Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
AS IF I owe you anything, by way of rebuttal? Where are YOUR facts/truths, in response to what I've posted, aside from calling them , "one long strawman"? We've been here before and I've found you a poser, knowing little to nothing, as regards Physics or QED. IF you have any college education/higher learning, at all, I feel it safe to infer: your Major was GASLIGHTING. As mentioned, my view of your ilk: floccinaucinihilipilification
| ||
Hi Brian, long time no chat since the last V12R amp chat about tube reduction down to 2 or 3 per side - years back. Good times. Nice to hear from you. It partly has to do with recommendations and information shared about a measured component that "measured the best" and reportedly "sounded great", or "one of the best for sound". All according to the hard core measurement gang with strong beliefs this was the best for sound. What sound is the question. Clearly we may all just be hearing differently. A quick recap - I took the bait, bought it, tried it, and was sorely disappointed. Shockingly so. I for one can dispute a measurement, a "well made one" too, who knows, and this is part of the great debate here perhaps. I won’t disclose details as the component designer/builder was gracious and provided a full refund. With all due respect, I wish them well. No harm, no foul. However, learned a lesson, some of these measurement practices do NOT tell us everything. I agree with your prior posts. Ended up buying something else for 1/2 cost which sounded notably better [to me], and measured worse. Go figure. Are we measuring the right things then, I digress. Call it one person’s opinion perhaps and we’ll leave it at that. High praise for those with confidence and a great return policy, you simply can’t please all of us- and that’s okay. Is what it is. | ||
@amir- If I understood your last post correctly: you own Lyngdorf gear. Nice stuff, not to mention: a good looking listening/media room. Having been in the loop so long: you've got to remember Peter & Boz's TacT venture. I'm still using the old Tact RCS 2.2Xaaa (with a number personally addressed mods/updates, of course).
Yep! However: I wouldn't make the assumption that any non-DSP corrected room/system interface has to be, "lousy". My last nice one (pre DSP by about a decade) was about 24 x 13, with a slanted ceiling (8 above speakers, to 12 at back wall)*. Woofers didn't need time-alignment, as they could stand next to my Acoustats, per design. *Easy to control most of what Sabine had to offer.
| ||
I tuned my room by ear... Material balanced treatment and active control with Helmholtz tuned resonators.. my soundfield were filling the room with immersiveness.. All is wrong because i used my ears... 😊 he may think timbre is a frequencies spectrum i guess we can measure instead of listening to it... I bet... | ||
@amir_asr You may notice that I did NOT call your system a ’lousy audio system’...I wonder why?? I could have stated that having a big screen TV between the speakers and having your gear placed on your auntie’s dining room side board cabinet is not exactly anything but...laughable! But, for some reason i did not say that before, however since you want to play that card....;0) I’m done on this thread, there really is nothing here anymore, and I don’t want to debate with Amir about my hearing acuity, his hearing acuity, my system quality or anything else that he thinks can be used to support his never ending quest for ’superiority’.
BTW, Amir, do you really think as an ex-pro musician and music teacher, plus being in the a’phile hobby for over forty years( dates me), that I cannot set up a couple of subwoofers in my system? Instead, i need to have an artificial tool to aid me...get a clue. | ||
Ok, there I have to disagree. I think a statement like that is unhelpfully dogmatic. You could make the point that measuring will help show bass response deviations from neutral, and that these can be corrected for if you want a neutral bass response. But...one can also get a fairly smooth bass response by ear. Not as accurate as an instrument, but it is the ear, how we perceive the sound, that one can care about pleasing. Remember: there’s little point in caring about things you can’t hear. The point of addressing bass nodes is that you can hear them. Which means you can hear them without an instrument (even if not as precisely quantified). So one can experiment with speaker/listening positions, with test signals or well known tracks, to hear when a bass node or dip may be intruding on the sound. If a bass error response is something you can’t notice, or it occurs so infrequently that it rarely infringes on your enjoyment of the sound, then big whoop. I haven’t used measurements in my set up. Is there some bass node somewhere that would show up in measurements? No doubt. Does it regularly stand out in some deleterious way? Nope. I’ve heard many of my test tracks (which include bass torture tests for tightness/depth etc) on systems that have some correction for room response (e.g. numerous times with the Kii Audio 3 speakers) and the bass I hear at home is similarly smooth. (I did at one point have subwoofers and room correction for the bass - it wasn't much smoother to my ears than what I'd achieved without the correction). And declaring any system that wasn’t arrived at with measurements and room correction to be "lousy system" is a subjective opinion - nobody need take your subjective opinion as the basis for what they want in their own system, or in place of their own goals or judgement. I suppose it’s quite possible if you listened to my system at some point you might hear a room interaction that could have been fixed, and then declare it "lousy" by those standards. But by the standards I seek it’s wonderful, and by the standards of what my guests experience when listening - joy and astonishment, I’ve had people moved to tears - well, if that’s "lousy" I’ll take "lousy." ;-) Cheers. | ||
And yet in the post I quoted I saw no inkling that you have taken one of Feynman’s most famous cautions to heart, when it comes to investigating reality: FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. Do you understand what he was getting at there? I don’t see that you do, since the post I quoted admonished people: "IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF. " You were clearly, against Feynman’s advice, telling people to trust in themselves, to accurately understand what is going on. Not a hint of Feynman’s scientific caution that any method ought to control for the ways in which we are prone to error and misconception and bias. Just "try it and trust yourself." And of course the rest of what you’d written in that quote about science and everything else was one long strawman.
