Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

What is the impact of a photon of light when you hear an informative qualities perceived from two singers whose tone interact ?

None i know of...And even if there is one, the basic of psycho-acoustic is not based on photonic...This is another level i am not at all able to adress nor you and unnecessary for the discussion about sound qualities perceptible value..

my audio system work only if Maxwell and Einstein are right and some other scientists so what ? What is the relation with psycho acoustic basic fact ?

Unable to answer my question in psycho-acoustic which is directly related you want to ridicule me with emgineering physics ?

Your electrical measures are necessary for design and useful as qualitative information about gear coupling etc... They cannot predict ALL aspect of audible qualities perceived by the ears/brain listening to a an audio system in this room with this ears or this other room etc ...

You can say this amplifier work well because the measures well demonstrate his linear well predictive working on some stress factors...Thts Ok.. This does not describe and means that ALL listening impressions will be ALL reducible to this set of measures...If not we must call them you claim it so , delusions or artefacts or illusions .. The reason why we hear what we hear are in psycho acoustic about the way human ears works First and last...Not in electrical engineering..

it seems finally that you are like the techno zealots around you... 😊

I will repeat it to be clear, the center and crucial matter in audio are first in acoustic and psycho acoustic not in the gear measuring... Even well and good gear design take his basic fact from psycho-acoustic ...Not the reverse... Psycho-acoustic can use tools and measures but it is to study human hearing... And human hearing is not first and last illusory, it is a relation to reality... it is studied as such in works around hearing impairment...You want to save face by drowning the fish: psycho acoustic explain audible qualities as real  not electric engineering by itself ..

exactly what you did...

You treat me as an "idiot audiophiles" as some around you called them you are pathetic...

Instead of answering my REAL QUESTION IN PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC...

What was the impact of photons on my metabolism excretion ?😊 For sure there is one because of the photonic communication between cells but no doctor use this to explain metabolism basic... Do you catch ?

I dont sell cables with quantum properties...

Go ask one seller...

And for time paradox not elementary relativity i refer you to two interesting scientists..

You used this tactic to drawn the fish with me all the time during our discussion... I concluded about your bad faith or ignorance i cannot know ... Your last question illustrate it well..

The ears/brain mechanism is not a quantum physics matter , to understand it at basic level in psycho-acoustic we dont need quantum mechanics for that nor to explain basic cables working too... I am not specialized in cable physical studies either...

ANSWER Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment CONCLUSIONS and explain to me why they are wrong...Why not thinking ? instead of turning around the quantum mechanics pot or around your measures schematics about gear ..

 i thank you for your useful gear  measures, thank me for helping you to separate yourself from the techno babbling zealots around you with psycho-acoustic fundamentals in hearing theories..

Time dilation does not present a paradox. If you get on a spaceship and travel near speed of light for a month, you could arrive back on earth potentially hundreds of years later. Not only will any clock you carry with you verify this, but every fabric of your being will as well! This is a consequence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity where no experiment has managed to disprove it.

Therefore, a photon is simultaneously generated at big bang 13.8 billion years ago and dissipated now in your eye at the same time. This is what the laws of universe predict and isn’t subject to opinion calling it a paradox.

None of this was my question. My question which you did not answer, was what is the impact of this on fidelity of audio devices we use?

 

«Usually men walk in a map in their head they dont even see the territory, science as well as religions are maps and walls to protect us from the unknown and from the territory , but tools so useful they can be are not ourself, as transhumanist want us to believe and want us to merge with them, we need free spiritual moral survivalist in the real wold" -- Anonymus anarchist

" i need my barrel to live in and my sun, stay off of it", say Diogenes to Alexander master of the world asking to him what he need in front of the Diogenes sun ...

«I need my ears»--Groucho marx 🤓

You are right mapman for sure...

i begin this discussion by thanking Amir for his free useful measures information..

Then i observed that the subjectivist-objectivist division was created by FOCUS on the gear pieces by electrical measures and focus on the gear piece by listening experience...One put against the other...

This DIVISION results from the gear market sellers and consumers conditioning not from psycho-acoustic science... The tool obsessed measuring minds used this division between sellers and consumers to claim their dogma as UNIQUE TRUTH... They sell their site ideology... They debunk... Some designers which use psycho-acoustic facts trust listening and hearings but do not say it loud because there are zealots crowds attacking them like they attack audiophiles listenings reviews as of no value at all... This is my perspective about this problem...

