Amir refuse to engage on hearing theory in acoustics.😁
He answered only about gear measurements and created discussions about this SECONDARY matter...
Subjectivist takes the bait and gulp it with the line...
😊
What is hearing? and what it is not ?
What do we hear when we hear a sound ?
Is there a difference when human hear speech, stereo playback music and natural sound ?
When we choose a piece of gear and connect it in our system and in our room and for our ears, does it make sense if we see the sheet where Amir has written the verified specs measured again does it make sense to claim that we will be able to predict if the S.Q. will be good or not so ?
The answer is evident it cannot be yes ...
Because there is no linear connection between sound experience and any gear specs ; they are not acoustics measures, then does not means much save for the gear electrical synergy.
Measuring a single speakers did not say anything important about his concrete installation and the resulting acoustic experience but only can confirm what the designer intent was or not with the basic specs.
Amir techno-cultist ideology reflect the state of our social fabric : in shambles because of the gullibility of masses easy to control as sheep going in the "right" direction...
But some are able to read a text in acoustics and makes their own mind and experiments....
And some at least keep secure their only treasure : their ears...
A very deceptive sense according to Amir trained to spot digital artefacts...😊
As if there was a relation between spotting digital artefact and recognizing all sounds in a jungle environment or evaluate any acoustic parameters in a dedicated room for our ears specific psychoacoustics parameters...
All these perceptions about acoustic qualities dont ask for "acuity" as much as they ask for the right concept to be known and recognized...Nobody can recognize and evaluate what he dont know about even if he had sensed it ...
We perceive more, if we had the right acoustic concept nevermind our measured "acuity", than a person with only top notch acuity but no conceptual experience about the sound qualities and meanings he was hearing...
Amir has acuity but does he know how to change for the better the system/room ears experience in an evident way with a bundle of straws or some empty toilet paper or plastic roll?😎
Does he understand how work mechanical crossfeed or listener envelopment ?
No because he need to compute each parameters separately for dimensions, geometry, size, location, and there is no simple recipe to compute it optimally for all room geometry, size, topology and all acoustic content, and all room pressure zone locations ( too much factors non linearly linked together ). We need our ears/brain trained with basic acoustics concepts if we want to recognize the S.Q. parameters interaction and their resulting meanings at the end.
Anyway discussing with him about gear specs measures will only comfort his digital ideology...
Amir is not even wrong here ...😊
Amir sell gear pieces...
He does not sell knowledge and experiments ...
Nothing will be wrong with that but his ideology about the measures presented as the only truth is the problem...
|
Whoever started this thread must be a real ignorant jerk and should probably be banned.
Are you kidding?
It is one of the most helpful people here...
We will ban you or me before banning the OP... 😊
|
Now read this attentively and you will learn why Hans Van Maanen is not in the ASR team but in science :
«The theory of Fourier analysis yields that the inverse Fourier transform of
the complex valued transfer function of any filter, and thus also of our
idealised audio system, equals the Dirac delta function response of the
system in time domain. Note that the impulse response thus tells us more
than the amplitude response of a system, because it contains information
about the amplitude response at ALL frequencies (not only those between 20
Hz and 20 kHz) and about its phase response, albeit in an implicit way.
.........................................
In other words, any audio system has the tendency to "smear out" the signal
both in amplitude and in time. These effects could reduce subjective
experiences like the "definition" and "transparency" of the perceived
sound. This smearing will always be a degradation of the original sound and
we will try to study its influence on the perceived sound.
........................................................
The temporal decay of high-end analog audio systems is higher than the
decay of digital systems in their present version and consequently the
temporal "smearing" of the formers is less.
.............................................
The superior sound quality of moving coil cartridges over moving magnet
ones is at least partly due to the extended frequency response and higher
temporal decay. Moving magnet cartridges with extended frequency responses
approach the perceived quality of the moving coil cartridges, especially
those which produce a higher output signal (and thus generally speaking
have a lower mechanical resonance frequency). Compensation of the
mechanisms that create the low temporal decay of moving magnet elements
leads to significant improvement of their perceived quality (ref. 1, 2).
One of the better ways to compare analog and digital systems is by lis-
tening to a good copy of an analog recording on disc and the CD made of the
same master tape. If the digital re-processing would not audibly effect the
signal, no difference would be perceivable. Yet, on a high-end audio
system, using e.g. electrostatic loudspeakers for the midrange and high
frequencies, the transparency and clarity of the analog version (half-speed
master copies) invariably showed to be better.
Comparing loudspeaker systems is one of the most difficult and tricky
aspects of audio. Yet, generally speaking, the loudspeakers sounding best
are those with the highest temporal decay. To mention some examples:
electrostatics, ribbon tweeters and last-but-not-least ionophones. Also,
loudspeakers that show a high temporal decay in Wigner distributions
generally sound best.
..........................................................................
The temporal decay seems to be a useful "handle" to get grip on the
temporal behaviour of audio systems and to make a semi-quantitative
comparison. It is an excerpt of the impulse response of a system, which
tells more about a system than its frequency response between 20 Hz and 20
kHz.
High-end audio systems often sound better with analog recordings than with
digital ones. This is at first surprising because of the very high quality
specifications of digital systems. But the temporal decay is one of the few
points at which analog systems beat their digital counterparts and it is
thus a clear hint of its importance.
The behaviour of the amplitude and phase characteristic of an audio system
above 20 kHz. is of importance to its temporal decay and can thus be of
influence on its perceived quality.»
|
It is useless to argue with Amir about one piece of gear and contradict him about his opinion of this piece of gear...
This is a dialiogue between deafs with NO fundamental ARGUMENTS in acoustics...
