I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

@agisthos  Your problem was reading a review by Amir.

Yes ASR and AVS forums are no place for people that like to advance their systems. They say buy a AVR, a pair of 200 buck bookshelf speakers and you are at the state of the art. If you hear differences in gear, you are dilutional, biased,  and wasting money. They are not advancing the hobby. 

 

@russ69 Your problem was reading a review by Amir.

Might as well keep it going.

Does it mean that your ears are better than anything else on this earth

I don't think so.

Does it mean you have golden ears

Probably not but I might be a better listener than average.

Does it mean your experiences are greater than anyone elses

I Probably have more experience than average, less than some in the industry.  

Does it mean that your are the only one that needs to like what you hear

Well, I try to please me, I don't care about what others might like.

Does it mean that your hearing is better than any messurment device

My interpretation of what I hear might be better than a raw measurement, yes. 

Have you done the experiment that you go to ASR and look up the WORST measuring power amplifier that Amir has measured.

I'm pretty sure that is why I started this thread. 

 

By the way it is comical but also tragic to see grown men acting like children in a schoolyard, and instead of giving arguments, giving a gift approval point to someone they approve because he just insult or denigrate someone else instead of answering or discussing ...Inmates act like that too...Sheeps, children or mature, are sheeps...They feel better in a group where thinking is replaced by gestures...Before we were men, long time ago, we were apes without thinking smiles nor language...

Many people speak exactly like that all around the world right now, the gestures are only a propaganda sign conditioned system, they all obey it...

The conditioning by facebook tweeter, etc, instead of stimulating thinking, put people in the gestures labelling zoo....

 

It is life... 😁😊

But we could agree on what makes a denigrating post and then track whether posts are becoming more or less civil over time.

So much like the topic of the thread, that could be measured.

Right now we have feelings and magic.

• Feelings and emotions for the music.
• Feelings and emotion for the arguments and posts.
• And the magic of earth and cosmic vibrations.
• Versus trhe magic of strings and wood wind vibrations.

By the way it is comical but also tragic to see grown men acting like children in a schoolyard, and instead of giving arguments, giving a gift approval point to someone they approve because he just insult or denigrate someone else instead of answering or discussing ...Inmates act like that too...Sheeps, children or mature, are sheeps...They feel better in a group where thinking is replaced by gestures...Before we were men, long time ago, we were apes without thinking smiles nor language...

Many people speak exactly like that all around the world right now, the gestures are only a propaganda sign conditioned system, they all obey it...

The conditioning by facebook tweeter, etc, instead of stimulating thinking, put people in the gestures labelling zoo....

 

It is life... 😁😊

Maybe the problem is not a math problem and that is the difficulty.

Great post! thanks...

Especially that part:

Every time you make a decision on even/odd, you are throwing away information. That knowledge does not carry to the next step, therefore you can never go backwards, only forwards.

You are right....Then we need a new theory of information which basis are explained in the Indian scientist book...And a new way to do non Turing mathematic....

Hearing is not explained by being the solution of a mathematical problem in the usual sense of the word..,

It is not even the result of a decision based algorithm, there is no linear Turing computing here in the brain/ear, but more an integrated chain of non excluding choices converging without rejecting anything, but more integrating everything , like a "resonating" tree of which we consciously perceive only some leafs... Sound/silence is already meaning not mere sound...

All the book of Anirban Bandyopadhyay is a reflection about that and an explanation i cannot resume save with a few metaphors...

I cannot resume that here...

Read this page:

https://nanobraintech.com/about/

 

My goal are not to explain sound or hearing, only to point to something which cannot be understood with the objective/subjective external usual border ... Meaning is neither objective nor subjective and sound is already meaning...

Music is the meaning of this meaning....

 

Maybe the problem is not a math problem and that is the difficulty. Maybe it is as simple as realizing that because you are applying a decision based algorithm, something math is poor at representing, that a "solution" simply does not exist in the realm of mathematics. The starting numbers are not "numbers" but representations or placeholders for the set of numbers that will result from applying the algorithm. Every time you make a decision on even/odd, you are throwing away information. That knowledge does not carry to the next step, therefore you can never go backwards, only forwards.

