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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
@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? 😉
@thynameI 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.
@mapmanMy 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? 😁
@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.
@anomeI 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.
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.
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..
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The overall measured electricalperformance of the device, you mean. You're paltering again, Amir. You haven't answered the question - why have you based your entire belief system on just the electrical half of electromagnetism? The point is, you don't really know, because accurate measurement and analysis of the other profound side hasn't been invented yet.
Your ears must have really evolved to detect magnetic field of audio gear.
Make sure you have no jewelry on you as that could disturb the field. When sitting in the room, align yourself with earth's magnetic force as otherwise, the two will fight and will raise the noise floor of your system.
You may also want to orient your speaker backward as to be closer to the driver magnet. That will make them sound louder then because your ears will be closer. Experiment with the speakers on the side. That would make it field more parallel to the magnetic axis of your body.
I am told human body can generate a magnetic field. In that regard, when listening with others, you may want to experiment with having them lay down while you are sitting up. Again, that works on magnetic orthogonality principle which can remove the veil from your system, assuming of course that it is high enough resolution (magnetically speaking).
It will not even matter that many audiophiles may be led down your narrow view - as evidenced by the likes of their comments, they are as perfunctory as you.
How do you know that? Have you been to an audiologist and have them measure your ability to detect magnetic field? Many of the ASR members have and as a class, they are far superior to folks on other forums.
Please don't confuse this with "magnetic personality." That is a different thing. Oh wait... maybe it is one in the same!
What we are hearing from you cannot be definitively measured either, but there is a science that has identified it.
I’m keeping tabs on products I own that he has reviewed. Chord Mojo and Fosi amp are winners. My spare older NOS mhdt dac maybe not so much but mine is SS and not tube. I had a tube mhdt also for awhile but unloaded it. Sound was nice and different but not to my liking as much. I bet it measures horribly. That’s its charm! So he hasn’t hurt my feelings too much (so far).
Amir, what of the fact that all along, you have only been measuring just the electrical half of electromagnetism. Can you explain the loss of logic in basing your entire belief system on that?
Huh? What do you call speaker and headphone testing? Devoid of magnetism? How do they make sound then (putting aside electrostatics and such).
Power supplies in audio gear use transformers so their magnetic properties are also encapsulated in the overall performance of a device.
The ending of that sentence is key: don't try to get ahead of the train. As an audiophile, your only concern should be what comes out of your audio gear. Not how some physical theory acts on the design of said equipment. You don't listen to that phenomenon. "
"Power supplies in audio gear use transformers so their magnetic properties are also encapsulated in the overall performance of a device."
The overall measured electricalperformance of the device, you mean. You're paltering again, Amir. You haven't answered the question - why have you based your entire belief system on just the electrical half of electromagnetism? The point is, you don't really know, because accurate measurement and analysis of the other profound side hasn't been invented yet.
It is ok, Amir, I no longer wish to help you understand what you have bureaucratically shut yourself off to. Your only contribution to your amazing world of music will be these trivial arguments and the incomplete results of electrical performance tests, years from now. It will not even matter that many audiophiles may be led down your narrow view - as evidenced by the likes of their comments, they are as perfunctory as you. The vital thing I have learned from our exchange is that you are unable to tell the difference between files of different resolution, in that listening test I referred you to. And it is not a leap of deduction to say neither do any of the others who prioritise measurements over listening ability.
How silly to attempt persuading any of you to put more effort into training your listening. I do not feel sorry for any of you, missing out on the amazing differences cables, and unmeasurable electromagnetic fields make.
Amir, I will be making a few more posts on this thread, for those who may not understand why you communicate as you do - as with listening ability, too many of us are hearing your same drum-beat of arrogance, indoctrination, and numbing dogma regarding the measurements of your limiting electrical performance tests. What we are hearing from you cannot be definitively measured either, but there is a science that has identified it.
You may want to have a read to understand yourself as well as you understand your half world of electrical performance tests.