Van Maanen speak about audio and acoustics...
That is my argument and it contradict all Amir mantra....Which one is serious?
"golden ears" Amir spotting digital artefacts to sell his measuring ideology out of any hearing real knowledge or physicist and acoustician Van Maanen ?😊
|
Now read this by a top physicist in fluid mechanic who is also a top audio designer of world wide fame who also design his own amplifier and speakers:
An innovative approach to suppress the distortion of electronics
Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen (Temporal Coherence)
«Every amplifier, no matter how well made, distorts. Don’t be fooled: the distortion-free amplifier still needs to be invented. The distortion, introduced by electronics, is even at low levels, annoying, which is why all designers strive for an as low as possible distortion level of their brain child. And in order to be able to compare results, the distortion is measured and is expressed in a number, usually a percentage. Sadly enough, in reality this so-called “distortion figure” shows to be indicative at best, but it certainly is not an absolute measure for how we experience the quality of the sound reproduction. This can easily be
demonstrated by a couple of simple examples from daily practice: a loudspeaker commonly distorts at least 0.5%, which is significantly more than the 0.01% of a good semiconductor amplifier. Yet, the misery, introduced by the amplifier, is clearly audible using such loudspeakers. Although valve (tube) amplifiers have distortion figures which are significantly higher than those of semiconductor amplifiers, still a lot of music lovers prefer the sound of valve amplifiers. Also, there is no guarantee that a semiconductor amplifier with 0.001% distortion “sounds” better than one with 0.01% distortion. Unfortunately, we will not be able to dig deeper into the backgrounds of this paradox, but it is important to remember that a
distortion figure is barely informative on the experienced, sonic, quality of an amplifier.»
https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/images/docs/Distortion.pdf
Only this short quote by a scientist as well known as Toole in acoustics destruct all Amir pretense about tube amplifier being bad and S.S. being good ...
Now about the way high frequency signals way over 20KHZ affect sound perception of human :
«In-
audible high-frequency sounds affect brain activity: hypersonic effect.
J Neurophysiol 83: 3548 –3558, 2000. Although it is generally ac-
cepted that humans cannot perceive sounds in the frequency range
above 20 kHz, the question of whether the existence of such “inau-
dible” high-frequency components may affect the acoustic perception
of audible sounds remains unanswered. In this study, we used nonin-
vasive physiological measurements of brain responses to provide
evidence that sounds containing high-frequency components (HFCs)
above the audible range significantly affect the brain activity of
listeners. »
https://linearaudio.net/sites/linearaudio.net/files/high%20freq%20inpact%20on%20brain.pdf
I think Amir need to study acoustics more and digital signals less...
|
other very important consideration about the 20KHZ limits of audibility :
«One of the major problems is that it is fundamentally impossible to determine the
requirements for sound reproduction systems by sound reproduction systems: when something is “inaudible” is this because of the limitation of human hearing or because of the limitation of the sound reproduction system (including the microphone(s), sound recording and storage system)? By designing a sound reproduction system, you have to start somewhere and I have been told numerous times that the 20 kHz limit is based on the Fletcher�Munson curves. Apart from that, although I have deep respect for what people achieved 60 years ago, I seriously doubt that the equipment they had available in those days is superior to human hearing and any conclusions drawn from their work should be critically
examined with our current knowledge, which, however, still leads to conflicting results. So far, I have never heard a sound reproduction system which comes even close to the live performance of a symphony orchestra. So there is still a lot of work to be done and we need deeper understanding of the workings of human hearing. In that perspective, I find the
historic background of the 20 kHz limit less interesting; more interesting is the question whether we need an extended frequency response in order to bridge the gap with the symphony orchestra as this 20 kHz number has penetrated the whole audio business. Just look at the specifications of the different components from microphones to recording equipment to tweeters»
Hans Van Maanen Linear audio vol.5
|
Now to go further read this:
«The discussion on the perceived quality of audio systems often lacks
objective criteria. This is partly due to the subjective experience of the
ill-defined property "quality", covering many aspects, partly to the lack
of understanding of all the properties that influence the perceived
quality. The latter is not synonymous with the technical quality of a
system to begin with.
Disregarding non-linear distortions, the frequency response between 20 Hz
and 20 kHz of a system is very often taken as a major parameter determining
the quality of a sound reproduction system. The basic idea behind this is
the Fourier analysis of sounds, in which any sound wave, no matter how
complicated, can be decomposed into an infinite series of sine and cosine
waves of different frequencies, starting at zero and "ending" at infinity.
The, never mentioned, assumption is that the frequency components above the
hearing limit, usually taken at 20 kHz, do not influence the perceived
sound in any way.
Although this seems a reasonable assumption at first, it is not as
straightforward as one would think. Two aspects play an important role: the
first is that Fourier analysis only holds for linear systems and if there
is one transducer which is non-linear, it is the human ear. In non-linear
systems frequencies not present in the original signal can be generated
and/or other frequencies can acquire more power than in the original sig-
nal. This can easily be demonstrated using a 3 kHz sine wave with 5 periods
on and 5 periods off. Although Fourier analysis tells that 300 Hz is only a
weak component in this signal, it is the strongest one hears. As 300 Hz
corresponds to the envelope of the signal it is not surprising using the
non-linear properties of our ears. It can be concluded that frequencies
above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the
hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the
quality experienced.»
|
Then Amir is a seller of his limited set of tools , his stance on tube amplifier made no sense in acoustics, and his interpretation of the results of his Fourier tools are acoustically meaningless because human hearing dont work as Amir want it to do to sell his marketing measuring site ...