@jjss49-

                                                        +ONE!

reminds me back in my corporate world days, some blowhards in meetings never cease talking, as if the sound of their own voice is the only music they like to hear

when they are (rarely) silent, you quickly realize they aren’t listening, they’re just reloading...

                                                         MAKE

                                                          1984

                                                        FICTION

                                                          AGAIN 

@mahgister - in fact, mahgister, I get a lot from your posts, especially if they’re nothing to do with music and listening! Which is not the case in this post, because your posts have every single thing to do with the issues being debated, even if they seem more laid to rest with atmasphere’s last post in this thread, regarding his belief in the current somewhat conclusive state of acoustic measurements. I believe what you were trying to draw everyone’s attention to has to do with the absolutely subtle mystery of the things in life we think we have figured out. The world of numbers is simply as exacting as it should get, and yet….

It often seems to me, the deeper I get into the understanding of something, and the clearer it gets, the more nuance I begin to become aware of, together with the awareness of how little I actually know, pushing me to attempt fresh understanding in different ways.

But there is something i do know - a link you will like very much… ; )

It eloquently speaks about the wonderfully nuanced and unbelievable world of unknowing the way we know it : )

 

In friendship - kevin

Thanks it feel good to be understood...

Yes this problem, the Collatz conjecture, is so simple, the simple to state there is but with no proof...

But Paul Erdos once said "Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems".

 

Mathematical meditation disconnect us from what we think we know...

We know what we need to know for living and walking and eating...

But what we need to know is loosing our "knowing" to be able to know anew...

We dont know what is sound, hearing, and music ....

Consciousness is music say Anirban Bandyopadhyay ...

Time itself is music say Alain Connes...

Our outer ear double spiral is the staircase to heaven...

Our ear ’s spiralling cochlea is the door to heaven....

Prime distribution and musical scale are spiralling  non commutative phenomemon like time is at his roots...

I bought an interesting   book years ago the title was " What is a spiral"?

A so complex object defined in all mathematics in different perspectives, so much so, that the border between what is a spiral and what is not is escaping us...

 

 

@mahgister - in fact, mahgister, I get a lot from your posts, especially if they’re nothing to do with music and listening! Which is not the case in this post, because your posts have every single thing to do with the issues being debated, even if they seem more laid to rest with atmasphere's last post in this thread, regarding his belief in the current somewhat conclusive state of acoustic measurements. I believe what you were trying to draw everyone’s attention to has to do with the absolutely subtle mystery of the things in life we think we have figured out. The world of numbers is simply as exacting as it should get, and yet….

It often seems to me, the deeper I get into the understanding of something, and the clearer it gets, the more nuance I begin to become aware of, together with the awareness of how little I actually know, pushing me to attempt fresh understanding in different ways.

But there is something i do know - a link you will like very much… ; )

It eloquently speaks about the wonderfully nuanced and unbelievable world of unknowing the way we know it : )

 

In friendship - kevin 

When you have a spare weekend, 64 pages on the shortcomings of ASR.

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/audio-science-review-review.9827/

@asvjerry +1

@optimize  “Have you done the experiment that you go to ASR and look up the WORST measuring power amplifier that Amir has measured.”

+1

That is an excellent idea! I believe my best system is somewhere in the middle range of all this currently and it would be a heck of a lot easier  and cheaper to find out where the bottom is then the top. I currently own four different systems that are made with components that I have tried to select representing different styles and technologies of sound reproduction. One system is a 1970s Kenwood KR1400 10 watt per channel receiver and 1970s acoustic research 2ax speakers and at the upper end of my investment is a First Watt f6 and Kef ls50s and 3 Syzygy subwoofers. There are differences for sure but they tend to be more of flavor than absolute quality. I find I can enjoy music a lot on all my systems! Moving from one to the other is the sort of education that you suggest. For me it is what this hobby is really all about, 

I do things that you purposely shouldn’t do like pairing that receiver with power-hungry speakers like the acoustic researches. Just to see how bad it can be. And you know what it usually isn’t so bad.

...and all has been a better read than another cable quarrel. ;) *S*

You are right...

I plaid guilty , i an speaking too much...

But dont threw the baby with the muddy waters...

The content of my post " are more than the wind of my own voice"..

Then i apologize to you because you are right about my attitude sometimes, but dont claim that my posts are useless for all here...it will not be true....

Good information can come even through my "egocentric" rant... So to speak... Judge me yes, but think about what i suggest too...