I suggested that in psycho-acoustic science this OPPOSITION and war is meaningless completely...

I explained why using many articles but especially one by Magnasco and Oppenheim...

No one even commented it nor any subjectivist nor any objectivist...

it seems people prefer to attack ad hominem instead of thinking..

I dont need to read diploma series from someone to understand with who i spoke...😊

I use arguments...

I like to discuss in good faith...

Anybody can read my posts and articles to explain a simple fact : Qualities are informative and grounded in experience in the natural world ...Electrical measures are essential for gear design and useful to pair the gear components or help to tune a room...but electrical measures do not replace acoustic training nor musical training and dont make psycho-acoustic problems delusions from someone who dont trust ONLY  measures and  then allegedly need blind test to have the right to speak  ..

The ears/brain dont work like a Fourier computer...Period...

Sound sources are real and sound waves convey real qualitative information extracted from the sound sources by the non linear ears/brain in his time dependant domain...

Then objectivist and subjectivist division created by techno and gear market  obsession is preposterous and dont exist in psycho-acoustic science.. On the opposite the relation between the real qualities perceived by the Easrs/brain and the link to Fourier Maps and acoustic and physical invariant is at the center of this field...

Maybe if everyone activate the manners that I’m assuming all have been taught are an asset when dealing with others this would go better.

Otherwise there may be nothing more of value to see here.

Why asking ? Is it not evident i am an idiot ? 😊

i know how to read...Prove me wrong...

i am interested by links between fields, cracks between theories..

My most important reflection subject was the links between semiotic and linguistic..

I am interested by number theory meanings for philosophy...

I am interested by the way the Temple of Louxor was designed..

I am interested by the meaning of the poetic act speech...

I am interested by categoey theory in the approach of Alexander Grothendieck...

i am interested by the links between all that and more..

i like Dyonysos the areopagite the syrian mystic and the link between his three methods and set theory through Cantor works ... i studied it for 10 years...

Etc.. I am interested by the morphology of mammals and the Goethe method in the work of the physicist Henri Bortoft...<

I am interested by The work of Swedenborg about reality and quantum theory... i dont understand for now the link with Roger Boscovich...

i am interested bby READING and THINKING...

I am interested by the difference and similarity between Goethe more oriented perceptual phenomenology and Husserl more oriented conceptual phenomenology and their deep link through the "crisis of modern science" the deep last book of Husserl.....

i am interested by the way human brain perceived QUALITIES and OBJECTIVE INFORMATION from sound source in natural environment..

I am interested by the PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE INVARIANT which explain the information of sound sources to the geaturing and acting human body and why our generative ability to become sound source ourself and produce sound  conditioned nature affordances and conditioned us in a particular direction of time to extract what is useful to our survival in a non linear way because our cochlea is non linear... By the way what is a spiral as mathematical object and symbolic object as Cassirer called them "symbolic forms" ...

it is why the thesis that audible informative qualities which must be reducible to ONLY Fourier electrical map seems preposterous to me . We need an ecological set of experiments protocols to understand hearing...

you are not able to understand a two page psycho-acoustic article it seems NOBODY answer me ANYTHING about it Amir dance around it with his measures schemas without adressing it : Magnasco and Oppenheim

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301

Now being unable to answer my point about the IMPOSSIBILITY and UNSCIENTIFIC attitude which consist as you did and trying to convince others that a small linear set of electrical measures from Fourier Maps are the only OBJECTIVE way to qualify audio audible impressions QUALITIES, because if not , they are anyway "illusions" or artefacts we must eliminated by blind test, this techno babble ideology has nothing to do with psycho-acoustic as demonstrated CLEARLY not only by the results of Oppenheim and Magnasco but by the way they constructed their experimental protocol to demonstrate the way the ears/brain do not compute mere Fourier maps but perceived REAL QUALITATVE INFORMATION FROM THE REAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENT in his time dependant domain and extract this information essential for his survival in a non linear way...

What is your answer and argument AGAINST this fact ?

Instead treating me like a deluded idiot you set me a childish trap with a paradox in quantum theory...

If i explain to you the solution , you will not be able to UNDERSTAND it...