I have participated in a few HiFi and Audiophile forums and always found that there is a cadre of individuals who are prepared to hate someone offering technical advice on audio equipment as it contradicts their world view.
Yep.
There’s also a streak of anti-expertise too. "How DARE someone deign to tell me something as if it’s just a fact! Like Who Made You The Lord Of What’s True??!!"
The Golden Ear approach is attractive because it allows non-experts to always feel like they can trump experts, to always have a trump card. "Yeah, well mr "trained in the relevant field" expert... you and all your theory, measurements and evidence? Since my experience contradicts your "knowledge" it just shows what you don’t know. Our Ears Don’t Lie!"
It’s an inherently anti-expertise stance, (particularly popular at this time) and so someone who actually knows more about the relevant technology, who actually has expertise they lack...and..stating things as facts? It can’t be that he knows what he’s talking about. That just has to be someone on their high horse that needs to be knocked down a peg.
This thread is full of this sort of turf-protection (not to mention not a little dunning-kruger syndrome...)
Well the thing with wordy reviews loaded with adjectives is most people can read some whereas relatively few know what to make of measurements. Hence the skepticism. See how that works?
You may as well try to teach a cat to bark. They speak different languages.
The thing that intrigues me is that the High-End crowd would rather endorse this kind of review :
"The key observation about the effect of five Blackbody v2s on duty in my room narrows down to the way how the two used speaker sets rendered space there. The entire view grew a touch more anchored and denser in both cases, but higher humidity was the most obvious change. The air in-between key sound sources felt rich and fragrant just like before a storm. The overall vibe was less dry and chiseled. Instrumental and vocal shapes struck me as more moist and bloomier than before, while their outlines became somewhat thicker. Sound audibly leaned towards the extra color, boldness and aroma rather than twitchiness, sparks, elasticity and high contrast. Increased relaxation and less prickly incisiveness followed. Considering all this, Blackbody V2 was groomed to fit the usual LessLoss noise-killing profile indeed, so enjoyably familiar. The fact that the theory behind it raises quite a few eyebrows doesn’t change that."
The above review from the HiFi Knights website to me is utter nonsense. Not only is it just a deluge of meaningless superlatives. The possibility of some metal discs occupying the same room as your sound equipment creating audible effects is preposterous. This should be obvious to any rational person. However, the Audiophile class just seems to eat up this type of subjective "testing". Not only that, they will purchase these types of devices and "hear" the effects.
I have participated in a few HiFi and Audiophile forums and always found that there is a cadre of individuals who are prepared to hate someone offering technical advice on audio equipment as it contradicts their world view. The example above of Amirs measurements of the Neumann monitors is exactly the type of information I would want prior to purchasing any (costly) audio product. The last thing I would consider is purchasing a product based on someone using words like "humidity" or "bloomier" to describe it.
For sure the debate with you was not about acoustic...
it was more deep and more fundamental but you never answered my points about hearing theory and the different meanings associated with different measures...
The debate was : how could someone predict sound qualities and their perception based on a finite set of linear measures of the design of pieces of gear ?
How could he dare seriously promote it as predictive of audible Qualities ? it is non sense in psycho acoustic basic..
you fail the audiogon discussion exam...😊
By the way i dont claim expertise, Toole is expert...
Me i only at no cost tuned my room... Thanks to him and to those who spell me the basic to experiment with...
Asking measured proof is like imposing the same question for any problem and imposing blind test is as imposing an answer for all problem ... It is ridiculous ... An answer cannot be at the same level than the question save for children puzzle book of algebra or for car seller ...In psycho-acoustic, the Fourier method is one of the question the answer it pose reside out of the Fourier frame... Using the two hearing theory in complementary experiments is the road to go, especially a road already studied in hearing impairment research...
psycho acoustic is based on fundamentals questions... This interest me not your marketing of toys as replacement for listening...
