dabble in philosophy" ... Remember Magnasco and Oppenheim are PHYSICISTS... They work this experiment in psycho-acoustic... But there is consequence for the philosophy of acoustic science : ears/brain is not a Fourier computer.... This sentence which present essential aspect of this article is not PHILOSOPHY but had philosophical consequences yes for hearing theories... Do you catch the nuance ?
Now i will present the Amir fallacy...
After that i will give an exemple in audio engineering with a physicist who work in plasma physics and acoustic ( as Van Maanen was a physicist in fluid mechanic and acoustic, you qualify his article about "Often disregarded Conditions for the correct Application of Fourier Theory" as a leaflet sellers with NO SHAME...)
Amir fallacy :
Among all subjective qualities perceived the more objective one is transparency ...
Transparency in the audiophile vocabulary does not have the same definition than for a software engineer though...
---For an audiophile transparency means that the audio system let the acoustic trade-off choices of the recording engineer to be heard optimally as they were intended..
Transparency, like sound or video quality, is subjective. It depends most on the listener's familiarity with digital artifacts, their awareness that artifacts may in fact be present, and to a lesser extent, the compression method, bit rate used, input characteristics, and the listening/viewing conditions and equipment. Despite this, sometimes general consensus is formed for what compression options "should" provide transparent results for most people on most equipment. Due to the subjectivity and the changing nature of compression, recording, and playback technology, such opinions should be considered only as rough estimates rather than established fact.
Judging transparency can be difficult, due to observer bias, in which subjective like/dislike of a certain compression methodology emotionally influences their judgment. This bias is commonly referred to as placebo, although this use is slightly different from the medical use of the term.
To scientifically prove that a compression method is not transparent, double-blind tests may be useful. The ABX method is normally used, with a null hypothesis that the samples tested are the same and with an alternative hypothesis that the samples are in fact different.
Anybody here reading this wikipedia definition of "transparency" will recognize our Software engineer Amir...Now keep in mind that the audiophile definition of transparency and the definition coming from the software engineering meet somewhere but are very DIFFERENT...I will explain why they meet and why they differ...
Now the Amir fallacy:
All perceived audio qualities by a listener for Amir if not subjective illusions or artefacts are SUBORDINATED to the transparency in the sense of the psycho-acoustic of data compression engineering...
And this software concept itself serve and meet the audiophile definition of transparency, the audiophile transparency here being the optimal translation of the recording engineer trade-off choices through the audio system/room for some specific ears/brain...
The Amir fallacy is transposing this software definition of transparency in the verification by a small set of electrical measures in electric design measured component and disregarding the audiophile definition of transparency as secondary instead of being primary why ? Because it subordinate the subject experience to the material design and to the software concept of transparency...
First the audiophile definition refer to the trade-off specific choices of the recording engineers which must be translated by the specfic audio system...The audio system for exemple the amplifier, class A, class A+B,classD, tubes amplifiers, S.S. amplifiers etc all these design are different variaion types and all are designed with trade-off choices which will deliver different QUALITATIVE perceptions... The vocabulary of audiophiles, very subjectively describe these sets of trade off choices in design and in the recording engineers choices ( timbre imaging soundstage holography immersiveness etc)They PERCEIVE these trade-off and qualify them for them..
THe Amir fallacy is eliminating all relation between trade-off choices at the recording level and resulting also from the design qualities to reduce all of them to his own concocted notion of transparency as for a circuits, for components able to not interfer but translate and convey the "transparency" of the digital files...it is a software engineer prejudice established as a DOGMA by eliminating all perceptible subjective qualities are pure illusion or indesirable artefacts...Amir called this "transparency"... it is not audiophile transparency not the recording engineer relative "transparency" born from his trade off choices either, but an other concept of transparency born in the software design and applied to circuits and components..
i already explained how psycho-acoustic demonstrated that the ears/brain dont work as a Fourier computer but non linearly and in his time domain...( Magnasco and Oppenheim article )
The Amir fallacy is the act of throwing under the rug all Qualitative perception as subjective then useless if not measurable by the set of Amir Fourier tools and mapping...
But these qualitative perceptions by a subject are the ESSENCE OF AUDIO...Not the electrical measures assuring us that a circuit behave well or give a low noise floor or a good ratio signal/noise ...
One of the greatest revolution in audiophile experience is the virtual room system of dr. Choueri the famous BACCH filters...
What did Choueri did to implement these filters correctly ?
He measured , not only an amplifier, or a dac, or speakers specs ONLY and MAINLY but way more, he measured the specific HRTF the head related transfert function of the specific listener , he measured the ear canals with a tiny in ear microphone to create a cross talk cancellation filter forc this SPECIFIC EARS , he measured acoustic information about the SPECIFIC listener room ... Now you begin to understand that this specific subjectivity and ears/brain perceptive physiology of EACH listener ,being always different from each person is the BASIS of this experience of TRANSPARENCY in the audiophile meaning of the word and not at all in the software engineer inspired meaning of the word transparency...