I will also treat you as you treat me, i know how to liquidated your paradox , and i will suggest to you first TWO solutions at this paradox, one in non commutative geometry by Alain Connes about TIME in this video : "the shape of music."...and i will briefly resume it :"The thermal time hypothesis has been put forward as a possible solution to this problem by Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes, both in classical and quantum theory. It postulates that physical time flow is not an a priori given fundamental property of the theory, but is a macroscopic feature of thermodynamical origin.^{" For clarity i will add this "}The thermal time hypothesis predicts that the ratio of the observer's proper time to his statistical time – the time flow that emerges from Connes and Rovelli's ideas – is the temperature he measures around him. It so happens that every event horizon has an associated temperature."

^{there exist another solution which do not contradict this one but complement it but you are not able to understand it sorry ... it is in the Book by the physicist} Anirban Bandyopadhyay; Nanobrain or how to make an artificial brain with time crystals...

Now instead of playing with me as an idiot ANSWER WHY MY OBJECTION TO YOUR REDUCTION OF AUDIBLE QUALITIES TO ELECTRICAL FOURIER MAPS OF ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS IS WRONG ?

Let me ask you to ponder this: as something achieves speed of light, time for it stops relative to us who are stationary (Einstein’s theory of special relativity). In that regard, a photon of light that has been traveling for billions of years since the big bang, gets to our eyes in an instant, as far as the consciousness of the photons is concerned. At one moment it is at big bang and at the very same moment, it hits your eyes through a telescope! Do you understand the ramifications of this for fidelity of audio?

I just show you in my post above with Copernic/Ptolemaus how we can devise perfectly error free observation /measurement protocol without any errors in it and being right all the time but with a false hypothesis all along for millenia ptolemaus astronomy goes way before Copernic and improved with the time passing a lot not only in spite but because of his faulty paradigm .. it is why experiments and observations are not enough to define science... moral conduct and training of the thought process ( not only mere logical reasonning here but more ) as training of the conscious attention is more important...

You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.

 

The only way you can assure you will not fool yourself , is not EXACT PERFECT experimental protocol with the illusory goal of eliminating ALL your biases.. This is impossible...

The biases created by the seeing of the sun turning around us is not false... This bias is confirmed each day...

The only way to not fool ourself is to cherish truth over our own life...Cherish truth over our paradigm... cherish truth over our tools... And even cherish truth over our scientific method... truth is the ultimate Ockam razor... Truth is one eternally...

There is no recipe to cherish truth... It can be learned by the moral and ethical conduct of the process of thinking... Plato teach it as such... This is why Christ teachings, Buddha, Lao tse, are so deep and why geometry and number theory are exercise in truth thinking and contemplation ...

My job was teaching reading and MOTIVATING reading among students not at an elementary level but reading analysis between fields...litterary, poetic or scientific or philosophic...

What is language ? in the grammar of any language there is a GEOMETRY of the thinking process which is the basis of the scientific process itself... Linguistic is one of the most astounding science ever... I studied with a linguistic genius alas! not translated in english much...Nothing is really random in language... language is so deep with meanings... i even cannot imagine how human can invent it... We litterally speak with a tool more deep than we can fathom... i cannot describe why here... They will kill my long post... 😊

In language there is two completely INTERTWINNED levels : poetic and prosaic... Guess where is truth in language ?

It is in our heart and in our way to relate the poetic and prosaic mode of speech TOGETHER in a conscious ethical way ...

Truth is the brother of love...They come from the Source...

it is the reason why i advised my students to study geometry or number theory more than philosophers only ( prosaic mode of speech) and read more mystics ( poetic mode of speech ) more than theologian...

observation must be trained... Faraday set of experiments or Goethe description of plants and mammals are very powerful for training...One of the most stunning book on earth describe mammals... Reading it we fall off from our chair, because we realized that we were able to identify a lion by reflex looking at it but we realized we had never SEE a lion... because our bias of recognition of the object lion fooled us completely... We miss all evident talking signs of the lion form and metabolism by looking at the lion image without seeing ever a real lion through the image...Any mammals form tell a story through all details of the form... as we must learn how to listen, we must learn how to see... Even grown adults dont know how to see... but oftem more blind people know how to see, why ? because they know that what we see is the ECHO of the signals we throw at the object like a bat and a dolphin... If we emit truth we will perceive truth...

in all that seeing, hearing etc , there is no simple method, only the thirst for truth and contemplation...

By the way acoustic phenomena are also as music a contemplative objects in time and very deep astounding as music or painting are ...

I apologize mapman

i get your post wrong then...

