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.
I never claimed that my room was perfect,... But a tuned set of one hundred Helmholtz resonators located in specific spots ( an other acoustic devices) around and near ears and speakers was my own mechanical equalizer... Not perfect AT ALL... But astonishing if compared to my room with no passive acoustic treatment and especially with no mechanical large band equalisation ... Someone can use EQ but it cannot do the job i did with my resonators mechanically adjustable and vice versa my mechanical equalizer cannot do the job of an electronical equalizer ... When there is astonishing improvements for someone though , even if it is imperfect, i will not call that "a circle of confusion" ...
I spoke a lot about the BACCH because it is a revolution not much well known that can make headphone sound as speakers and can make a sounfield for speakers in your living room as in a virtual acoustic room... We dont need anything else...
It is the hard designed proof of what i claimed : psycho acoustic is the heart of audio, not market gear claims, nor falsifications of these claims...Thinking otherwise is entering in "a circle of confusion" : quarrel between opposite extremist side...
@mahgister i prefer to make everything as accurate as possible in the reproduction chain and THEN EQ (or BACCH, as you’ve mentioned a dozen times) to taste. If your electronics are adding fixed EQ or distortion, if your speakers aren’t flat with even dispersion you are in the circle of confusion. Certainly we can season at the end, but if you don’t start with fidelity to the original, you are nowhere, and varying masters will cause no end of trouble.
I’ve not heard BACCH. I do use convolution filters I created from REW (something I learned at ASR!). They make a huge difference, especially if you start in the right place. You can’t solve for poor dispersion with EQ. You can’t correct distortions, or FR varying with weird loads in the electronics.
People want to believe in ghosts. It's fun. But others will have fun mocking those people for being so silly.
The adamant denier never sees the ghost. The true believer sees it when nothing is there. The open minded skeptic is the one best equipped to actually see a ghost.
It is obvious you are unable to connect the dots. How a musical instrument sounds in a room is everything relative to stereophonic reproduction. If equalization brings you sonic bliss, by all means enjoy.
Recording with microphones choices and locations is an acoustic problem with INEVITABLE trade-off choices ( bad recordings exist) .... Transfering acoustic recording choices of the recording engineer trade-off art into ANOTHER acoustic environment : our room; is another problem in acoustic ...( bad room acoustic exist)
The fact that the gear components, digital as analogue, work, conveying recorded information ( recorded as a SPECIFIC set of choices) between this translation of one set of acoustic choices by the recording engineer and the other set of acoustic choices in my room; in this acoustic translation the end results has not so much to do with the gear choice alone , as subjectivist or objectivist think in their opinionated focus on gear, but has way much to do with acoustic control over speakers/ears/room ...( i supposed the components are relatively well match and good for sure)
That is my experience...
Saying that dac choice matter or amplifier or speakers choice matter is only spewing common place evidence that cannot nullify my observation but displacing the main problem of audio, room acoustic, to a secondary one : which gear to purchase... Because nothing can replace acoustic disposition of the room... Except Dr. Choueri filters... That is my opinion...
«In acoustic if the timbre perceiving experience is not good, nothing is good. Spatial soundfield localization is second .» anonymus acoustician
I think one has to separate out Amir’s approach from some diatribe one receives from others on that website.
To be fair to Amir: he has never recommended a measurements-only approach. If anything, he espouses that (properly conducted, level-matched) listening tests are more important. It is just that they are difficult to conduct for a casual listener in the manner he suggests.
He does weed out badly constructed snake oil in many occasions.
However, after studying electronics engineering for 4 years and later working in a ‘measurements and calculations are everything’ world for a few decades, I still feel that they are necessary but not sufficient.
ASR asks to prove it. As a hobbyist who likes to listen to music to relax, I’m not interested in the effort.
I can make out differences between *certain* speaker cables though they measure identically (with our current measurement set), for example. Or, prefer the Holo May DAC to the beater measuring Topping D90SE.
It is obvious you are unable to connect the dots. How a musical instrument sounds in a room is everything relative to stereophonic reproduction.