Van Maanen is a scientist known worldwide in audio .
Amir is not...By far.... Even with 2 million visitors...
Science is not made in a marketing site of audio reviews...
|
I am not surprised that i am the only one here Amir do not dare to answer...
Perhaps i am a bit too hard on him with real arguments with real science articles against his main claims...The others attack him on a ground ( his gear specs measures) where no decisive win is possible against him, they gave him " the cable "he need to win easily ...
Why not discussing what hearing a sound quality means in acoustics?
Acoustics rule audio and gear design not Amir measures....
😊
|
So no controlled testing to see if any of the assumptions in the paper are correct.
You adressed NO argument in all the articles i proposed, but jumped on one sentence asking for further studies as a proof that this van Maanen analysis is with no value but your Blind test debunking motivated by digital faith and no psychoacoustics value is truth ...
Excuse me, but do you think all people are idiots ?😊
Incredible!
You discarded a perspective well argumented in many papers with one sentence revealing all the complexities of all is needed to do next to confirm EXPERIMENTALLY his ideas with decade of research , which completely contradict yours by the way, as a "proof" of their non value...
How to twist words out of context and deny any value to someone as reputed than him in acoustics...And giving back no answer about his main argument about time decay and the way the ears/brain work... What about that and what have you to say contradicting it because it is ALREADY proven ?
What about all the others papers of research at least three important one you did not even mention about hearing theory and the way the ears/brain work in his own time domain in a non linear way ?
You are a gentleman when you discuss but politeness dont replace good faith ...
The necessary complexities of comparing playback systems in the same conditions about time decay is very complex as Van Maanen suggested and it is in good faith that after explaining the reason why it is such that time decay is so important he had stated ideas way more better than you and completely opposed to your digital bias about high end system...
He will laugh at your absence of hearing theory save double blind test ...
He will laugh at your simplistic few measures test the way you interpreted them psychoacoustically as if the ears brain merely worked in the linear time domain of the Fourier maps with frequencies responses...
You took his sentence expressing his idea honestly about the necessary and needed research and interpreted it as a devaluation of his arguments by the side of your hand...
Anybody with a brain can see it ... A software engineer selling salad versus an acoustician and physicist as well known as Toole explaining why time decay matter and what it means for the non linear ALREADY PROVED working of human ears/brain in his own time domain ...
All your research consist in double blind test debunking of audiophiles for promotion ...
Pityful...
All that to sell ideology devoid of acoustics meanings based of few Fourier tools without being even conscious of the necessary acoustic context analysis required and related to their interpretation..
You acted like last year after many days of discussion when you attacked the integrity of van Maanen as scientist degrading it to the level of being a mere sellers of gear, this year you are more cautious, you take one sentence twisted it and concluded there is no more discussion and nothing to see and nothing to derive from VERY RECENT psychoacoustics research in the last months i quoted ...
No shame?
Only ASR publicity matter because anyway consumers as me are all ignorants...
😊
I debunked you...
Others who can read articles will conclude ...
|
Because you dont understand how the articles i proposed to explain Amir context and error are above your head you suppose everybody must be like you ?😁
Incredible arrogance accusing me because i propose acoustics articles with explanation to quit ....
Explain to me first why my psychoacoustics articles about the way human hearing works matter not at all to interpret "sound qualities" ... And why electrical specs are enough and all we need to evaluate gear piece... Go...
Why not creating your own thread about Why Amir is right ?
People gangstalk others here as in ASR for the same reason : ignorance... When we have something to say we quote the litterature and we explain why and it is what i did...
Amir nor you did not proposed any other articles contradicting my 5 articles above ... NONE...
Amir play with his graphs but you play with my patience asking me to quit ... I never asked for people able to think rationally to quit...
Try to read the 5 articles and try to understand their relation and you will understand why Amir is wrong with his "science" interpereting his graphs as acoustic truths ...
@mahgister , my friend, Sorry but it all matters. You can talk about human perceivers all day if desired but that is a completely different thing than is being discussed here so it serves to only muddy the waters in this thread. Starting a new thread on that topic specifically would be more appropriate and effective.
|
I don’t need to deconstruct Amir.
Then why so much other insult him non stop WITHOUT giving any scientific argument as i did ?
|
The time domain of the electrical tool in Fourier mapping dont equate the time domain of the ears/brain who work non linearly ...Then what we call a sound quality for a human perceiver cannot be reduced to a Fourier map...Especially not to a few set of specs measured from a detached piece of gear ,,,
Then instead of arguing about the "gear" measure we must understand psychoacoustics...No subjectivist here , neither Amir seems to understood what does it means .. They are all too busy to reduce human hearing to their fetish tool or their prefered vacuum tube amp...
Amir promote ideology as science not because his set of measures are useless "per se" but because he proposed them as crux of the matter without even knowing why this is scientifically false...
Read the articles i suggested above ...At least 5 of them ...
😊
IT's not a crime nor a felony to at least try to take a scientific/measured approach to something, especially something like hifi gear that is purely a result of technology done right or wrong to various degrees.
And yes mapman giving specs measure for what they really are NOT out of any scientific psychoacoustics context about human hearing is ideology and marketing not science... I suppose you had taken the time to read the articles of research i posted BEFORE you read marketing Amir about such and such piece of gear... 😊
i bet you did not....
Then how can you presume to understand ?
|
Hey! Nonoise you hated Amir but it suit you only to give him insults?
We discussed and gave arguments... Amir is wrong but stay polite as a gentleman ... Imitate him ...
Dont infest the thread with non sense post suggesting hate or free sarcasms instead of reason...