I am a bit less serene and calm than you... 😊

@mahgister I didn’t say you were anti science.  Why did you infer that?

mapman your reasonning is based on a sophism here...

Amir is not SCIENCE incarnated...Discussing with him as i did with rigorous argument from hearing theories or from acoutic is not being against science...And it is not being against Amir...It is being against an erroneous application of electrical measure in psycho-acoustic..

You dont realize that electrical measures are not the only scientific facts here?

My point is many espouse personal freedom but only for themselves.  
 

Also it’s not a good thing when science  becomes the enemy.  

The best way to fool ourself is when we want TO WIN A POINT in a discussion or in an experiment AT ALL COST..

Why ? because the discussion or the experiment could be based on an entire set of biases or hypothesis that are false... Then the experiment protocol can even be perfect and without any defect in his protocol and can even give more truthful and proven results reinforcing the faulty biases or hypothesis or the discussed point...

It is classical case with the faulty hypothesis of the Ptolemaic epicycles which were more predictively precise than Copernic own computation on the basis of his theory at the times...

Then here you have, epicycles, a perfect clear concept, which is computable and useful for computations, perfect experiment, perfect protocol of observation validated by more and more precise measure from observation and to go on with new observations, simple we add new epicycles to represent exactly and perfectly the more precise observations.. ... A winner game no ? 😊

But a completely false hypothesis about the center of the solar system... With his less well measured results it is Copernic who will win , time will defeat the exact epicycles by Ockham razor and improving application to measures and simplifying them making now more easy the observation with the Copernician hypothesis..

Do you catch why Feyman think as i described not as you simplify it grossly for your needs and to win an argument in this discussion ? You must read philosophy of science, if you dont you  will even be able  to set experimental protocol right but you risk to go more deeply in a false PARADIGM ( it is easy to search for many examples in the medical field and in psycho-acoustic history) ... Read not only Popper about falsification , read Kuhn about paradigm change and better, read Feyerabend book "AGAINST METHOD " and his RADICAL discussion with Imre Lakatos..

This is the same with Amir Ptolemaic measuring delusion imposed as the only basis for ascribing hearing qualitites to an audio system...He confirm his own bias or hypothesis more and more with electrical new and better measures which are not EVEN WRONG...

It is not the electrical measures- Earth but the Ears/brain psycho-acoustic- SUN the center of the acoustic- solar system... Those using electrical measures are BESIDE the essential psycho-acoustic point, and they cannot describe what is "listening" and,

what do we listen to when listening to a sound and how ?

Electrical Fourier analysis is not PSYCHO ACOUSTIC science...Only a part of it...

No. If you are going to comment on a "too long post" maybe read it first. Did you even see what I wrote about how the Opera experiment scenario exemplified much of Feynman’s advice? It’s much richer than just "blind experiment."

I’m not running experiments on fundamental physics. But as I said, when it comes to my own tests and I want to be more cautious, I adopt methods that align with Feynman’s cautions about "fooling yourself" (and like I showed, presenting my method and data to others for critique).

You either can’t admit how this fits well with Feynman’s words...or you just don’t understand Feynman (or the scientific method).

You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.

 

I am not against the value of Amir measures...

I thank him remember ?

I am against his way of interpretating them and imposing them as all there is to say about hearing qualities in audio...

It is comical to see Amir arguing about acuity test,... And bragging about it...

Acuity is useless to perceive a bird song if you dont have the concept of bird nor the concept of song... You will perceive noise not a "bird song"...

i think Amir never had a course in philosophy... Even elementary... It is a pity... Because science without philosophical basic make no sense at all...

Anything perceived by the ears/brain must be recognized, it is why acoustician and musician train their ears/brain to acquire the right set of BIASES... Acuity as sensitivity to hertz scale and decibels scale alone cannot replace TRAINING...Without this training it is not surprizing that someone in love with electrical tools claim that electrical measures are the only valid predictive way to assess audio hearing qualities...

About this matterc the two most influential philosopher of the last century are Merleau_Ponty, and the mathematician turned philosopher Husserl... But i know for sure that someone unable to read a simple paper as the paper of Magnasco and Oppenheim will not be able to read Husserl... it is not like reading cartoons or cartesian graphs or electrical graphs at all ...