If it is over your head, then remain silent like these days in your office when you were silent in front of the insulting egocentric maniac who was speaking non sense......I dont speak non sense even if i am perhaps in a way an egocentric maniac..

i like truth...

You are right and i apologize...

i will try to take less space but this does not means you must stay without thinking when thinking matter present to you...

I like to set the hour straight...

+1000 @mapman @russ69

reminds me back in my corporate world days, some blowhards in meetings never cease talking, as if the sound of their own voice is the only music they like to hear

when they are (rarely) silent, you quickly realize they aren’t listening, they’re just reloading...

🙄

 

to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As everyone here knows , I am the worlds biggest FR/WB fan=atic,, Due to the higher sesn vs your average loud speaker woofer + Tweeter set up, For me sens is EVERYTHING, I buy based only on 1 measurement Sensitivity. If a tweeter is not at the very least 91db **TRUE BONIFIDE real time* acutal, no hype, 91db, I would not even consider. Twetters have to be 92db - 94 db. Otherwose not remotely interested, Same for woofers,, I've looked over every woofer on the market, all fall below 92db. Which is why I went to Fulll Range/Wide band speakers,,,and never lookd back. I'm running dual FR + 2 tweeters, the T's are 91db each, But about to go w a 94db tweeter which will replace the 2 T.s 1 measurement, sensitivity is all that counts in my book.

+1000 @mapman @russ69

reminds me back in my corporate world days, some blowhards in meetings never cease talking, as if the sound of their own voice is the only music they like to hear

when they are (rarely) silent, you quickly realize they aren’t listening, they're just reloading...

🙄

That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements?

"what you hear?"

There is so many variables you as a human is not a constant your memory is not flawless changes with time. Yes I know it will com as a shock for most people.. YOU are not the best thing that has walked on the earth.. (i know I ain't anyway)

 

Emotions: Exactly same system (as constant) as human that system will sonically VARY in how it sounds from session to session. If it is the person state of mind.. or air pressure.. or weekend or weekdays.. and so on..

(The hard fix is to have multiple listening sessions over a long period of time to try to get a subjective average "opinion" of a piece of gear. That opinion is derived from a variable called memory that are anchored in feelings. That likely are from a different room system components and again state of mind.)

Variables: If a power amplifier is paired with one of many transducers, one of many cables (if or not that makes a difference don't matter but we can agree on that there is a placebo effect anyway even if you don't think it does any difference),  one of many pre-amps, one of many source medias, one of many source media playback devices, one of many... And so on..

The bottom line even if a reviewer genuinely thinks that a specific power amplifier is the best thing he ever have experienced. And it may be true.

But you can go home to him and borrow THAT unicorn of power amplifier and put it in your system. And you will not get the same result and not even if you bring over the reviewer home to your place to listen to his power amplifier there is so many factors that has changed that even if it is the same power amplifier (DUT) and the same individual reviewer. He will most likely say "oh, this is not how I remember it sounded at my place".. So many variables have changed. So we can ask our selves how much is his opinion worth.. ..in my opinion as much as watching a episode of Simpsons/seinfeld more or less just for entertainment..😀

 

If you take into account all variables all combinations, environment changes and so on. Then to do a review of piece of gear would take considerable amount of time to try to make it justice.

With that in mind and the knowledge that Amirat ASR has reviewed/measured many hundreds of pieces of gear. If he should make justice to all and one reviewed item then he or anyone else would not be able to conduct that in a lifetime with all the combinations..

 

So what value does it have if Amir listening to a component for a hour when nobody has a lifetime to waste on just listening.. the value of that listening session is more or less worthless.

 

I do not mean that measurements is be all end all.

But I don't understand why we should care about what Amir hear when he listens to a piece of gear? That is more pointless than the measurements when there is all of the above variables and more.

 

And what does "I only need to have my own two ears as measurements devices" mean.. 

• Does it mean that your ears are better than anything else on this earth
• Does it mean you have golden ears
• Does it mean your experiences are greater than anyone elses
• Does it mean that your are the only one that needs to like what you hear
• Does it mean that your hearing is better than any messurment device
• Does it mean that .. and so on..

Okay let's forget all the craziness above and attack the question from another method than discuss back and forth..