I am fed by gangstalking people here ...
|
here another article that can help anybody to understand how our ears/brain work in their own time domain , then Amir measuring ideology crumble to dust because he equate electrical specs measured in Fourier linear domain with truth for human hearing and it is not:
Minimal Bounds on Nonlinearity in Auditory Processing
Jacob N. Oppenheim1, Pavel Isakov1, Marcelo O. Magnasco1
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0513
«Time-reversal symmetry breaking is a key feature of nearly all natural sounds, caused by the physics of sound production. While attention has been paid to the response of the auditory system to “natural stimuli,” very few psychophysical tests have been performed. We conduct psychophysical measurements of time-frequency acuity for both “natural” notes (sharp attack, long decay) and time-reversed ones. Our results demonstrate significantly greater precision, arising from enhanced temporal acuity, for such “natural” sounds over both their time-reversed versions and theoretically optimal gaussian pulses, without a corresponding decrease in frequency acuity. These data rule out models of auditory processing that obey a modified “uncertainty principle” between temporal and frequency acuity and suggest the existence of statistical priors for naturalistic stimuli, in the form of sharp-attack, long-decay notes. We are addition ally able to calculate a minimal theoretical bound on the order of the nonlinearity present in auditory
processing. »
|
and on the other hand we have Mahgister defending his position with saying the same thing (almost incomprehensible)
if you do not understand this simple article at the end of my post as the first of 5 explaining how human hearing cannot be reduced to few electrical specs measure of gear ask me a question instead of accusing me to be incomprehensible ...I will answer WITHOUT insinuation as you just did..
Do you think your love mantra just after insulting insinuation toward me instead of question express good faith ?😊
Instead of insinuating about Amir why not proposing real science as i did to demolish his fragile ideology ?
I myself design also like you my own tweaks but it is useless to speak about that to Amir or his zealots...
only science can talk... Psychoacoustics ... Period...
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
|
However, the way you write and how much you write makes most of us just skip over your posts. You ever notice that practically no one says they read your articles or really replies to what you say?
I spoke for the benefit of ONE or TWO people here who are interested enough by this to really want to understand what is psychoacousyics about...and if i am useful with ONE my posted article i will be justified...
it is better than gangstalking Amir...
Most people dont understand what Amir spoke about anyway they only follow as sheep...
And when they understand the specs they dont understand the psychoacoustic context necessary to interpret them...
Instead of insulting Amir , as most here did, i propose real science...
All my articles are INTERRELATED. from different scientists .. 5 or 6 now...
Then i dont write as you suggested to hear me speaking...because the content is here and speak for itself...
What articles in science are you able to use to deconstruct Amir marketing ?
None...
|
Exposing your ignorance as a mocking joke will not help you ...
Why attacking me instead of reading ONE article ?
If you are unable to understand the short one above why mocking me ?
|
One good fetish deserves another.
---Here electrical specs of gear: A
---Here psychoacoustical characteristic of human hearing about the way our brain extract information from natural sound, because our ears is biased in some time breaking symmetry direction. B
Then to connect A and B we need to know how to measure and design the gear accordingly to these psychoacoustics characteristics...because our brain is wired in some way by evolution to perceive in a non linear way ( with sharp attack, long decay) all sounds in his own time domain ... Then no Fourier maps of gear specs as Amir use them can predict sound quality for our ears evaluation...
Amir said no , we dont need that, only the electrical tools we use are good enough to predict S.Q.
This contradict elementary psychoacoustics research...
Do you get it ?
Stop accusing me of fetichism , you project onto others your own image ...
Grow....And read...
I underline the essential for you to ponder over :
«We have demonstrated that human auditory perception is primed for the shapes of natural sounds,a sharp attack followed by a long decay, corresponding to the physics of natural sound production. We have used simple, direct psychophysical measurements to test for the changes in simultaneous time-frequency acuity after reversing the temporal direction of symmetry-broken pulses, lending credence to,
at the minimum, statistical priors for sharp attack, long decay sounds. Such statistical priors add to the growing body of evidence that human auditory processing is adapted for natural sounds. Not only then is auditory processing inherently nonlinear, these nonlinearities are used to improve perceptual acuity to
sounds that correspond to the physics of natural sound production.»
|
This is just truth. Not an insult.
Ricevs i dont doubt that you are good person at all ...
but i doubt that saying that Amir had an ego is enough to criticize his marketing site ...
i prefer using "incomprehensible" psychoacoustics science articles... 😊
My best to you ...
|
«Lastly, our observations about time-reversal symmetry breaking and the temporal
precision of the auditory system suggest further research into this ecologically-relevant domain.»
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0513
meditate about the last line of this article to understand what means the time breaking symmetry by the brain/ears of the Fourier mapping...
This symmetry breaking is associated with the way the ears/brain break this linear mapping symmetry because evolution for our own survival put us in the mode of tracking immediately the meaning of natural sounds around us...
It is why we are wired to beat the Fourier uncertainty limit in extracting an information Amir claim we cannot ...
But he never answered on this ...
He sold his marketing site not science .
And here some ask for my departure because they prefer hating Amir instead of debunking him with reason ..
What a world when people keep hate for years even if this is not good for their health ...😊
At least Amir never insulted me asking for my departure...
|
Stop projecting! You accused others of fetichism. I just pointed out yours accordingly.
--- Many Subjectivist are fetichist of their gear pieces Brand name as SOLUTION for all ...