Another vague and condescending broadside, and a good example of the hostile environment people occasionally encounter here. I suspect it is deliberately open to many different interpretations from which you may choose later.
The open minded skeptic is the one best equipped to actually see a ghost.
I wouldn't use ghosts as an example myself, but I agree:
Open-minded: willing to accept you may be wrong
skeptic: demanding reasonable proof and falsifiable claims; pursuing a claim scientifically and in a controlled fashion.
However, after studying electronics engineering for 4 years and later working in a ‘measurements and calculations are everything’ world for a few decades, I still feel that they are necessary but not sufficient. ASR asks to prove it. As a hobbyist who likes to listen to music to relax, I’m not interested in the effort.
Well said -- and I agree. Necessary but not sufficient.
I can make out differences between *certain* speaker cables though they measure identically (with our current measurement set), for example.
The Achilles' heel of their approach; well said.
There are several possibilities which might be responsible for identically-measuring things sounding differently:
(a) User error (lack of careful testing, distraction, bias, etc.)
(b) Inadequate measurement metric (we don't yet have measurements for the experiences heard). Umami was tasted before it was measured and classified. People tasting umami didn't have subjective bias; they had an experience for which there was not yet a scientific description or analysis. Happens all the time.
"Absolute rubbish Amir. You have no idea how many here actually do listen to a variety of equipment without knowing what the equipment is or what the cost is. Again you push the line that you are the omnipotent guru."
What I talk about is elementary in audio science. So no, stating the need for a controlled test is not any attempt at looking like a guru. However, it is trivial to show that your understanding of such tests is faulty. "Without knowing what equipment is" constitutes just one aspect of such tests. I explained all of that in my video but it is clear you didn’t watch it. So here it is again:
1. Levels must be matched. This applies to active devices like electronics and passives like speakers/headphones. If you don’t match levels, you better not bother.
2. Testing must be repeated to rule out chance. This is an extremely common failing of people who claim to have done "blind tests." I can predict a coin being a head, flip it and get that. I can even do that 4 or 5 times in a row. That doesn’t mean I have super powers to predict a coin toss. It just means I got lucky. You need to conduct the test at least 10 times and get 9 out of 10 right. Typical audiophile trying once or twice just generates "noise, " not data.
3. The test needs to truly be blind. No "tells." For this reason, you need to have a proper protocol to conduct the test.
All of this takes less time and effort by the way that some of you put up by posting here. The truth is there for you.
"There are and for what its worth Goldenone knows far more than you, but when he challenged your measurements you threw him out."
There is no truth to this at all. His unprofessional/unethical conduct is what got him banned on ASR. He has been doing measurements for a year or so with no background in audio engineering or science. If that makes him more qualified than me, fine. Post measurements of his that back your claims in audio. As it is, they don’t match his own subjective claims!
"For me Amir, with all due respect, part of the problem for me is your manner. I want be open minded to what you say, and the points/facts/information you are attempting to impart, but for me it's about manner and delivery. Somebody else mentioned Erin's Audio Corner; I could listen to him all day; firstly he has humility, and he doesn't stop dead at the measurements he displays."
Give Erin some audio cables to test and then we can talk. Until then, there is no one as open minded as me, searching for any hint to truth in products that don't have any efficacy. I spend incredible time and expense teasing out their performance, way beyond any reasonableness. I test them for example up to 1 Mhz or 20X the audio band. I search for changes in noise and distortion 100 to 1000 times lower than threshold of hearing. I don't use works like "snake oil, rip off, etc." I measure, evaluate and present the data in the most professional way possible.
Ultimately though, I am here to provide a service to audio community by examining the performance of audio systems. I am not here to win an election or be liked by everyone. If you have no use for such data then whether I am polite or not is not going to make a difference. I am pretty sure if Erin presented the same data I have you would hate him with passion as well.
Really, what I keep hearing is a cry to keep your fellow audiophiles from knowing more about audio products they have purchased. To what end? To validate someone else's lay and causal opinion about audio? Well, that is not going to work. Incredible number of your peers like what I do. And if as you say it is not because of my delivery, then it must be the power of the data presented.