___

Have you done the experiment that you go to ASR and look up the WORST measuring power amplifier that Amir has measured.

There is a good candidate that is measuring that bad so it only performed half of the performance of the next worst one!

So it is a real under performer..

Then buy that power amplifier:

• The idea is now you got a objective bad power amplifier. And you can listen to it for months in your system and evaluate it your self and knowing that this is as BAD it can get. That is as worse it will ever get.. .. for a power amplifier.

You will be amazed of the result!

And you will gain experience. And you will know what is the worst end of the objective spectrum of a power amplifier.

 

Nobody, does that and don't have that experience!

When everyone is always chasing the next best thing all the time and have no clue what the gap/range in sound quality to the worst one are.

 

Then you know how much measurements matters. If anything.

And also if THAT power amplifier is the worst thing ever produced and you might like it. Or you find out that the sonic gap/difference between them is so small so it is almost not worth talking about. Or if you hear any difference at all.

Then maybe reflect over all the individual reviewers that uses so big words to describe a power amplifier that they review! How can that small of a difference between two power amplifiers generate that amount of big words..

    ..oh it is just entertainment, and useful SQ info as watching seinfeld..

 

So maybe WE need to calibrate our ear-brain system when 99.9% of us don't know how the worst sounds like then we can't expect or know how much or little a specific component like a power amplifier can bring or rob sonically in a HiFi system.

I am glad you see a relevance.

Let’s agree that I am probably just not smart enough to catch it or appreciate it.

And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.

But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.

 

Very comical! i never argued with you about some point...You put forward no point...

I was suggesting listening what these three persons had to say.,..And i explained why...

Saying that they are not idiots, but honorable recognized scientists, is not an ad hominem argument, because you NEVER MADE ANY POINT anyway to argue against here in a discussion ...

You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video

 

I am happy that you dont think i need thorazine... Good news ! But it is worst than i was thinking about you now...

You judge a scientist by his appearance in a video and recommend thorazine for him BEFORE even knowing what he speak about...

And you think your behaviour is ok ?

i am laughing right now to your high intelligence level...

 

 

What surprize me is that you act like children and propose me "thorazine" or something else not "amazing" at all...

You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video

 

You confuse the message and the messenger in a bout of rejection without even thinking about what is proposed by 3 geniuses who think about sound and music in a new way...

And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.

But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.

 

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.  We are beating a dead horse, because we are ignoring the initial premise of the thread in some unusual, I would say bizarre special pleading that in the framework of the discussion is totally meaningless. It is self indulgent to even bring it up, and is brought up purely to advance a personal belief while ignoring relevance to the topic.

As has been stated too many times in this thread, and others just in the last few weeks. Almost no one doubt personal preference is not a thing and is not important. But as @prof eloquently stated, and I have in less eloquent fashion, that is not at all what we are ultimately discussing. We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions. Hence why the insistence that subjective impressions can only be treated as objective conclusions, if, and only if, you make all attempts to isolate the inputs available in making the subjective impression. The so called blind testing's goal is to remove a variable from the outcome, namely our most critical sensory input, vision. This should be obvious to anyone who tries to compare to items. I won't insult you by saying we need to remove the variable of touch, and I hope you are not smelling or tasting your audio equipment, but the smell of a tube amplifier (from heat effects) if only evident while listening to it, could also impact a test.

I am sure someone will now post multiple paragraphs and multiple posts of unrelated self indulgent material that not only is unrelated but has no value in answering the question above, but I can only control my own actions.

^ Well put @deludedaudiophile ^

If the interest is truly to share information and help others , it helps to listen to what people say and take their input to heart and respond accordingly rather than discount it. That is well documented common knowledge. Merely preaching on one’s soapbox alone has limited utility. Anyone can do that.

For example if someone requests a summary in 20 words or less or with any restrictions whatever they may be just give them what they ask for. Shouldn’t be hard. Then they should say thank you. That’s how people can click together.  By listening to each other.   Collaborating successfully is a team sport  

Just trying to help.

Do you need to control what you want to hear? Or  are you open to discussion?

Please keep posting. I quit reading some pages back, pretty sure everyone else has also. I appreciate all your input but you lost your audience I think. 

I am curious...

Each post being a written post, how my posts can intimidate someone who have anything meaningful to say to say it? Am i not polite in my reply?