This is illustrated by all audio thread...😊 It is not always bad i used statistical analysis of all reviews to buy my gear)
---Many objectivists are fetichists of their own measuring tool and only bought what their tools dictate... ( specs are useful for basic electrical synergy and designing minimal standards of quality thats all they are mostly meaningless to predict sound quality )
If you had read my posts instead of insulting me and asking me to quit , you will know that i use my ears and i use also objective acoustics parameters measures to create my own dedicated room based on Helmholtz principle among other basic acoustics facts..
I never proposed my favorite gear as SOLUTION for the only reason it is my fetish object of choice as others did all the time ( i modified my gear anyway😋) ... And i dont propose my fetish tool as the ONLY solution to gear purchase as Amir does...
i for years advocated for many low cost tweaks ... ( i was insulted for that as thin foil hat )
but i am most interested in acoustics science now because i go deeper in experiments ...
Then if you can think you can see that i am not fetichist about any object, gear or tool , but i am interested by acoustic principle to install the gear and make it work at his optimal level ... ( i modified my headphone and my speakers)
Complete success at peanuts cost thanks to acoustic experiments and other tweaks i designed ..
i promote reading basic acoustics.. ( not just room acoustic basic)
Then i cannot be accused of fetichism because there is no object on which i focus my exclusive interest save science and experiments in acoustic..
Then you insulted me with NO REASON ...
|
Read Edgar Choueiri.
He described the 14 acoustics factors well in an "Absolute Sound" article posted here ...
|
I have seen some subjective review sites rate gear in regards to "attack" and "decay".
That seems reasonable at face value. I would equate attack with good transient response, even if not measured and determined in an error prone subjective manner.
Decay though? Yeah I get teh concept. P
No you dont get it ...
I did not speak about subjective gear evaluation with attack and decay as main analysis parameters as you suggested here. I was speaking about psychoacoustics wiring of brain/ears by evolution history ...
I dont say it is bad to do so evaluating attack and decay ...
But you dont get the point of what this means in acoustics :
We are wired by evolution this way, then the ears/brain is able to extract information , beating the Fourier uncertainty limit, or the Gabor limit, BECAUSE we are wired this way... The acoustic information that we will characterized as "pleasing" and "musical" will be perceived from our own brain time domain not from the linear Fourier time domain on the Amir graph measuring gear pieces ...Our brain break the time symmetry at the root of Fourier mapping... Do you get it ?
Read the articles i suggested...
There is way more in the other articles but if i explained it all i will be gangstalked by some because it will be too long set of posts...
I want accuracy and detail in my sound reproduction. That means low noise and distortion but not just in theory.
I want myself a balance between all 14 characteristcs of acoustic qualities...
You dont want detail and accuracy for the sake of detail and accuracy over any other qualities more than any other acoustic characteristic, save if your system /room is defective... Balance is the Key word because all acoustics 14 parameters go TOGETHER ... For sure you can want anything but i dont want to stay ignorant about acoustics balance between all factors ...
|
It seems i am not so well loved because i post CONTENT... 😊
Not sarcasms...
Not insults...
Not accusations...
FACTS in science ...
Ask yourself why this makes SOME reacted so much ... Even if they dont like Amir but are unable to deconstruct his marketing ideology rationally themselves only using insults ...
😊
I posted ARGUMENTS and articles... Get used to it...
|
For sure.
It is way more interesting short insulting posts..
Or post devoid of any "intellectual" disturbing content ...
😊
|
@mahgister, please don't misstate my background.
I apologize if i did reduce your experience field as it seems. I dont know your exact background.
Then i dont understand why the articles coming from different researchers in acoustics were dismissed by you...
I cannot then invoke ignorance from you ...
Then... it is simple matter for someone with your knowledge...
You cannot extrapolate from electrical gear specs to perception of specific acoustic experience...
These acoustics articles explained why from different point of view...
|
None of your posts have used this decay measurement to show better fidelity.
you miss completely the argument...
It is not about measurement here... He explained why it is very difficult to measure this without very serious research... You dismissed it without even getting the main point BECAUSE IT SUIT YOU..😊
The main point is here :
«We have demonstrated that human auditory perception is primed for the shapes of natural sounds,a sharp attack followed by a long decay, corresponding to the physics of natural sound production. We have used simple, direct psychophysical measurements to test for the changes in simultaneous time-frequency acuity after reversing the temporal direction of symmetry-broken pulses, lending credence to,
at the minimum, statistical priors for sharp attack, long decay sounds. Such statistical priors add to the growing body of evidence that human auditory processing is adapted for natural sounds. Not only then is auditory processing inherently nonlinear, these nonlinearities are used to improve perceptual acuity to
sounds that correspond to the physics of natural sound production.»
This fact that human hearing trained by evolution makes us able to extract information over the Fourier uncertainty limit ,( because of this symmetry breaking disposition making us sensible or biased toward to Attack-decay time),
this fact make preposterous ANY CLAIM about the reduction of any auditory experience a consequence predicted by only a few set of measures on some piece of gear evaluated in the context of the Fourier linear mapping.
Then your pretense to predict sound quality with your narrow set of measures is preposterous... our ears/brain work non linearly in his own time domain...The sound quality cannot be predicted from the reading of the specs of a piece of gear interpreted in a linear context with simple tools. ... We cannot replace hearing...
this is why Van Maanen insisted on the importance of taking into account the way our hearing work:
«The, never mentioned, assumption is that the frequency components above the
hearing limit, usually taken at 20 kHz, do not influence the perceived
sound in any way.
Although this seems a reasonable assumption at first, it is not as
straightforward as one would think. Two aspects play an important role: the
first is that Fourier analysis only holds for linear systems and if there
is one transducer which is non-linear, it is the human ear. In non-linear
systems frequencies not present in the original signal can be generated
and/or other frequencies can acquire more power than in the original sig-
nal.