What is the difference between the Dr. Choueri concept of transparency and the recording engineer concept of transparency ?
in the two case there is trade-off , these trade-off are the basis of PERCEIVED TRANSPARENCY... Choueri use our subjectivity associated to our different HTRF and different inner ears filters to achieve transparency in audio experience... Choueri dont negate the value of the listener subjectivity , in the opposite he used it in his design... As Van Maanen used the non linear working of the ears/brain and the time dependant dimension of this working as a rule to guide him in the designing trading choices of his amplifier...
The Amir fallacy is the reduction of subjectivity and specific qualities of the listener to be useless, illusory and something to eliminate by blind test and isolate to reduce all concept of transparency to the software engineer concept...a pure mathematical equation with no relation with physical acoustic and the psycho-acoustic of the human ears/brain... he based all his reviews on a small set of measures in a Fourier window...The non linear working of the brain in the time dependant domain which is crucial matter and positive basis for the design of Van Maanen and Choueri is for him only an IMPEDIMENT to put aside...Audiophile definition of transparency is illusory because audiophiles had PREFERENCES , and audiophiles favor this trade-off over this other trade-off etc... All this must be standardized and all listeners put on the Procustean bed of blind test to cure him from his BIASES, trained ears of musician or acoustician this does not matter, they are all deluded subject who must be REEDUCATED by Amir small linear set of measures in the Fourier window... The ears /brain dont work as a Fourier conmputer but Amir dont give a damn... Only him know what is transparency and what it is not... Vinyl lovers for example are deluded... Tube amplifier lovers are deluded... Many designers will never dare to say what they think about Amir fallacy, they want to sell and not create enmity... But any designer is an artist creating his own trade-off set of choices , inspired by psycho-acoustic non linear working of the ears/brain and the relation between tone and harmonics and how to use them for a better "transparency" trade-off choice...Amir fallacy is reducing anything to his definition of transparency... All the others are deluded..
As i said we thank Amir for his measures verification... it is useful... But his reductionist conception of electrical measures as the basis of the experience of transparency inherited from software engineering, not from physical acoustic and the psycho-acoustic of sound perception is a techno-ideology with no relation with the real psycho-acoustic trade off from the recording engineers to the designer of audio components and to the listener trade off set of choices in his body and room...
Amir is not the Pope of audio...only someone who discovered a way to market his site through a specific technological ideology ( software engineering ) not science ... If anybody read the concept of transparency in wikipedia he will recognize Amir...
The Amir fallacy is throwing the baby ( subjective listening psych-acoustic experience value) with the polluted waters ( linear signal noise ratio measured as bad or not optimal in components etc ) The Amir fallacy resulted from the confusion of hearing theory with an electrical set of measures then the erasure of hearing theory from the audio equation...Dr. Choueri and Van Maanen made the exact opposite choices for their design, they subordinate their material design to hearing theory and to the subjective specificity of the human ears/brain because their goal is not debunking audio components and audiophiles but creating higher optimal design for subjective experience ...
Don’t change a thing a Amir! I got back into audio as a hobby for years ago and could not believe the things that I saw. $4000 audio cables crazy magic rocks, little dots that you stick to your wall. I thought the world of gone nuts. I seriously asked myself did I miss something in science class that this stuff actually works? Should I go with the bass who buys this stuff? Are they smarter than I am or are people really buying this stuff? It just makes me shake my head. You’re trying to help people see the forest through the trees and all they can do is be disrespectful . or angry at you because they probably have spent a bunch of money on stuff that they thought made a difference and found out that it probably didn’t and in the end they got taken advantage of. So you shoot the messenger. You’re not supposed to though… please keep up the good work! I spend a lot of money on this hobby and I feel a lot better doing it after I check your website first. Thank you Amer thank you!
Among all subjective qualities perceived the more objective one is transparency ...
Transparency in the audiophile vocabulary does not have the same definition than for a software engineer though...
---For an audiophile transparency means that the audio system let the acoustic trade-off choices of the recording engineer to be heard optimally as they were intended..
How do you know what they intended? You don't even know who that is, or what they heard or experienced. So any argument on that basis is moot.
The only thing you have in your hand is the recording. That is our "big bang." Everything past that is unseeable. Such is the world of audio without standards.
Fortunately, when put in a controlled test where only the ear is involved, most of us agree on what good sound is when listening to a number of speakers. We compare them to each other and realize which one sounds more "real" to us, even though we have no real concept of well, real.
So even in something as fuzzy as speakers and human perception, we have a way to select equipment that is performant based on real research. You know, the type that actually tests to see what speaker we like, not what a research paper says when testing humans with special tones.