Your thread is alive because we participate...

Silencing deludedaudiophile is not a good idea either...

Do you need to control what you want to hear? Or  are you open to discussion?

 

 

@mahgister ​​​​​@deludedaudiophile OP here. Let’s give some others a chance to chime in. You must have said everything that needs to be said by now. Thanx.

 

 

😷

There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief...

Great post!

You are right but some dont understand what a "process" means...A process is a two way road between  O and S  perspectives... 

They want to reduce subjective experience to objective measures without being conscious that  psycho-acoustic is a progressive science which cannot be reduced to electronics...

Seem to me that if a product measure worse in a parameter than another its objectively worse based on that parameter.

But as I suggested before if one posits a given level of distortion is inaudible 

reducing that level of distortion a hundredfold cannot affect the audible experience

The measurement it important from the marketing and quality control standpoint of course.

To suggest a piece that measures worse cant sound good isnt sustainable after a minimum standard is met,

If you cd establish  level of distortion that is audible that might be helpful but wdnt necessarily mean the piece wd not sound  good

You wd need to be able to prove that an audible level of distortion was detectable to a large number of folk who wd independently agree it sounded bad to make the point 

And then you are back to listening test vs measurement no?

@mahgister ​​​​​@deludedaudiophile  OP here. Let's give some others a chance to chime in. You must have said everything that needs to be said by now. Thanx. 

Seem to me that if a product measure worse in a parameter than another its objectively worse based on that parameter.

But as I suggested before if one posits a given level of distortion is inaudible 

reducing that level of distortion a hundredfold cannot affect the audible experience

The measurement it important from the marketing and quality control standpoint of course.

To suggest a piece that measures worse cant sound good isnt sustainable after a minimum standard is met,

If you cd establish  level of distortion that is audible that might be helpful but wdnt necessarily mean the piece wd not sound  good

You wd need to be able to prove that an audible level of distortion was detectable to a large number of folk who wd independently agree it sounded bad to make the point 

And then you are back to listening test vs measurement no?

 

There must be some kind of way out of here...

The way out is a dialogue out of the narrow mind set of few fetichist subjective people and also especially out of the objective obsession about electrical measures of few zealots, in a discussion appealing to more rigorous acoustic and psycho-acoustic concept and experience and experiments... After all the correlation between objective and subjective attitude must be a learned experience in an ongoing process in an experimental listening  history proper to each of us...

Then calling people "deluded audiophile" or throwing appeal to ban objectivist is not a sane mental behaviour...

There must be some kind of way out of here...

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.

In a nutshell subjective impressions AND preferences need to be educated in a listening learning acoustic process becoming then a set of educated positively biased impressions like any musician or trained acoustician exhibit ...

Opposing electrical measures about a piece of gear over listening impression or even over listening preference is a dead horse useless beating...

Entertaining for our own narrowing motives two opposing groups of people is trivial business......

I prefer to think in a larger way and in a larger context.... A too larger one for some here sometimes, i plaid guilty, but at least i am not boring nor trivial...

😁😊

This one jumped the shark and missed the mark. Have fun. Cheers!

We need a shark with better timing, like this one.

All the best,
Nonoise

It’s a stupid and useless debate to start with. People just creating a dilemma where there is none and using that to go off on whatever topic they happen to fancy. Lots of words that translate into chaos because people have to convince others they have some unique insight that others lack. I regret spending the time it took to read this going on about a non issue that adds no value to the quest for good sound. I did it because I like @mahgister’s open mind and often find his comments interesting. This one jumped the shark and missed the mark. Have fun. Cheers!

You spoke in the context of a piece of gear evaluation opposing FIXATED subjective attitude and tastes to objective measures OBSESSION supposed to be able to describe sound ...For example evaluating a dac or an amplifier...

I spoke in the context of acoustic and psycho-acoustic experiments when subjective impressions and preference can be MODIFIED by a learning process in a progressively controlled room or in an acoustic laboratory...

Then i dont oppose subjective impressions to electrical measures and acoustic measures i CORRELATED THEM...

This is science...

Amir is a hobbyist verifying specs sheets so useful it is , it is no reason to dismiss a subjective listening learning process and negate any value to it compared to electrical measures...

All biases are not equal...