This can easily be demonstrated using a 3 kHz sine wave with 5 periods
on and 5 periods off. Although Fourier analysis tells that 300 Hz is only a
weak component in this signal, it is the strongest one hears. As 300 Hz
corresponds to the envelope of the signal it is not surprising using the
non-linear properties of our ears. It can be concluded that frequencies
above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the
hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the
quality experienced.»
All this demonstrate the complete futility to PREDICT sound quality by measuring with Fourier linear tool some aspects of the gear piece ...
We must listen...
And why we must listen it is because the human ears dont work as ASR order it , it work as Magnasco and Oppenheim experiments reveal it : it extract too much information to obey Fourier uncertainty mathematical limit. Then it work non linearly in his time domain as evolution has designed us.
Then your set of electrical measures so useful they could be CANNOT PREDICT sound quality experience... Your stance is ideological not rooted in acoustics science ...
|
Amir you completely distorted what i said and Van Maanen said...
i was not thinking about measurements...
Van Maanen and all the other articles you dare to forgot i used here (5) are about the context of listening psychoacoustics measurement not about specific gear measurements ...
I spoke of the reason why in psychacoustics concerning what we hear and the information we retrieve in any sound phenomenon your measures of the gear so good they can be and i never contest this point, as others here did, so good they could be cannot be used to predict the quality of sound aqnd it is YOUR MARKETING CLAIM ...
Your answer draw the fish beside the side attacking psychacousticals question you dont ADRESS here in all 5 or 6 articles by different scientists all ;pointing in the same direction about hearing : an ecological theory of hearing..With psychoacoustics measurements in each one...
You distorted what Van Maanen said and only adressed him as you adress an amateur reviewer with no measures when he spoke psychoacoustics science consequence for design and hearing music...
not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ?
All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation.
It is easier for you to not answer anything but distort and drown the psychoacoustics fishs..
And most people here do not understand anyway, not one comment ...
Three of the articles i cited in psychoacoustics are research of the last year and one from few years ago by an acoustician , which book i own, demonstrated right by 2 new research of this year, i cited above but you never adressed
you did not adressed nothing save distorting Van Maanen suggesting that he is an "amateur"...
Anybody can verify he is not, you are an amateur in acoustics physics and psychoacoustics..
|
@mahgister Hey magister! I don’t hate Amir, I just don’t like his style and motives. You’re not remotely qualified to assess what I say and mean, and for that matter, never have been.
You, if anyone, are not polite. You explode with anger all the time and when confronted with your behavior, you apologize. You’ve done that many, many times.
you came back answering me without sarcasm this time or insults as one year ago with laoman and few others... These small gang harasseed me this year with no post content in many threads..
They go and come back...
it is true i answered their harassment instead of staying mute...
I apologize when i am wrong...i did not apologize to them...
They never apologize for their sarcasms..
Why did i adressed you here and during a year now if not politely and i even congratulate you nonoise?
Who put a non sensical sarcasm here adressing me like one year ago about a rational discussion here suggesting two chikens cacklings : Amir and me ?
i spoke of "hate" when people are unable to apologize, unable to forgot past discussions, and go on gangstalking one and going back again and again...
Then i am not patient because i answer about what you forgot easily : harassments, sarcasms, no arguments save AD HOMINEM attack by 3 or 4 people you know well ...
Enjoy ...
|
Last year Amir rejected from the back of his hand the competence and articles of Van Maanen i used to make my point...
Today he did the same without adressing m 5 reference articles above from different scientists about the context in which ANY set of measures must be interpreted in psychoacoustics. Instead he alleged that Van Maanen made no measurements about what he spoke about. Last year he insinuated that it is only a designer selling his gear.😊
When we measure the gear piece specs to falsify or verify the design piece we do a good job; but if we extrapolate this measures as a prediction about good sound out of any psychoacoustics context of evaluation we go to far.
van Maanen is also a designer and use his psychoacoustics knowledge in his own design.
Amir measure specs of piece of gear, which he never designed himself, then he does not use as ground real psychoacoustics parameters based on an explicit hearing theory, save blind test to debunk audiophiles listener; then how Amir could promote as truth his set of verification claiming for it a guarantee of good sound experience ? he did this as a marketing of his site tools not as science. He is not Van Maanen. 😊
Here is a description of who is the physicist Van Maanen:
«Hans van Maanen’s work has significantly influenced modern audio technology, particularly in the areas of high-resolution audio (HRA) and high-end audio (HEA) systems. His research and findings have shaped the understanding and development of audio technologies aimed at achieving accurate and perceptually transparent sound reproduction.
Temporal Coherence and Audibility
Van Maanen has conducted extensive research and listening tests on the audibility of high frequencies (e.g., 15kHz) and the importance of temporal coherence in audio reproduction. His work emphasizes the need for accurate temporal and spectral reproduction to faithfully convey the nuances and details of recorded audio signals as perceived by the human auditory system.
Objective Measurements and Psychoacoustic Confirmations
Van Maanen advocates for the use of objective measurements and psychoacoustic confirmations to evaluate the performance of audio systems. He emphasizes the importance of aligning technical specifications with perceptual aspects, ensuring that advancements in audio technology translate into tangible improvements in the listening experience.
Requirements for High-Resolution Audio Systems
Van Maanen has published papers outlining the requirements for loudspeakers and headphones in the "High Resolution Audio" era. His work highlights the need for accurate temporal and spectral reproduction, low distortion, and extended frequency response to fully realize the potential of high-resolution audio formats.