The only rational strategy is to build a neutral system that can be provably so. Then modify it to tase using equalization. It is not complicated. You want to please your ears? Do it right.
Sticking wood blocks under your speaker cables won't do it. Thinking a power condition lowers the noise floor when it doesn't, won't do it. Thinking a more expensive DAC sounds great while a cheap one being "crap" won't do it. None of this is based on realties of engineering that goes into operation of your audio gear.
We all thank Amir for his measures verifying market sellers specs...
We dont buy the procustean testing by blind test and rejection of subjectivity as the basis of audio...
I prefer to train in acoustic my subjective ears/brain filters instead of calling them myself "delusions"... It would be like calling his wife a necessary hardship...
Amir pass acuity test and he is proud, i tuned my room and i am proud... 😊 Guess which is the more useful and gratifying test?
Objectivist and subjectivist focus on GEAR... Not on acoustic and psycho-acoustic and that is the reason why they quarrel... We need our ears even more than the welcome measures of Amir... But Amir dont like it...
I tuned my room and he called me "deluded" for doing so...Because i dont measured all the process and publish it... Imagine the job ? it take me one year non stop to tune it by ears , imagine that i would have computed all , the only way to do it with 100 helmholtz resonators would have been to measure not only my room but my ears HRTF and inner ears canal ... i never intended to tune my room by ears ...I did it each day with each day small task, as an incremental play and learn...Not as a doctorate in acoustic of small room .. There is not many books about that, because there is no man with enough time to do it... Pro acoustician will design a dedicated room esthetically but think about 100,000 bucks... it is easier to kept all in the living room.. i could not... My wife love silence only... 😊 It was my luck too... i quit the living room...
I will never had the obligation to do it again to this extent, i will buy one day Choueri BACCH filters for my tremendous headphone ... But i am very lucky to had no money at the times , i learned a lot in the process without that i would have never catch immediately Amir fallacy about subjectivity and hearing theory... ...
@prof I don’t think I saw anyone say Amir was the only rude one. Amir continually points out why everyone else is wrong, but him. How is that possible? It’s not. From the first comment he made on this thread, it has been him telling everyone why they are wrong while avoiding any hard hitting questions. He then spams links to his website, and promotes himself all the while saying no forum allows that which is why he has to ban other people on his website who do what he does and shuts down threads. He then claims that this is because they are on YouTube and it needs to stay on Youtube. BS. He doesnt like the competition.
@soundfield pointed to two old posts Amir made one was about how he didnt level match here is the quote
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.
And the other was from his own companies website where he promotes at the time $50,000 per pair amplifiers which he still uses in his system. You can see it in the picture he posted in this very discussion.
He has not reviewed the very amp that is in his reference system as far as I can tell. He has not addressed any of the above. Why the change of heart? He claims to be this objective evangelist, but you dont get to claim that while ignoring a different story of the past.
The lack of accountability on his part is remarkable. I don’t run a website promoting data and objectivity when he consistently avoids the harder hitting questions and denies any other people of his ilk to talk about their methods on his website. Erin was banned.
@amir_asrHow do you promote rigorous ABX testing when you admit you did not do that in the past? How do you not have numbers up for your current amp?
Amir continually points out why everyone else is wrong, but him.
So you need Amir to admit he's wrong in order to accept his arguments? How many people in this thread have admitted to being wrong? He's either right or wrong, based on his arguments. It's possible everyone else is wrong. I mean, a geologist could show up in a flat earth forum and, yes, he'd be right and everyone else would be wrong. So that's neither here nor there, in principle. So you can't just complain about that, you have to anty up and make your own case against his.
it has been him telling everyone why they are wrong while avoiding any hard hitting questions.
I disagree. Far from "ignoring" hard hitting questions, he's done a pretty amazing job of answering people, and providing much more substantiation for his claims in his answers than anyone else in the thread.
I'm not saying Amir is perfect or some objective Deity. I'm just observing the quality of the arguments here, and Amir is providing the higher quality arguments thus far.
Don’t change a thing a Amir! I got back into audio as a hobby for years ago and could not believe the things that I saw. $4000 audio cables crazy magic rocks, little dots that you stick to your wall.
Thank you for the kind words. It means a lot to me. And yes, the dots from synergistic "research" are up there. One of the devices supposedly radiates things in the air that makes the sound better. They have a remote for it. He will only do forward switching. Ask him to go back and you get non answers.
I must say though, Ted puts together one of the best sounding systems at these audio shows. I covered their room back in 2017 Axpona:
I enjoy visiting his suite to discover reference tracks and enjoy some good tunes.
I think that is when I found this lovely track by Willie Nelson and Johny Cash:
Ok small set of electrical measure of dac amp and speakers overcome psycho-acoustic facts about the limits of electrical measures and hearing theory facts about the ears/brain ...