"At the end of the day, when it comes down to it, when I or anyone else switches on their system and presses play, it becomes an entirely subjective activity; after all, for me anyway it's about the music and love/passion for music. If it sounds good/I enjoy the presentation my system gives me, nothing else matters - not measurements, cost, brand, none of it. I want to get lost in the music, end of."
This frequently stated talking point is entirely fallacious. That audio gear didn't manifest itself subjectively. It came about by using science and engineering. Some companies are great at this; others not so much. Measurements are your best friend when it comes to figuring this out.
Plenty of gear sounds excellent. You could buy an AVR from a big box store for $250, hook up a pair of $250 speakers and get great enjoyment. But that is not what some of you do, are you? You go and buy a $2000 USB cable and convince yourself it must be improving fidelity because it lowers "jitter" or "noise." What does have to do with what you claim? Nothing. It is a purely technical and objective assumption. My role is to test that manufacturer claim. I can test for Jitter. I can test for noise. When those tests don't show a difference, there goes your reason for buying said cable. Take this JPS Superconductor V USB Cable Review. They have already got you with that "superconductor" term as if such a thing exists in a $1000 cable at room temperature. Here is its noise and jitter compared to a $9 Amazon cable:
See how the two graphs land identically on top of each other? Your threshold of hearing is at -115 dB and here I am measuring down to whopping -160 dB! Still no difference.
Of course that cable transfers USB bits just the same and with right system and content, it can sound superb. That is not the issue and I have no doubt you would enjoy the sound of a system with this cable. So would I. Difference between us is the knowledge I have that this cable does nothing for the sound coming out of your audio equipment. That you perceive any difference is due to improper listening tests and nothing more. Since you are not willing to engage in such controlled tests, then measurements better be your friend, not your enemy.
You could buy an AVR from a big box store for $250, hook up a pair of $250 speakers and get great enjoyment. But that is not what some of you do, are you?
You really make it difficult to separate Amir from the zealous followers. Unfortunately, your own words confirm the validity of reasonable people taking issue.
This frequently stated talking point is entirely fallacious.
That comment is arrogant, dismissive, and disrespectful. There is absolutely no reason to take that tone in response to a description of how a person chooses to enjoy his music and system. None of your D### business. The last shred of tolerance and respect for ASR died with that response.
Thank you for your efforts to cut through the BS claims of so much unnecessarily expensive gear in audioland... particularly your efforts with cables and such.
I will point out though that I got pretty thoroughly mocked on your site when I explained that I like the sound of the Heresy IV, even though they "resonate." On the other hand, the etiquette on THIS site is generally no better, as you are experiencing.
You could buy an AVR from a big box store for $250, hook up a pair of $250 speakers and get great enjoyment. But that is not what some of you do, are you? You go and buy a $2000 USB cable and convince yourself it must be improving fidelity because it lowers "jitter" or "noise.
Logical fallacy, excluded middle. It’s so odd that you claim this mantle of science and reason, then put forward this lazy ill logic.
Man am I glad that I could careless about Amir and the so-called GOAT’s opinions at Agon.
I like what I like and I know what I like no matter what you Schitts say.
Ok, cool. Nobody is forcing audiophiles to become more educated.
But it's great that Amir is testing manufacturer's claims so that knowledge is available for the many audiophiles who actually do care (but who don't have the equipment or technical know-now to vet those claims themselves).
i take this from Wikipedia...The book is free on the internet...it is the best book ever written on this "delicate" and deep subject... Cipolla add to this matter of definition a clarity nobody can negate...
«This second essay, "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" ("Le leggi fondamentali della stupidità umana", 1976),[3][4][5] by Cipolla , an italian economist, explores the controversial subject of stupidity. Stupid people are seen as a group, more powerful by far than major organizations such as the Mafia and the military-industrial complex, which without regulations, leaders, or manifesto nonetheless manages to operate to great effect and with incredible coordination.[citation needed]
These are Cipolla’s five fundamental laws of stupidity:
Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
By creating a graph of Cipolla’s two factors, we obtain four groups of people.