| ||
Anyway after my arguments unanswered... there is no discussion only bashing opposite sides... Why people are so unable to think? because they trust gear, toys, anything but not what matter : concepts BEFORE experiments... Concepts AFTER experiments... I like acoustic because we hear qualities and they inform us about the world and people... Hearing is more deep than touch... Because with ears we touch inside things and at distance... | ||
My pleasure. Did you think the system is resolving enough to tell the difference between cables? If so, or not, how did you determine that. As to acoustic products, this is my field of study as I post yesterday. Quickly: there is a lot of money wasted there on stuff people intuit and read online. The confusion there is much worse than it is in audio cables! But addressing your question anyway, did you not notice the measurement microphone and computer in that picture? They were there in the process of testing Lyngdorf's excellent RoomPerfect EQ system. I clicked on your profile and i see no DSP solution. Shame as that *guarantees* your bass response is poor. And that what you are hearing is bloated bass that is obscuring the detail in the rest of the spectrum. Forget everything we have been discussing here. If you are not measuring your room and correcting for bass errors, you have a lousy audio system. Period. Measurements will absolutely show that the acoustic stuff you have thrown in there have little to no impact in this regard (don't be fooled by the name "bass trap, " they do no bass trapping). | ||
Inescapable FACT: No one understands exactly how electricity works. That’s why there’s so much Electrical THEORY. The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing. Whenever some highly educated person actually does discover exactly how electricity functions, they’ll be lauded by the scientific community, will have solved some of the disparities between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, receive a Nobel and we’ll hear about it. Newton’s THEORIES were largely superseded by Einstein and Bohr's. Then came Feynman’s. For now; none of you can absolutely prove your statements (theories), regarding electricity, fuses, wires, or anything else, as regards our systems. The following articles, read in sequence, illustrate my point: https://www. then: and: | ||
May as well hit the rewind:
| ||
@prof (snort of derision)- Don't forget the rest of that post, which (obviously) applies to you, as well.
| ||
@amir_asr Thank you for posting your system photo. For someone so into the science of audio, I am very surprised that you have seemingly given no consideration to room acoustics! There are a number of great room acoustic products/treatments that i am certain would do marvels for your SQ in your room. You may want to try some of them, although I admit, they are all passive, and as such, pretty hard to measure! Your ears would be in for a treat though....if you would allow yourself to believe in them. | ||
i discussed with Amir...I thank him 15 times for his measures information by the way... Nobody can accuse me to be anti-Amir... i provided many arguments with dozen of articles about the relation between measures and hearing theory as a context to interpret measures..*I will not repeat this because others will kill me...😊 Amir never answered to my point, use many times ad hominem arguments, dismiss anything in false pretense or go beside central point..VERIFY BY READING MY DISCUSSION... Read my posts... I never insulted but gave a consistent argument.. I lost my respect for his "scientific" status at the end ... he play with measuring toys and give us useful measures Thats all...It is a marketer not a scientist... A scientist use method , theory and context for interpretation..not only measuring instruments.. Hearing theory is the center here... the center of design, the center of research, the context where all measures are evaluated.. Sounds are not physical abstracted Fourier waves, these waves must be interpreted by the ears brain... And sound qualities in nature are not reducible to Fourier reconstruction tool... because the ears/brain ask for more... I will stop here: we need an ecological theory of hearing to encompass the Fourier theory of hearing.. By the way the separation between subjectivist and objectivist was created by market designer or techno babbling people about the gear electronics measures ... The central subject of audio is not design, it is psycho-acoustic , because all design is based on this science not only on electronics circuits ... There is no subjectivist or objectivist in acoustic science... iT is MEANINGLESS completely stupid distinction...In acoustic any measures is interpreted in hearing context and any subject submiited to strict experiment controls.. Blind test are used yes but not to sell a limited set of measures as replacement for hearing truth...