Amir was not able to contradict even one point of my discourse about magnasco and Oppenheim experiment... You dont read it prof ?
You are a great scientist prof no doubt... 😊
I’m not saying Amir is perfect or some objective Deity. I’m just observing the quality of the arguments here, and Amir is providing the higher quality arguments thus far.
@prof No he doesnt have to admit wrongdoing, but he never is wrong. I have yet to see it. His record is unmatched in that regard. See the above. He cherry picks things to support his agenda, and then doesnt acknowledge the subjective side. I pointed out a review where he didnt do a listening test on a $20,000 speaker, which at the beginning of this whole forum chat he said he does for every speaker because listening tests matter. For that TAD speaker, he said he didnt have time. Which is it? You cant have it both ways. He might be doing well in some respects, but answering that, and why oh why he previously said he doesnt level match but now is religious about it, is suspect. See how he didnt respond to my questions? instead he responded to someone else's. He wont and then I will have to ask again. That is what we call gaslighting. He then can say LOOK, this guy is being rude and unkind repeatedly harassing poor Amir. NO! He is not being transparent.
He routinely kicks people off of ASR like Erin from Erin's Audio Corner, who I have not seen do anything worth being kicked off for. That is subjectivity. Why not let the people figure out what angle is better. By the way Erin has the same measurement tool and is after objective results. You would think Amir would want to combine forces. No his ego gets in the way.
You are an Amir apologist. You say you arent but then all I see you do is defend him, except for that 1/100 moment you showed me a while back.
I pointed out a review where he didnt do a listening test on a $20,000 speaker, which at the beginning of this whole forum chat he said he does for every speaker because listening tests matter. For that TAD speaker, he said he didnt have time. Which is it? You cant have it both ways.
So you can find one review in which Amir didn’t have time to listen...and just ignore the reams of reviews in which he listens?
That sounds like more of a hunting-and-pecking agenda on your part, than any deep inconsistency on Amir’s part.
I haven’t seen the other exchange you mentioned. I’m not aware of Amir saying level matching wasn’t important, for rigorous listening tests.
You are an Amir apologist.
Sticks and stones .... :-)....I don’t really care what you call me, I’m just interested in the quality of arguments here. He’s more right, more often, than other people in the thread from what I can see, and he’s generally not saying things I disagree with. When I see that happen...I speak up, which I did. I don’t honestly care what ratio I need in order to pass whatever purity test you might have in mind.
I fully support your challenging Amir, but if there was something major in which you had prevailed in the debate, I seem to have missed it.
Ironically, I’m quite sure I pollute Amir’s forum with more purely subjective stuff, and defenses of subjective descriptions and reviews, than anyone else there, to the chagrin of some members. If you ever looked at a lot of my posts on ASR you will see me constantly sticking up for these things, against all sorts of criticism.
"That is a comment I made in passing which is being misunderstood by you and even some reviewers (Darko comes to mind). The point I was making that in some cases like speakers and especially headphones, correlation of measurements with listening preference while strong, is not conclusive."
Yeah that's what I was talking about. I don't misunderstand you. You admit that measurements can't reliably tell what sounds good. More so with speakers and headphones and less with cables and DACs.
So I'm just wondering if you would hazard a guess as to how well measurements will determine how the different audio product categories will actually sound to people. How much they like them.
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.
About the listening test believe it or not, I didnt cherry pick. I am actually looking at the smaller bookshelf 3 way design TAD and so I searched. Interested I read the review. I did no hunting. Now I have done hunting and it does seem to be more the exception to the rule. However a lot of the listening tests seem rushed or like an afterthought. This is why I like Erin's Audio Corner. His subjective listening is first. What he thought about it. Then the objective comes into play. It's unique because he gives the conclusion first.
So I'm just wondering if you would hazard a guess as to how well measurements will determine how the different audio product categories will actually sound to people. How much they like them.
No need to guess. I can fully predict what they will like in blind testing given the measurements and my knowledge of audio engineering and science. With their eyes wide open, anything goes but in general, the more expensive, the fancier and the more talked about the gear, they more they will like it.
Can the moderator please close this thread or ban Amir or preferably both. Amir is using this thread to direct traffic to and advertise his site, things for which he has thrown off others from his own site. I am tired of his arrogance, insults and rudeness.
Can the moderator please close this thread or ban Amir or preferably both. Amir is using this thread to direct traffic to and advertise his site, things for which he has thrown off others from his own site. I am tired of his arrogance, insults and rudeness.
Should said banning and deletion of this thread occur, let me express my extreme gratitude to the moderators/site owners for allowing me to comment this far. For this, I will forever be grateful. They have gone above and beyond in making this forum hospitable for me despite like above.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