Helpless people contribute to society but are taken advantage of by it; Intelligent people contribute to society and leverage their contributions into personal benefits; Stupid people are counterproductive to both their and others’ interests; Bandits pursue their own self-interest even when this poses a net detriment to societal welfare. An additional category of ineffectual people either exists in its own right or can be considered to be in the center of the graph.
As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to consider when exploring human behavior:
Benefits and losses that an individual causes to themself.
Benefits and losses that an individual causes to others.
Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "naïve people" by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or less than he impoverishes society, and a naïve person may enrich society more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be impoverished.
Graphically, this idea is represented by a line of slope -1, which bisects the second and fourth quadrants and intersects the y-axis at the origin. The naive people to the left of this line are thus "semi-stupid" because their conduct creates/allows a net drain of societal welfare; some bandits may fit this description as well, although many bandits such as sociopaths, psychopaths, and non-pathological "jerks" and amoralists may act with full knowledge of the net negative consequences to a society that they neither identify with nor care about.»
«Non-stupid people are an imperfect and inconsistent group. Sometimes we act intelligently, sometimes we are abused, or selfish villains… And sometimes we are a bit of both. The stupid, in comparison, are models of consistency, acting at all times with unwavering idiocy.
However, constant stupidity is the only thing constant about stupidity. That’s what makes stupid people so dangerous. Explains Cipolla.
Essentially stupid people are dangerous and harmful because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person can understand the logic of a bandit. The actions of the bandit follow a pattern of rationality: a wicked rationality indeed, but always rational. The bandit wants an advantage for his account.
Since he is not smart enough to find ways to get the plus as well as provide you with a plus, he will produce his plus by making a minus appear on your account. It’s all bad, but it’s rational and if you’re rational, you can predict it. You can predict the actions of a bandit, his evil maneuvers and therefore you can build your defenses.
With a stupid person, all this is absolutely impossible, as the third fundamental law explains. The stupid person will harass you without any reason, without any advantage, without any plan, at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if, when, where, how and why he or she will attack you. Facing a stupid individual, you are completely at his mercy.»
i dont understand the GARP reaction ....Posting a definition can be useful... No ?
If you have a better definition of "stupidity" than this Italian economist, please enlighten us...
In a philosophical note, this definition remind me of the definition given in the form of a prayer by Christ : " Then Jesus said, ’Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing. ’
Then observe that the Italian economist definition is the same definition given by Christ on the cross, speaking of people doing something helpful to no one and not even to themselves, and doing something detrimental to others and to themselves too , if we think about it...
"Idiots" dont know what they are doing basically...
I am astonished by the convergence between these two minds, the Christ and Cipolla... Are you not either ?
It will be hard in my opinion, to improve on Cipolla definition of stupidity as described in a shortest way by Christ before him ...if someone can improve on this definition i want to listen to him ?
The book is free and in open source by the way...
i apologize , i like philosophy too much...
And sometimes something must be said in a clear way...
And it is useful...( i dont like though some objectivist rude behaviour at all , Amir on the other hand is polite by the way)
Myself i dont focus on gear as marketing do in audio and as Amir analyse in his own way...it is certainly useful to read other opinion...
I myself focus on acoustic and psycho-acoustic...Because it is relatively easy to pick basically good gear anyway, but way more difficult to figure out acoustic...And room acoustic impact at least on the same level than the most beneficial gear upgrade at high cost...
If someone can demonstrate to me that the heart of audio is not psycho-acoustic ... I bet i will quit audiogon...
Noel Lee with his clever marketing of his Monster Cable brand started the high-end wire business back in 1976. Before that everybody used gray Switchcraft IC's and Radio Shack zip cord. Nobody complained! Mr.Lee learned that it was possible to sell a fantasy without engineering credibility to the masses - and become rich in the process! Soon others took notice of Monster's success and the race was on to market wire to the naive, eschewing engineering rationale for "golden ear" fantasy and pseudoscience!
If this isn't the most blatant example of hucksterism then I don't know what is: Jay's Audio Lab's touting of the Transparent $80K "tuned" speaker cable - that looks like an anaconda snake after a large meal! Maybe some owner can lend a pair to Amir for testing?