| ||
^^^ This is as perfect a product of scientific ignorance as one would like to find. It's the life-blood of companies that sell products with dubious technical claims. You can see exactly that attitude repeated over and over from every fringe belief system showing up at your local New Age and Psychic Fair. "Only YOU can tell FOR YOURSELF if these Healing Crystals work! Trust Yourself and your perception Above All" It's basically the epistemology that ran rampant before science arose. It misses out precisely on why science had to arise: Yes, test. But, *control for known variables* (which include your ability to fool yourself). If you aren't doing that, your tests are no more rigorous than those used for bloodletting or the Power Of The Local Witchdoctor to Heal.
| ||
I'm curious if you give equal time to your "anti-bullying" crusade. It's been my experience both in participating in, and watching many discussions, that in threads in which someone is voicing reasons for skepticism about an audio claim, that in forums that trend towards "subjectivism" all sorts of catty vitriol is thrown at the skeptic and virtually NONE of it is called out because the subjective stance is simply assumed as the default. Therefore "anyone voicing skepticism about what people might be hearing or not" is just a trolling muckraker. In fact, it's often the "objectivist" who actually says "I'm open to believing what you believe, and here is the type of evidence that would convince me." It's often the highly subjective-based audiophiles who have an essentially unfalsifiable belief "I can hear it, even if you can't measure it" and they take any questioning of this as a personal affront, and then often hurl ad hominem back at the objectivist. Because in the subjective world, there is no actual other way to settle things. If the subjectivist claims to hear something, and someone else says "no, I don't hear any such thing" then the subjectivist comes back with the usual "well then either your gear isn't resolving enough or your ears aren't resolving enough." That's already played out in this thread, as it *always* does. The objectivist says "like any human I'm capable of error in my perception, so here are the ways I want to account for that fallibility in my method of evaluating audio gear and claims." Whereas the subjectivist tends to just take his own perception as The Gold Standard, all other methods of inference are subservient to the truth of their own perceptual abilities. And so, again, any statement by a skeptic that implies "I didn't hear what I KNOW I heard" isn't taken in the proper scientific mindset, but as a personal affront and hence name calling or derision is thrown back. And there is a complete blind spot - only the "objectivist/skeptic" is called out for making 'arrogant claims,' where in the subjective context people make strong claims all the time and no-one blinks. Say "These new X cables I bought made a great difference to the sound of my system" and it's "amen!" Someone like Amir says "X cables will not change the sound compared to low priced cables" and then it's a pile on for making arrogant claims. But the claim that the cables DO make a difference (in such conditions as Amir would deny) is just as strong an opposite claim! But that slips through unnoticed, due to the operating bias of a forum. This thread started off with plenty of derision thrown at Amir and ASR before Amir ever showed up. So I'm wondering: How often do you direct your attention to the derision, ad hominem etc that come from the subjective-oriented side, those who constantly snipe at Amir or other people who propound the relevance of measurements and science to objective and subjective claims in audio?
| ||
In general yes...
Tesla was a great amateur of Art, poetry among other thing... Edison not at all... Guess who was the real genius ? I dont remember any great designer who is not able to relate his design idea to art experience and history... i dont speak about techno worker, i speak about genius in science... Do you know who created the philosophical basis of set theory ? A mystic of the 6th century...Cantor was a theologian and take all the basis of set theory from a mystic... Ask me i will explain it to you in details...People here will kill me if i explain it from my own impulse... 😊 the "salt" and "pepper" of this affair is about the convergence of Fourier series... 😁
i will never trust an audio designer who dont love music at heart... Sorry... You prefer blind test, i prefer musical training... Ask Furtwangler to pass a blind test about musical sounds if you dare...say to him in his old age with a slight lost in hertz resolution and decibels perception that he can no more perceive musical timing and details... he directed till the end and was never rival by anyone..