You wrote too long post prof... 😊

How about the techno cultist bias equatiing a set of electrical measures designed to verify the well behaviour of circuits and components as the ONLY VALID PREDICTION about the STATUS and VALUE of audible qualities as described in psycho-acoustic experiments and in ecological hearing theories as more than just Fourier maps made of linearly related abstract concepts as frequencies, amplitude, phase and duration ? All these abstract mathematical factors are not able alone to explain and describe why and how the brain work in his time dependant domain ( rise and decay not decay and then rise ) and with his non linear QUALITATIVE and evaluating perception ?

No bias here ?

Are you able to read an article ?

Read Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment and explain the meaning , we will se if you understand it...

It is not always our bias who fool us, it is some adopted bias we borrow from someone else... by the way we cannot suppress ALL of our biases... We can only became conscious of some of them... our personal history is the history of our biases for the best or for the worst.... You read Feynman as if when he spoke he was a schoolboy thinking only about a blind test ... Biases are not all bad, we must train our mind and perception with the right set of biases... Biases can be acquired... Acoustician for example and musician are trained "golden ears"...

Again, I’m thankful to rodman99999 for providing the longer quotes from Feynman which serve so well to support the point I’d been making (as well as Amir). Let’s take this section: FEYNMAN: It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.   I think a nice example of how this can work is the infamous Opera Experiment that purported to detect faster-than-light neutrinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly The team of physicists upon finding the anomoly in their results knew how momentous it would be, and so they checked and double checked their findilngs looking for any way things could have gone wrong. They re-ran the experiment, getting the same results, and when months of doing everything they could to find errors was finished, the announced the results. However, being good scientists they understood the extraordinary nature of the results and presented it to other scientists saying basically "Look, we got these unexpected results. We’ve done everything we can to trace possible biases, influences or technical issues in our experiment...but we are presenting the results so you can double check our work, and hopefully replicate the results." Various possible flaws were suggested, and then the Opera scientists later...just as Feynman would council - reported some possible flaws in their experiment they’d discovered. Further investigation confirmed the flaws and that combined with others failing to replicate the results, dis-confirmed the initial "discovery." Just as science should work - for either disconfirmation or confirmation. Along those lines, in a much more modest level, I’ve tried to hew to these general principles when I’ve wanted to be more sure or rigorous about my conclusions. For example I was curious about my Benchmark SS preamp I’d just bought vs my CJ tube preamp, in which the sonic differences seemed pretty obvious. Well...most here would say "of course they’d be obvious." However, having done a variety of blind testing over the years - AC cables, video cables, DACs/CDPs, music servers - I’m familiar with how "obvious" sonic differences can feel under the influence of sighted bias - e.g., when you know what it is you are listening to. I’ve had "obvious" sonic differences vanish when I wasn’t allowed to know which was which. It’s very educational. It was entirely possible that I could be perceiving a sonic difference because of my perception being swayed by those wonderful "warm, glowing tubes...of course it’s going to sound different!" So, again, as Feynman would advise: the first rule is not to fool yourself as you are the easiest person to fool. And since I know sighted bias is a big variable, I attempted a blind test to reduce the possibility of "fooling myself." I took various other steps to reduce "fooling myself" - ensuring there wasn’t a way I could tell which preamp was being switched to, ensuring the switching was randomized, trying to ensure the levels were matched so as to account for loudness bias, etc. When I did my best...once again in concert with what Feynman would advise...I presented the results for other people to critique: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-test-results-benchmark-la4-vs-conrad-johnson-tube-preamp.33571/ As Feynman advised, I made sure to add as much detail about my method as I could, INCLUDING areas where I thought flaws could arise. And then I answered every question, I could about my method, took some suggestions to double check certain aspects and looked at how others assessed the results. It wasn’t a scientific-level of rigor, but I think it was in the spirit of the scientific mindset/approach in the sense of all the above. So I think I get fairly close to walking-the-walk in such instances with some of my own testing. I wonder if rodman or others can show any of their audio tests havea similar level of steps put in place to "not fool yourself" as well as presenting the results looking for others to critique? This, btw, is also generally what Amir does. He presents his results with plenty of detail about his METHOD and RESULTS so there is plenty of information given on which people can critique the method or results. It’s not just "I put this in my system and I heard X, trust me!" It’s "here, YOU can look for yourself at my DATA to see if I’m wrong." He presents it to the more general public on his youtube channel, and in the ASR forum in which he knows there are plenty of technically informed people who can help catch problems. And this is what goes on at ASR all the time.