@amir_asrI'm sorry you feel that way; the fallacious comment that is
Just for some context, I returned to HiFi following a 25 years or so hiatus. There were a couple of reasons for doing so. I came back in 2021 once local dealerships reopened, as this was in the midst of the pandemic.
I work in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), working in a large Mental Health Trust in my local region. In the Summer of 2020, at the most impactful (scary) period of the COVID pandemic, I was diagnosed with a rare blood condition (basically a blood cancer) only curable via bone marrow transplant, but mitigated by certain meds.
From a sense of duty to the NHS and my little corner of it, managing 1500 people and being co-responsible for clinical staffing in our mental health wards, I carried on working. By the early Summer of 2021, the stress levels for all of us working in the NHS had reached critical levels, affecting my own and my immediate team's mental health. I needed some kind of distraction or release, hence my decision to jump back in to the hobby.
Music has always been a passion since early childhood; in my younger years I was a singer/song writer, sound engineer, venue manager, had a small band management company and organized small music festivals. So being too old for these activities, plus being committed to my regular job, I decided to distract myself from my condition and workplace stress, which was the most upsetting.
Many people died during worst of the pandemic; staff, patients, colleagues and their families, so being able to finish work for the day, kick back and lose myself in my music through my hastily put together system was an excellent,very welcome distraction from the carnage occurring all around me; extremely therapeutic and cathartic.
Apart from the actual virus having now dissipated to a large degree, the aftermath it left within the NHS has been disastrous for staffing; my job is to perform damage limitation. Basically the same stress, but without the Spectre of the virus hanging over our heads.
So you see, when I fallaciously sit down, kick back, throw some tunes on, I'm not really thinking graphs, charts, measurements, or how I can be saved from nasty audio manufacturers. I'm just trying to keep my sh*t together so I can get up the next day and do what I need to do for my NHS Trust, for my team, colleagues and most importantly, the patients under our care.
I wish I had nothing else to think about other than sitting around measuring bits of hifi, but my sense of public duty, and service to the public under our collective care, for me is part of my belief system, hence where I work.
As I started the post; I'm sorry you feel the way you do re: fallacious comment, but from where I'm standing, in the greater scheme of things and the real world issues I face every single day, both personally and professionally, how I listen to music; the stress relief it brings, the joy it brings, it's therapeutic value I benefit from ......priceless!
In 1977 I went down to NYC and bought a twenty-foot pair of Polk Cobra Cable - $40 plus sales tax. It sure looked nice with its green-and-red Litz wire braided construction and nicely tinned ends! At home I didn’t notice any sonic difference compared to zip cord. It just looked like "audiophile" quality! I used it for a few years until I replaced it with a twenty-foot pair of Mogami 2477 Blue Neglex 14ga OFC copper coax - again only $1 a foot - my friend owned a local high-end store. It sounded the same to me as the Polk cable but looked more serious in an engineering sense!
Kudos for the response to Amir's "fallacious comment" slur aimed at you. Sorry to hear about your challenges, hope all is improving. Will be interesting to see if any type of apology appears. If so, likely will be indirect and wrapped in a long lecture about measurements with graphs.
Shame on anyone that continues to defend Amir. Done, done, done with Amir and ASR.
I dont understand why people are so polarized... With agressivity...
Amir do a free service that is and will be welcome...Dont kill the messenger...
Some of his disciples did not do the job he did, take is measures as absolute truth about hearing and audio , and quarrel about cables...These i like much less than Amir...
I dont like people who will judge me to be an idiot or a fool because i have faith in my hearing history and the way i will use or not my biases... it is like idiots saying to the patient doctor that he will die anyway because the pill is only sugar, and the placebo effect is not a drug... Do you catch how some stupid people are fool even when they are right ?
Blind test is for industrial marketer and for Amir needs, they are not designed to be used for listener in their acoustic room tuning process or with their gear...It can be fun and i did it with a friend young...But a fun test is not debunking work... Amir will do it and we will thank him for the information it gives us... But we will be free in our living room...Why? Because biases are not only negative door for auditory illusions created by the market; they are also our positive tools and motivation and these biases we must tame them by acoustic experiments, not erase them by looking at numbers or conclusion from an electrical graph...Acoustician listen a room they dont look electrical graphs..