« The ears see way more than they hears»-- Acoustical paradox from a blind kid who is also a bike amateur | ||
Again well said. The problem is, someone saying this and that sounded this way is not "proof." After all, I can get someone to say the opposite. Provide proof and we would all line up to believe you! :) | ||
I'm curious what point you wish to make with that anecdote. What did your friend expect from the AHB2 that he did not get? Is it possible his expectations were not realistic as to what he should hear with that amp? | ||
Well said. Simple request would be to a) show measurements so that people know you have put that in there and b) do a controlled listening test with a group of audiophiles showing the benefit. Having me doing the measurements for them and you doing the listening tests doesn't make much sense. | ||
There is a difference between performance metrics and safety. A car can accelerate fast/slow and be safe or not safe in a simulated crash. These concepts are orthogonal to each other. On that topic though, safety certifications and regulatory certifications are often missed from audiophile products. Especially shameful is when it is a power cord where safety matters. | ||
Interesting thought. Should we start rating designers as to how much they know about art? And if they don't, dismiss their work out of hand? What does an amplifier know about art anyway and how did that knowledge get into it? Can it tell that I am playing nails scratching on a chalkboard from Mozart? If so, how does it do that? | ||
First, if that is what I hear and I am supposed to trust my ears, I don't know why you would say I am deaf. Second, why are these system requirements not documented some place? Never seen that from any cable manufacturer for example. How would a potential buyer be informed prior to buying these things that their system is not "low quality?" Here is a picture of my system. Would you please advise if it is low or high quality? Thank you. | ||
Got it. Thank you.
Nobody was debating that but thank you again for stating that.
Excellent. Again, no one was debating that. Question is how you can tell that before you get the equipment to listen to. I provide that information with measurement and sometimes with listening tests.
So you say. We have no way of knowing if you really can or not.
So you say. We have no way of knowing if you really can or not.
The second part I can believe. The alternative, "we have no way of knowing if you really can or not." :)
Again, got it.
Very clear now. Thank you again. | ||
This is exactly the point that Amir seems to be missing. Music is an art form. The reproduction of music is a combination of art and science. IMO, the art aspect is at least as important as the science, which I think Amir completely dismisses.
Absolutely correct. +1 | ||
Perfectly measuring gear is just spin for sales. Everything made goes through measurements and is made to spec and gets that CE approval so you know it won't burn your house down. Now if a designer wants a certain sound and it means adding some distortion in order to achieve that goal, there's nothing wrong about doing that. It's already been pointed out by musicians, technicians and recording engineers. Again, nothing remotely wrong about that. So what if something has 40-50db of headroom? You're not going to appreciate it in your room unless you want to blow your ears out. That's very misleading. All those graphs that make some go "oooh" and "ahhh" make me laugh, a little. It's great that something can be so fiendishly designed so as to look picture perfect but the proof is in the listening and how it jives with your long established tastes and not meant for one to surrender their wallet. Some think they've caught the audio brass ring on the cheap without giving it a serious listen, relying on someone who says "it's perfect because, measurements." As for cats, I like the dark grey ones with the bright green eyes. All the best, | ||
@ghasley what kind of cat? I love cats | ||
Well said thanks again...
| ||
“No one can dispute a well made measurement. The issue it’s validity.” | ||
You are right for sure... It is way more deeper if we speak about sounds and music though ... No measurements win the race because of its validity ALONE... The measurements must be evaluated in their CONTEXT of application and in their LIMITED bounds of application.. Thats my point discussing hearing theories and what means linear measures for a non linear Ears/brain , and what means out of the design process , measured numbers of material designs which are interpreted in a time independant way for a time dependant unrelated qualitative phenomenon .. Amir said: no need for that, trust the tools and forget your ears save for a blind test... Acuity in hearings for him is not recognizing nuances in soprano voice expression here, for him it is only hertz and decibels... Then the Amir ears are untrained by non amplified classical or persian or Indian or African or Chinese or japan music... he trained his ears with studio and computers... He call that training ears in resolution and acuity ... He dont know that even in perception the ears/brain to perceive something as meaningful and not only as audible noise in background must have the different experience of different musical contexts because without concepts we dont perceive things in a qualitative way ... We reduce them to hertz and decibels... We are then NOT EVEN WRONG... Amir is not even wrong because he miss the question to begin with... He gives an answer to a question he never ask,... What is technology in relation to science ? it is answers for question we never asked... or it is a possible new question for an answer we never imagined.. 😊 An example : Mankind discovered fire by accident... It was an answer for a question about cooking we never asked for...