Influence on Audio Industry and Standards
Through his research, publications, and participation in industry events and conferences, van Maanen’s work has influenced the development of audio technologies and standards. His insights have shaped the understanding of perceptual aspects of sound reproduction and have guided the design and implementation of high-end audio systems. In summary, Hans van Maanen’s pioneering work on temporal coherence, audibility of high frequencies, and the perceptual aspects of sound reproduction has significantly influenced modern audio technology, particularly in the realm of high-resolution and high-end audio systems. His emphasis on objective measurements, psychoacoustic confirmations, and aligning technical specifications with human perception has shaped the industry’s approach to achieving transparent and faithful audio reproduction.»
|
not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ?
It is the full truth. Fourier transform takes a time domain signal and converts to fundamental sine waves that created it. This is a proven mathematical relationship. Just like Pythagorean formula. It is not subject to debate. And no experiment whatsoever has disproven it. Again, it is a mathematical proof ("theorem").
it is useless arguing with you...
the context of interpretation of all designed gear and all tools is the Fourier context...
it is evident that your voltmeter or your sinad dont need Fourier transform as a tool as such to be used but interpretating the results will be in the Fourier context guess why ?
hearing theory is done in the Fourier context...
you deliberately distorted my posts context : hearing theory and the Fourier context for the design of gear...
|
At 10 KHz, our hearing's frequency discrimination is as poor as 1000 Hz!
All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation.
No, no, no. Some of the measurements I perform have been around for nearly a century! Way before we have had any audio analyzer had any computing ability to produce fourier transform. You can go on ebay and buy analog THD+N analyzers such as this:
«The, never mentioned, assumption is that the frequency components above the
hearing limit, usually taken at 20 kHz, do not influence the perceived
sound in any way.
Although this seems a reasonable assumption at first, it is not as
straightforward as one would think. Two aspects play an important role: the
first is that Fourier analysis only holds for linear systems and if there
is one transducer which is non-linear, it is the human ear. In non-linear
systems frequencies not present in the original signal can be generated
and/or other frequencies can acquire more power than in the original sig-
nal.
This can easily be demonstrated using a 3 kHz sine wave with 5 periods
on and 5 periods off. Although Fourier analysis tells that 300 Hz is only a
weak component in this signal, it is the strongest one hears. As 300 Hz
corresponds to the envelope of the signal it is not surprising using the
non-linear properties of our ears. It can be concluded that frequencies
above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the
hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the
quality experienced.»
|
you make a sophism here...
You use a temporary conclusion about our set of hearing measures as we know it now and the gear design specs which you measure again and equate them WHICH IS A FALSE EQUATION, and use this measures to PREDICT sound qualities..
Sound qualities suppose a listener...
A room....
Complementary piece of gear...
Then a tube amplifier cannot be a bad sound qualities only because you decide that your measures set will replace hearing theory and even a specific listener biases...
You are not an audio designer proposing a new amp or new speakers better designed to suit human hearing as a TOP designer understand them, as Van Maanen for exemple, you are a marketer of a methodology to verify gear specs thats all ...
but you claim to be more ...
|
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn’t follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don’t follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements!
Another distortion about Van Maanen and my posts :
It is evident for anybody that your audio measurements are aimed at the gear specs verification!
This is what i claimed also and it is why i explained with 6 articles above that because the brain work in his own time domain and in a non linear way any designer must think about the conditions necessary to apply the Fourier theory BEFORE designing a piece of gear...And we dont have a complete and perfect hearing theory , and what is revealed in the articles above is the ears/brain work in a way we do not understand yet to extract acoustic information...
This immediately imply that your gear measures cannot be translated in direct prediction about sound quality perception... As you falsely suggest to all ...
you are really a marketting dude not a scientist at all... you prove it to all here with your distortion of facts...
|
«Signal analysis for evaluating audio fidelity has 2 broad domains: Frequency (spectral) and time (temporal). To focus on only one of these is like approaching audio assessment with only half a brain. A spectrum analyzer focuses on only the first and is not best suited for studying impulse response and transients4, which are influential in defining instrumental timbre. Also Fourier representations cannot properly describe transfer functions of non-linear and non-time-invariant
systems.»
Milind N. Kunchur, Ph.D., APS Fellow
Once this is said...
And i will cite you now :
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn’t follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don’t follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements! In audio measurements, we have a known, usually simple input signal. At no time are we interested in its characteristics with respect to time domain. What we want to know is when it goes into our audio system, does it create noise and distortion that is NOT in the audio signal that was input.
Then your measurements had nothing to do with subjective hearing experience of a consumers ...Because they had nothing to do with hearing and hearing theory...
Your marketing distortion of truth come when you claim that a tube amplifier is "noisy" as defined by your measures not by hearing experiments and then you falsely conclude that those liking it are deluded and proved wrong by your measures, which measures had nothing to do with the experience of timbre as suggested by the text of Kunchur i quoted above when we listen non steady state signals called music ..
Then go on measuring the gear specs but stop saying you can predict what will sound good for us all ... claiming the opposite is not science it is the opposite of science ...
«A lot of the controversy surrounding high-end and
high-resolution audio arises because most of the
community is unaware of many basic and essential facts
about human hearing. From the published literature, it
appears that even some auditory-temporal-resolution
research studies are unaware of the synchronous AND
gating processes taking place in the octopus neurons of the
PVCN and their incorporation as an attack-assessment step
in pattern-recognition in the VNLL.»
http://boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/papers/The-Human-Auditory-System-and-Audio--Kunchur.pdf
|
It’s pretty simple. If you don’t like ASR, don’t go there.
Same for this site.
I like both. Ying and yang.
It is not the question...