Audio is simplistic matter only for gear centered mind, audio is in truth very complex psycho-acoustic and acoustic field of research..
For me the two side here are fooled by the gear market strategy in the same way : they focus on gear POWER design and dont experiment with acoustic... They buy panels and call it job done... For me it is job not done at all... It is my perspective...
By the way difference between cables are dwarfed by acoustic impact...There is some difference and it was easy to spot by me when i pick two cables long ago to choose from...But this difference they are so small and subtle people never bothered with them in the past... Amir is right about costly cords, it is scam even if there is minuscule differences because it put the focus of people on the gear minutiae and then fool them about acoustic and audio...
Expression of hate in the two side are for me expression of the SAME IGNORANCE... We must learn how to listen and this learning history has nothing to do with what most reviewers do, changing the gear... Nothing... Psycho-acoustic cocepts are not electrical design concepts...
If someone tells me I’ve said something "fallacious," I don’t take that as a put down. They are doing me a service -- helping direct me to what is false. Because I prefer not to believe or claim false things. @amir_asr then goes to explain why it is fallacious. Those who interpret this as a personal attack just prove Amir’s point that some here are not interested in facts. (You don't agree with his argument that it's fallacious? Fine. Then rebut him. But don't take it personally.)
The test of this would be to point out to Amir that he has made a mistake and see if he takes it personally or if he tries to verify it or rebut it -- with facts. Dispassion is the mark of science. If one cannot live up to that virtue, then they are not being scientific.
We’re all after audio quality, right?
Audio quality costs money. Any money one is saved by successful tests and measurements, and borne out in listening, is money which can be directed to the true weak links rather than the false weak links.
Thank you for your service in terms of public health, and my condolences on the health issues you face.
However...this...
I wish I had nothing else to think about other than sitting around measuring bits of hifi, but my sense of public duty, and service to the public under our collective care, for me is part of my belief system, hence where I work.
...seems like a bit of a moralizing dig at Amir. "sitting around measuring bits of hifi." A suggestion that his spending time on audio gear is less noble than what your "sense of public duty" compels you to spend your time on. I don't know if you meant it that way, but that's how it comes across.
If so: that same "dig" could be made about every single person in this forum and in this hobby. "Don't you have BETTER, more noble ways to spend your time/money than posting on an audio forum, or on the audio/music hobby?"
You find listening to music as your getaway, your way of spending your spare time. Amir or others enjoy understanding and measuring audio equipment, and sharing that information with others who are interested. Such is the variety of life.
One can just say "I'm not really interested in spending my time measuring equipment. It's not something I'm that interested in."
That's pretty much the case for me. I'll leave that to others more interested and technically inclined than I am do that.
I dont understand why people are so polarized... With agressivity...
This is a good point. I saw an old polarizing topic revisited in the news recently. Remember the old meme that was going around with the dress, about whether the dress was white and gold or black and blue? It really got people upset because their perception was obvious to them, and others claiming to see something completely different almost feels like a blatant lie. It’s a challenge to basic reality that’s plainly evident. It feels frustrating. (As for that one, I never took a side because the photo looked odd, like the color and contrast was intentionally ambiguous so I felt like I was being set up.)
I feel some of this frustration with stereo interaural crosstalk screwing up the tone with center panned images. I just went to the Pacific Audiofest and heard a bunch of otherwise very exquisite systems just completely ignoring this problem, with everybody acting like there’s nothing wrong. I hear it so clearly that it’s mind boggling to me. It’s a huge flaw in terms of what I expect from a high end system. How can people put up with this in something that’s had so much effort and expense put in to it to approach perfection?
I think it’s kind of like the dress. They don’t interpret the comb filtering the same way I do, so it comes across completely different perceptually to them, perhaps as a sense of depth, 3D dimensionality. I just move off center when I want to hear the center panned vocals or instrumentals sound better. This works for everybody because now I’m not taking up the "prime" center seats at the show.
You make a good point relating this quarrel about imposing a perspective over the other valid perspective...