You cannot have a clue about Helmholtz resonators because you did not even mention them for the bass problem in a room... You mock those who use material treatment favoring EQ alone... It is ignorance...
No, it is impolite and screwed up logic on your part. This is not a thread on acoustics. I am not at all attempting to engage in any kind of full blown discussion on such a complex topic in this thread. You asked me what they were, and I instantly gave you an answer and the cons of the solution. That you don't accept that -- without facts -- means nothing. A day in the park in an audio forum where folks claim all kinds of expertise. Come with data, not just indefinite word salads and personal commentary.
You did the right thing, experimenting and you learned...
i did as you...
A bit more foolish though... 😊
Most people who focus on gear or on toy, negliging acoustic dont know anything...
In my living room the two easiest acoustic tweaks I made were to experiment with the angles of the wooden louver blinds that covered big glass windows. There was a certain angle that broke up chaotic reflections but did not deaden the room. The other effective tweak was to distribute small throw rugs over the wood floors between my speakers and the listening chair. This was not a total blanketing of the floor. There is a mix of throw rugs and unobstructed floor. A little creative orientation of the rugs brought an obvious improvement to the sound. To allege that this treatment is ridiculous is well...ridiculous.
In my living room the two easiest acoustic tweaks I made were to experiment with the angles of the wooden louver blinds that covered big glass windows. There was a certain angle that broke up chaotic reflections but did not deaden the room. The other effective tweak was to distribute small throw rugs over the wood floors between my speakers and the listening chair. This was not a total blanketing of the floor. There is a mix of throw rugs and unobstructed floor. A little creative orientation of the rugs brought an obvious improvement to the sound. To allege that this treatment is ridiculous is well...ridiculous.
You cannot have a clue about Helmholtz resonators because you did not even mention them for the bass problem in a room... You mock those who use material treatment favoring EQ alone... It is ignorance...
By the way what you speak about the specialized use of ONE resonator for the bass control for a precise use in a room is something already commercialized with success , it had no relation with a distributed grid of one hundred resonators, from 8 feet high to small one, and their effect on the pressure zone distribution and their effect on the relation between the speakers and the listener when tuned and located appropriately..
... You cannot learn that ABSTRACTLY you did it or not... with your ears...
I had no results my friend, i had an acoustic room better or not too far from what i look as your room at no cost... but hard work...😊
how i know ?
a soundfield filling the room able to gave to each recording a complete faithful translation..
Why it is faithful ?
because each recording in an ideal audio system must be DIFFERENT... Each one...
What is more valuable than buying the book is experimenting with it by the way ...
By the way you suffer from Alzheimer...
i already said multiple times i have the Toole book.., then when you speak to me speak to me not to an invisible crowd...
stay healthy...
I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time...
I don’t know what you have learned. I can only go by what you can demonstrate here and so far, I have not seen you express anything in this thread indicating any knowledge of the field. Maybe you know it, but I don’t know that you do.
You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them...
A claim of knowledge is not a fact. Nor have I mucked anyone individually. I discuss the technical point and show measurements, references, and other data to prove them. You have something like that, let’s see it. Start by demonstrating how you know the perceptual effects of lateral reflections.
As to the book, it costs so little compared to what people spend on gear/content. I suggest you go and buy it and read that, instead of wasting time here. And yes, that includes reading my posts. The book is that valuable.
I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time...
I don’t know what you have learned. I can only go by what you can demonstrate here and so far, I have not seen you express anything in this thread indicating any knowledge of the field. Maybe you know it, but I don’t know that you do.
You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them...
A claim of knowledge is not a fact. Nor have I mucked anyone individually. I discuss the technical point and show measurements, references, and other data to prove them. You have something like that, let’s see it. Start by demonstrating how you know the perceptual effects of lateral reflections.
As to the book, it costs so little compared to what people spend on gear/content. I suggest you go and buy it and read that, instead of wasting time here. And yes, that includes reading my posts. The book is that valuable.
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.