Anybody with a brain appreciate ASR... Some here unable to answer rationally and prove him wrong insult him. I have a brain and i dont need to insult him but can explain why he is wrong as i did here with many science articles...
I even thanked Amir multiple times for his work abvout specs verification ..
The question is : is the Amir claims about his set of measures enough to predict sound hearing qualities experience ?
the answers rooted in acoustics is NO...
|
https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/images/docs/AmplifierIssues.pdf
Why do amplifiers sound different?
By Hans Van Maanen
«Power amplifiers are an essential part in the sound reproduction chain. And although semiconductor amplifiers have been around for over 60 years, there is still a lot of development going on. Nowadays, the distortion figures of high-end power amplifiers are very impressive (e.g. < 0.001% harmonic distortion) and easily outshine those of microphones and loudspeakers. Yet, when it comes to listening, differences are noticed between amplifiers and their distortions can be heard in spite of the use of loudspeakers with much higher distortion figures. In this note I will discuss some aspects which play a role in this –at first sight incomprehensible- phenomenon, albeit that I will address a part of the puzzle, not all noticeable differences can be explained by the points I will bring up, partly
because I don’t know everything there is to know and partly because not all causes have yet been identified, I think. So please see this as a contribution to the discussion, not as the final word on it.
Therefore, I welcome contributions of others as “two know more than one”, as an age-old Dutch expression says.
One of the basic problems is that we try to “catch” distortion in a single number. But
one could pose the question whether this is feasible. To take a simple example: would the audible effect of say 1% harmonic distortion of only the second harmonic be just as noticeable or annoying as 0.1% of harmonic distortion of each of the second to the eleventh harmonic? Or be equivalent to 1% harmonic distortion of the tenth harmonic only? I don’t know the answer (because I never tried such a comparison as it is rather hard to do) but there is another example: valve (tube) amplifiers are often highly rated for their musical quality,
even though their distortion figures are horrible, compared to those of semiconductor amplifiers. Could there be a similarity between loudspeaker properties and valve amplifiers, distortion wise? Well, there is: both produce mostly lower harmonics (up to the fifth) with virtually no harmonics above that as is illustrated in fig. 1. Semiconductor amplifiers, however, tend to generate harmonics up to very high numbers as can be seen in fig. 2. In literature, there is agreement that our hearing tends to mask frequencies close(r) to the
exciting tone than those further away. Or, in other words, the lower harmonics are easily masked by the exciting tone whereas the high harmonics are not, as is shown in fig. 3. On top
of that most mechanical musical instruments generate only harmonics up to the fifth of the basic frequency, so distortion products introduce only a small change in the ratio of the harmonics, usually less than is caused by the linear distortion of loudspeakers. So the disSo it is not
really surprising that components which generate only lower harmonics are not so much experienced as annoying than components which generate more higher harmonics, even at a lower level. So the distortion figure of an amplifier is in itself of little use. A spectral specification would be more useful, but is rarely given.
...............................................
for the rest of the article go to the adress above
|
In simple word for those who will not read about acoustics and the articles above quoted...
We cannot as Amir has done, discarded the "distortion" levels of a tube amplifier as pure noise in all case when we spoke about any tube amplifiers.And we cannot put all S.S. design as better . This is simplistic.
Why ?
The concept of timbre in acoustics is not an unwanted "color" added to a graph of frequencies and duration which ask to be eliminated .
It is a fundamental concept in acoustics that we do not yet fully understand especially when using acoustic theories that are not rooted in the natural context of hearing.
Eliminating distortion in gear design is necessary but the better the design the better he do not interfere with human hearing conditions about "timbre" quality experience and the better he makes the "timbre" perception a qualitative experience.This cannot be predicted as Amir claim only by measuring few specs of the design. Van Maanen has wrote article about distortion and about the physical and acoustics conditions necessary to satisfy the Fourier conditions for the human ears in gear design .
For this any audio design must satisfy the conditions which are described in fundamental psychoacoustics : our ears/brain decode sound using a symmetry breaking mechanism working in his own time domain in a non linear way. it is working in such a way that our ears/brain beat the Fourier uncertainty principle limits about the acoustic amount of processing information. it is the source of our human hyperacuity. ( which symmetry breaking express our evolutive trained biases toward natural sounds perception )
All the articles I have used demonstrate this. Amir ignores this and persists in declaring, contrary to common sense and science, that his measurements and they alone are sufficient to predict sound quality.
|
Insulting people posting content , articles and rational arguments, will not do...
I dont like that anywhere...
But instead of criticizing my arguments with the many articles i posted you attack me...
pathetic!
by the way i posted in classical music thread and in jazz thread and in thread about acoustics and music very different content ...
By contrast you send few posts suggesting i am "nut"...
Find a post of me where i attack someone which had never harass me as you just did for the second time ?
I am interested by music and acoustic and i intent to spoke about that here ...
In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...
*I wait ...
As a test of your understanding if my posts are only simple loop from a nut brain, explain to me what means for you dude "an ecological theory of hearing perception "...
if what i spoke is only non sense i think it will take you few second to point toward his meaninglessness?
Go i wait instead of writing two insulting paragraph...
i will see if you understand or if you are here to throw insults...
Perhaps you read too much time the word "acoustics" in my post and your brain concluded that it was a loop ?
Answer rationally now, why an ecological theory of hearing matter for audio ? or did not matter...
And explain to us why Amir is not in a loop predicting sound qualities from his narrow set of measures...
Answer instead of insults or stay mute as the perfect brain you claim you are with no noise inside ....😊
After all this set of insults prove to us that you are able to think by yourself...
|