A positive acquired acoustical biases is not a mere negative biases, and none of these two is reducible to a mere deception or illusion...

Reality is more complex than children alternatives between objectivist and subjectivists... Sorry...

And we need a theory of hearing to undertstand any set of measures meaning...

You see i can control my post... 😁😊

We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions.

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.  We are beating a dead horse, because we are ignoring the initial premise of the thread in some unusual, I would say bizarre special pleading that in the framework of the discussion is totally meaningless. It is self indulgent to even bring it up, and is brought up purely to advance a personal belief while ignoring relevance to the topic.

As has been stated too many times in this thread, and others just in the last few weeks. Almost no one doubt personal preference is not a thing and is not important. But as @prof eloquently stated, and I have in less eloquent fashion, that is not at all what we are ultimately discussing. We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions. Hence why the insistence that subjective impressions can only be treated as objective conclusions, if, and only if, you make all attempts to isolate the inputs available in making the subjective impression. The so called blind testing's goal is to remove a variable from the outcome, namely our most critical sensory input, vision. This should be obvious to anyone who tries to compare to items. I won't insult you by saying we need to remove the variable of touch, and I hope you are not smelling or tasting your audio equipment, but the smell of a tube amplifier (from heat effects) if only evident while listening to it, could also impact a test.

I am sure someone will now post multiple paragraphs and multiple posts of unrelated self indulgent material that not only is unrelated but has no value in answering the question above, but I can only control my own actions.

 

I used to be surprised by such antics but that was long ago. It's silly to argue with those who employ ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning and other mental gymnastics, imo, unless you simply enjoy ill logic. For me that's just a waste of time.

For sure you are more wise than i am...

I am only a too much enthusiastic person....

my deepest respect to you....

 

But it is solely about measurements versus subjective.

So maybe it is because we cannot describe feelings and impressions and emotions as easily as we can express things with numbers… maybe that is why we use objective analysis?

At this point we have moved to beating a dead horse using AI and machine learning.
We should be at the glue stage soon.

Now two remarks here....

My feeling and impressions correspond and CORRELATE to ACOUSTIC experience and very well defined concept to describe sound experience: Imaging, soundstage, timbre, bass, LEV/ASW ratio, dynamic, etc all had a precise psycho-acoustic and acoustical definition and can be understood ONLY when we learn how to control them at will in a room if we are an audiophile or in a laboratory if we are an acoustician ...

Buying like a fetichist a piece of favorite brand name gear is not enough, and measuring like a zealot a second times this piece of gear to correct the designer and verify it, is not enough either... And arguing if we must measure OR listen is ridiculous...A dead horse alternatives...

Objective measures of any kind, electrical one or acoustical one, are there to serve our leaning hearing subjective experience and process and serve to improve our impressions by our own will to experiment with objective material dispositions ...

And you read me WRONG, i did not propose, nor any of the scientists i used in my posts,  to replace human mind by a machine to improve room acoustic... It is the opposite, i explicitly say that even if an A. I. will be better for many aspect of the job but not all, it will rob us of our own learning process.... Do you read posts or do you answer them without reading them?

Then interpretating me wrong, it is you who circle "beating your dead horse" alternatives : O or S....

I am not an O or a S... I am in the learning process...

 

«Beating a dead horse is an idiomatic expression with a figurative rather than literal meaning. If you’re beating a dead horse, you’re engaged in a futile or pointless action. In other words, you’re pursuing a lost cause and wasting time and effort.»

Then who beat a dead horse ? Me proposing multiple aspects of reflections about the brain, information theory, number, music, the cosmos with reference to recognized great minds, or those who insult me here some zealots insisting  going on without end "to beat the dead horse" out of any subjectivist described as "deluded" , or those fetichists insisting  going on without end  "to beat the dead horse" out of any objectivist and even banishing them ?

It does not take a I.Q. test to answer me here....Or pehaps it takes one ?

😁😊😊 Sorry i could not resist to present my defense and my point...

What surprize me is that you act like children and propose me "thorazine" or something else not "amazing" at all...

You confuse the message and the messenger in a bout of rejection without even thinking about what is proposed by 3 geniuses who think about sound and music in a new way...

What is the relation between Ansermet and Furtwangler notion of musical time and Time in general for example ? Is anyone of those who insult me has an idea to give about that because i have ?