The two perspective are valid in their own terms but it seems i am, if not the only one, one among very few, pointing why the two groups, subjectivist and objectivists, are wrong TOGETHER, focussing together on the gear component...
Audio is not first about the gear market hyper magical claims validity or about their debunking by verified measures versus claims ( which is a good thing to know for sure thanks to Amir hobby devotion )..
Audio is about first and last psycho-acoustic complex field and about speakers/room acoustic...It is not about upgrades with market publicity claims and subsequent debunking articles... My two dreamed revolutionary piece of gear by the way were created by acoustician , Dr.Gorike for my headphone, and Dr.Choueri for the dac...( i own only the headphone, the dac must wait for now 🤣😊😉 )
Then for me acoustic rule the game...Not electric engineers...
Especially nowadays when anybody can buy a basically good system at relatively low price in a mature audio industry ... The claims of the gear marketers and their falsification by Amir is interesting but SECONDARY completely for audio real experience which is related completely to mastery of acoustic basic...HERE WE LEARN HOW TO LISTEN...Nowhere else..
And to tune a room at low cost we need EARS....No debunking of hearing is needed here... Because here we learn how to listen with acoustic experiments in a room designed for our SPECIFIC BIASES...Small room acoustic is for a specific owner not for a crowd...And who had the money to invest 100,000 for an acoustical pro job ?
I respect much and more Amir effort and appreciate his findings because they can be useful but i dislike many of his groupies imposing on us meaningless claims, about my hearings so called limits which are sterile common place useless facts, among rightful facts about measured technicalities ... I dislike people here insulting Amir too by the way ...
Once this is said , audio purchase cannot be made by the chart inspection of any measures, we must take a listen too, and a room cannot be designed by an acoustician pro, save if you are very rich, then your hearing biases are your main tools.... They served me well and my system was astounding for me at peanuts costs ( not perfect but with no comparison at all between before and after)...People who pay many , many ten thousand dollars for their gear dont like to read that, i dont know why ? Sorry but acoustic matter not the price tag...😁😊
If i know how to modify the ASW/LV ratio to please me in my room , i dont need arrogant people to say that i need to be blind tested...
So imperfect it was no other system i listened to at any price beat my room soundfield, and those who own systems that rival or beat speakers/room rest assured did not pay just 10 times more than mine but way much more...it was enough for me... Especially at under 1000 bucks price...
I dont understand why people are so polarized... With agressivity...
This is a good point. I saw an old polarizing topic revisited in the news recently. Remember the old meme that was going around with the dress, about whether the dress was white and gold or black and blue? It really got people upset because their perception was obvious to them, and others claiming to see something completely different almost feels like a blatant lie. It’s a challenge to basic reality that’s plainly evident. It feels frustrating. (As for that one, I never took a side because the photo looked odd, like the color and contrast was intentionally ambiguous so I felt like I was being set up.)
I feel some of this frustration with stereo interaural crosstalk screwing up the tone with center panned images. I just went to the Pacific Audiofest and heard a bunch of otherwise very exquisite systems just completely ignoring this problem, with everybody acting like there’s nothing wrong. I hear it so clearly that it’s mind boggling to me. It’s a huge flaw in terms of what I expect from a high end system. How can people put up with this in something that’s had so much effort and expense put in to it to approach perfection?
I think it’s kind of like the dress. They don’t interpret the comb filtering the same way I do, so it comes across completely different perceptually to them, perhaps as a sense of depth, 3D dimensionality. I just move off center when I want to hear the center panned vocals or instrumentals sound better. This works for everybody because now I’m not taking up the "prime" center seats at the show.
It's absolutely critical to try things and find out what works for you. But it means you have to try stuff. Sometimes the resulting configuration ends up looking funny and being totally unconventional. But if the months go by and you remain happy with it, that's what matters
My latest funny looking setup involves angled gobos placed at the first reflection points on the side walls and then more gobos behind me to either side. Here at work I had learned about absorbing first reflections on sidewalls, but then replacing them with delayed reflections by bouncing sound off the back wall toward the first reflection points. A panel or TubeTrap that absorbs highs on one side and reflects them on the other will let you do this. My impression is that it sounds fantastic! But wouldn't have know had I not tried it. Just absorbing or diffusing first reflections is not nearly as pleasing to me. If my room was wider this might not be necessary, actually I know it's not as important because I was set up in a wide room at one point and it sounded great. The narrow room was a relative letdown.