| ||
@decooney what is the "disinformation" you speak of ? No one can dispute a well made measurement. The issue it's validity. | ||
@mapman "technology is the key to good sound" is overreaching. Class D is innovative tech. Measures well. Not the best sound to all. Neve 1073 style microphone pre amps (transformer/class A) are very old tech, still preferred by many top music makers. Truth is there are times when a brilliant equipment designer will choose something that measures worse because it sounds better. That is taste. Listening skill. Listening always trumps measuring for the truly intelligent. How do we measure a great piece of music? A great recording ? Can't be done. Relying on measuring comes from fear of trusting ourselves. It's missing the whole point of music making and music listening. Science is one means towards an end. Not an end in itself. I love science. It's not the authority here however. | ||
You explain it better than me for everyone... Thanks.. 😊
| ||
I am sorry mapman you miss the points... Ideology here means: someone who use tools to measure, which is a good thing , no one refuse information; but when this person impose his measures out of any Interpretation context, and here the context to interpret measures is not only the behaviour of well designed material components but their relation to sounds qualities, this is the domain of hearing theory...Or psycho-acoustic... No objectivist or subjectivist exist in psycho-acoustic sorry only experiments protocols about hearing... Imposing a limited set of measures to replace hearing theories and perceived sound qualities when the measuring context ( Fourier linear and time independant tool with a frequencies based hearing theory ) is put under the rug is technological ideology contradicting psycho-acoustic facts : Human hearing work in a non linear way in the time dependant domain constrained by his evolutive history with speech and musical produced sounds and natural sounds QUALITATIVE perception .. you did not read my posts... 😊 You did not pass the exam... I know my posts they are too long and with too much articles...😊
| ||
“All these are observable facts, not opinions. Remember Joe Friday? Just the facts ma’am! That seems to be Amir ”
just the facts. That seems to be Amir | ||
Well first it’s never a good idea to speak for everyone.
Do I believe he does this out of the goodness of his heart and no monetary reward involved? Please…. He provides a service and has a business model for it. Good for him! If I can find a product that measures as well as some other more expensive one that measures similarly I am all ears. That is valuable information! Take it or leave it. Everyone gets to decide.
| ||
@jasonbourne71 because I like the aesthetic which matters when it’s sitting out on the table. And I said because the benchmark is made in my country. Their customer support is phenomenal and from what I gather sounds incredible. I’ve never had a benchmark Dac fail or not work properly. And they allow you to upgrade certain parts instead of buying a new unit. @j_livingston you took the thought out of my head. I was going to mention his links to asr. Clearly he is trolling some of these posts. @soundfield no amount of winking is going to get people to buy your speakers with zero measurements or pictures or info. Amir isn’t doing your listening test. Actually wait I found one source. @amir_asr there is a measurement of his here
| ||
As just a “normie” who spends some money on audio, a pox on both your “measurements rule” and the “golden ears” side that dismisses anyone not “trained”.. I buy what is pleasing to me. Don’t give a dang about “measurements” which mainly are measuring that which is beyond audibility for anyone over 40 that has actually had any kind of “blue collar” job. Can I tell the difference between consumer grade klipsch vs magnepan and tektons? Absolutley. (I have all 3). Can I tell that I prefer tube amplification for mids and highs, using SS amps for lows and subs for under 100hz (for music)? Yep. Can I tell the difference between a 192/24 vs mp3, especially as volume increases? Definitely. Can I tell that I prefer a $2000 tube amp over the same power $20000 tube amp? Or at least hear no difference..? Yep. What I buy, and what equipment provides me with hours on end of continued listening enjoyment, at a price point I am willing to pay, has NOTHING to do with some elitist, sneering, snob telling me that I am “wrong” because my equipment doesn’t “measure up” or that my choice is wrong because some “golden ear” says so. THAT is “my kind” @amir_asr | ||
Oh they "care" alright, firstly about disinformation, and other experiences that come into play for those with an open mind and willing to discover additional considerations which can be helpful sometimes. This thread has exposed very different points of view from different camps and schools of thought - which can be helpful for those willing to sift through the nonsense in order to take away a few nuggets they might be interested in retaining.
| ||
| Post removed |