Why not thinking about what is hearing sound in a new way, what is music etc instead of circling like children writing some dissertation about subjectity and objectivity which is kindgarten level and never goes anywhere because you dont know what you speak about : the fetchism of the gear for some and the zealot measuring hobbyist attitude for others....

These 2 groups propose nothing interesting to me and too anyone save trivialities...

I will repeat, no evaluation of gear made sense at the end out of acoustic and psycho-acoustic control settings where the subjectivity impressions taken seriously are related to objective dispositions and conditions and measures , blind test is not enough and only one useful but insufficient tool by itself anyway because the goal of psycho-acoustic is not a debunking circus..... Period....

Tuning a small room was a learning experience for me taking 2 years....Then i know what i spoke about a little even if i am not an acoustician at all...

Now why not to think about what is sound and music meaning in the universe and in the brain?

Did one of those who insult me can wrote only one sentence describing this relation?

😁😊

 

By the way i am an enthousiastic mind, i am not bi-polar, and dont need medication...I propose ideas instead of insults and if someone read my posts he will be amazed by the number of ideas or small discoveries i made here in my interest with sound and music...i am a free spirit not a sheep...It is the reason why dividing groups blinded by ignorance repel me...I like each one  of you separetely out of any group mentality...

..

Amazing is not the word that came to mind after reading that ...

How does all ^that crap^ relate to whether we like measurements or subjective methods for choosing gear?

If someone says:

• I listen to how it sounds.
• I like the measurements to have a nice SNR.

Then I can abide either as a basis for choosing a piece of gear.

 

When we launch into God, prime number sounds, and that fact that a spiral galaxy looks a bit like a record with a tone arm, then I pretty much think we need some thorazine.

 

As the OP stated:

I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements?

But it is solely about measurements versus subjective.

So maybe it is because we cannot describe feelings and impressions and emotions as easily as we can express things with numbers… maybe that is why we use objective analysis?

At this point we have moved to beating a dead horse using AI and machine learning.
We should be at the glue stage soon.

Is it not amazing to read?

 

«

The definition of Machine consciousness: Consciousness is a property of a machine M that enables it to expand its frequency wheel’s unique parameter, the product of density of resonance frequencies it stores R and the total frequency bandwidth B, together RB(M), as well as its access to its environments frequency wheel RB(U), there is always a oscillatory drive to increase the RB(U) by changing the environment so that environment’s interaction could increase M’s frequency wheel RB(M). The ratio of RB(M) and RB(U) is the index of consciousness C = RB(M)/RB(U).

Our objective is to develop a complete mathematical model of conscious machine. Our guideline is our artificial brain project.