I fully expect that some listeners may not be as impressed as I am with my non-standard setup, or may not like it at all. I try to be OK with that, and I mostly succeed.
Small room acoustic is very complex because of the control negatively or positively of reverberation time and the wave direct and reflected ratio...In my case also the control of the zone pressure distribution i modified and in my case i used a grid of Helmholtz resonators..
I take one year full time in experiments each day... Reading acoustic article to extract some idea for a new or better experiment... it cost me the price of the garbage in my basement...
But learning how to listen is a full time job...Nothing was more fun though...No upgrade can be so fun and astonishing...
But i will never do it again because i learned already how to do it , but it will not spare me the listening time... Passive material treatment is relatively easy... But mechanical control not so much...
Now i am happy with my TOP headphone, probably one of the most complex ever designed ( there is very complex headphone design nowadays)... I asked a Kennerton guy few months ago about hybrid headphone in their future design planification research... He said to me they abandonned the idea because it is too costly to do it right and too complex to do it well at the first shot , and margin of profit too slim ... Then i own the only successful hybrid headphone ...I will die with it...The soundfield is speaker like and recording dependant...
It’s absolutely critical to try things and find out what works for you. But it means you have to try stuff. Sometimes the resulting configuration ends up looking funny and being totally unconventional. But if the months go by and you remain happy with it, that’s what matters
My latest funny looking setup involves angled gobos placed at the first reflection points on the side walls and then more gobos behind me to either side. Here at work I had learned about absorbing first reflections on sidewalls, but then replacing them with delayed reflections by bouncing sound off the back wall toward the first reflection points. A panel or TubeTrap that absorbs highs on one side and reflects them on the other will let you do this. My impression is that it sounds fantastic! But wouldn’t have know had I not tried it. Just absorbing or diffusing first reflections is not nearly as pleasing to me. If my room was wider this might not be necessary, actually I know it’s not as important because I was set up in a wide room at one point and it sounded great. The narrow room was a relative letdown.
Amir do a free service that is and will be welcome...Dont kill the messenger...
In ancient times the bearer of 'unwelcome' news' could often found himself on the receiving end of much scorn.
Judging by the way the likes of Peter Aczel, Ethan Winer, Alan Shaw, and Amir himself have been treated by so many in recent times, I guess some things haven't changed all that much.
Your serial posts spanning essays of 2-3 pages are no indication of your intelligence. Keep it succinct. A much better indicator if being able to formulate your thoughts efficiently.
Before INSULTING it never cross your mind that all people here are not as high in intelligence as you seems to think about you? Then why insulting an "idiot" like me ?
Then insulting as first words of dialogue is perhaps a symptom of some other problem in your temper?
If you had no arguments save the number of words in my posts, i will go on...
I am pretty sure your high I.Q. can make you able to pass over them...
Especially if you cannot oppose any argument...
By the way yiddish nor english are my first language, i apologize for my syntax and limited vocabulary... For the rest skip my posts... Temper tantrum are a bit childish ...
You figured out who I was addressing so this much you’re intelligent. Or it must not be your first time. I don’t flash the intelligent card. You on the other hand are of a very high opinion of yourself and your posts show your overinflated ego.
Be well. And have a lovely evening.
i am very kind with any people engaging in discussion...
But my defect was not, like you, insulting as first post to someone who never insulted you and even spoke to you ... i never do that... My personal defect, because i am not perfect, is ANSWERING if someone talk to me the way you did ...Is it difficult to figure out ?
And yes sometimes my "ego" takes the place but i am conscious of that and i am able to recognize it when someone is POLITE and we are discussing...
I never breed grudges... Then i thank you for your last words and i wish you the best possible day to come...
I apologize for my long posts and thank you in advance for going over them...
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.