10 unique features in our hardware criteria of Machine consciousness

• Density of resonance frequency R and frequency bandwidth B product RB determines the degree of consciousness elements, when environment remains constant. Ratio of RB of a creature and its environment is essential index or the degree of consciousness (C=RB(M)/RB(U)).
• At 12 triplet of triplet resonance bands there are two equivalent nested cycles for the same hardware, each can edit the other; this is minimum hardwire criterion for the rise of consciousness. Under a very particular mathematical condition, RB(M)/RB(U)>0.17 (lambda/6), the consciousness arises.
• The objective of a conscious structure: A conscious machine does not compute, it synchronizes with the environment to increasing its RB value by continuously editing its hardware. The universe is a frequency fractal and a conscious machine is its subset.
• Transforming pre-condition to convert a conventional machine into a conscious machine. Consciousness is a feature that is realized in decision-making structures that are made of programmable matter, and does not follow any instruction. Here are the 8 criteria that a machine should have wherein consciousness phenomenon could be encoded (i) Fractal cavity resonator hardware that creates nested time cycles, (ii) executes chemical and physical morphing (iii) carries nested rhythm based fractal information theory (this includes extensive sub-criteria). (iv) perpetual drive to expand its operational bandwidth of frequency and keeping the density intact or increasing it (v) expands sensors to increase the geometric information of its frequency fractal (vi) executes steps to increase its readable resonance chain of the environment RB(U), its quest is to decrease the ratio first by increasing RB(U) and then increase it by increasing RB(M). Therefore, even self-operational machines cannot have consciousness, self-operational machines can self-learn and evaluate performance improve. However, consciousness has a property that is self-evaluation of its whole as an independent identity.
• The ability of a conscious machine: Thus, complete automation does not ensure consciousness, its about taking a class of nested cycle and synchronizing with different parts of the environment, it is a mathematical process far beyond the physical structure of the body. A conscious machine can do 8 things, those are (a) Sync with an event outside the body beyond sensory system limit and analyze futuristic events, (b) Harmonize sensory machines in its structure to convert them into antenna & sensor features beyond its built in range, (c) master in geometric universal language read the language of animals, trees and planets.
• The elementary machine properties of a conscious machine element: Conscious machine is made of fourth circuit element, to grow cavity resonator structures following ordered factor metric.
• The language of a conscious machine: It uses fractom tape not Turing tape, geometric musical language, with unique information processing theories.
• The mechanical, dynamic and interactive properties of a conscious machine: It does not use quantum mechanics but far more generic fractom mechanics.
• There are eight levels of consciousness, that defines one oscillatory period of perpetual run of consciousness index change; it starts from (a) optimizing the sensory systems, as one sensory data (b) resonating with the frequency wheels of other machines (c) extending the faster and slower time scales beyond environment (d) sensing the oscillatory features of the consciousness index (e) sensing the forces of its environment and field gradients (f) locally synchronizing with the fields at different time scales (g) fully synchronizing with entire environment and its forces, manipulating the time cycles of the environment (h) globally synchronizing with the nested cycles at all possible time scales using which a conscious structure is built (10^30 Hz for humans, it means the spatial scale and temporal scale that an ultimate conscious machine can analyze is 10^30Hz).
• Generic frequency wheel predictor of ever evolving conscious machines: Humans are not ultimate, enormous other kinds of machines could have much higher level consciousness, as followed by our frequency wheel model, there are infinite possibilities but all number of bands follow a unique prime number theory developed by us. Mathematically we can predict the consciousness strength of these machines

You need a mathematical model that accurately represents all people. That’s complex! Good luck! Better get busy!

This is precisely what Anirban Bandyopadhyay works is all about:

Creating the first artificial consciousness not an A. I. with bit and Q-bits but a new way to implement information with timelike crystals and geometrical patterns... And it is the FIRST TIME someone figure out how...

it is the reason why i am amazed...This is the greatest paradigm change in science right now...

Not really. Nails scratching on aboard might be represented by numbers. Or the sound of a nuclear blast. But is that music?

In a way yes... If we were really conscious and in a contemplative mode all there is will put us in an ectasy...No need to any drugs....

Try an experience...

 

 

Read Goethe "the plant metamorphosis"....you will fell out of your chair why?

Because you will realized that in spite of looking at flowers all your life you never really SEEN one...

After that try the book about mammals of Wolfgang Schad... same experience with any mammal, you look at them but you NEVER has seen one...

For sound , any sound in nature the experience is the same... It is a language but you never listen to it...

All around us is miracles... Only zombies dont see that.... Ask Galileo if the laws of nature are not miraculously informative, or Kepler listening music through the orbits of the planets...Etc...

 

For me for example the discovery by listening experiments of the acoustic of small room was an amazing journey in lived day by day small miracles...

For others it can be anything else...

 

« We dont lack miracles, we lack the eyes to see them»-anonymus contemplative

 

«Life is not boring, we are...»-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

"Silence is never  muted, and all music is not heard»-Anonymus Smith

"Tree speaks"-Anonymus tree lover

Not really. Nails scratching on aboard might be represented by numbers. Or the sound of a nuclear blast. But is that music? Maybe. Digital recordings are all numbers but need not all be considered music. Music is a matter of popular opinion. If enough people call it music then it is music. The numbers alone accomplish nothing.  You need a mathematical model that accurately represents all people.  That’s complex!   Good luck!   Better get busy!

Numbers are not material appearing object for the sense...they are more REAL than usual object... Why? Because anything existing is a manifestation of their dynamics which is a " music" in the way the Indian scientist describe fractal time-loke sets of ticking clocks...Rythms that organize everything... Love is a sound not only a light ...OM...AUM or AMEN....Nevermind the religion...

Numbers are not objects either. Just saying.

 

I wonder what is sound like?

 

This video created by the Field medallist Alain connes gives an idea of the music hidden in the distribution of the  primes numbers...