 

Mapman you dont seems to realize that anybody with a brain can only welcome the measures set Amir gave and say thanks... No problem here...Because i have a brain i thank Amir ...For the 17th time...

But you seems to forget that Amir dont present them as only useful measures faisification and verification but as AUDIBLE TRUTH and more than that the ONLY AUDIBLE TRUTH , anything else being subjective illusions with no value ...

Thats the problem... A falsehood submitted as truth to promote an ideology and a site..

Just saying ...

So what we have is people standing up for individual choice and saying I don’t care about measurements, I’ll do it my way. Ok fine! That’s how it should be.

But then you have a guy who tries to scientifically measure things and that’s his way. He also has a website to publish the info and many choose to value that because they value metrics.

But now the guy who chooses metrics is chastised for doing it his way He can do more than most anyone in this area and collect technical data that can help people make decisions but the “libertarians” can’t handle THAT guy deciding for himself how to do things because they don’t like the way he does things. They’d like him to be silenced

This is a common phenomena that we witness everyday on the internet, talk shows etc. people want the right for themselves to be free and do it their way but not the people they disagree with. That’s being a hypocrite with a capital H .

The fact is many who want freedom for themselves can’t handle when others who are different want the same freedom. They think they are right and other guy wrong so he should be stopped.

Take note. Hypocritical libertarians are everywhere. Politicians know this and take full advantage.

Just saying.

Your analogy has a very relative level of validity, but at the end WINE TASTING is not acoustic... A piece of gear well designed by electrical measures is not wine...No more than the measures of piece of gear replace the ears/brain working metaphorically described as "tasting" ...

Why ?

Taste more than touch or more than hearing or seeing is related to our INDIVIDUAL UNIQUE BIO CHEMISTRY AND METABOLISM...Taste is subjective completely... Wine taster are trained to identify wine component and describe them ( soil composition and chemistry of the plant ) not to suppress our individual preferences in wine born from our own personal metabolism chemistry...

Because we can use our ears/brain to see by echolocation if we become blind...If hearing was intimate and individualized as taste we will not be able to trust it OBJECTIVELY... And we will not be able to train the new blind objectively in a course designed to do it WITHOUT ERRORS ... WE SEE WITH OUR EARS...

Also the acoustic conditions in a room are OBJECTIVE factors we can control to please or displease OBJECTIVELY any musician trained to recognize accurate timbre experience..

Also our survival as species trained us to RECOGNIZE  objective speech sound in all condition in an optimal way... Why ? because our survival can depend on reflex based on ONE WORD COMMAND...This recognition obey objective working of the brain in objective natural condition...

Also acoustic physical concepts can be measured, and each qualitative attribute of sounds can be studied objectively and can be described objectively even when they are SUBJECTIVELY evaluated in psycho-acoustic ...Psycho-acoustic is based on subject-object optimal correlation...

Hi Chayro, Sensory Evaluation classes in the Wine Industry teach us that the olfactory sense of smell is interpreted; the only one of our senses that is not ’technically’ hard-wired. Some humans can be ’trained’ to distinguish up to 1,000 different smells. Each humans mouth, nose etc. are different. For example when we would place and old 3-ring binder life-saver on our tongues and place a small drop of blue dye in the middle hole we could count the taste buds in the center of the life-saver-shaped hole. Those who had lots of little taste buds were ’super tasters’ and medium amounts ’tasters’ and those with few big blotchy ones were called ’non-tasters’. Each of them totally valid for the person whose tongue we were looking at. We tried different taste sensation like bitterness from caffeine, or sweetness from sugar. Each taste was sensed from a different area of our mouth. The lesson we learned was we are all physiologically different. What tastes good to you may not taste good to me; so make sure you put at least 3-different wines on the table to try and please everyone! You can see where this is going, if you like a wine reviewers taste then you will like his wines, no matter how he measures his taste in the wine, you both have a similar set of physiological taste buds and olfactory sensory apparatus. So it’s not too hard to understand that audio senses are also interpreted to some degree based on lots of physical inputs and from most importantly life experiences. We could never understand why the teachers promoted the old school European wines over the fruit forward California ones, until we had enough tastes under our belts to gain a base-line of understanding from which our sensory evaluation could take place. Thus no matter how many types of audio equipment one may listen to or measure, if you don’t have the same taste in sound as the reviewer then it matters not because like it or not sound is an interpreted experience. Trust me we put super expensive, super highly revered wines next to those that were not, and it was always the same thing, 30% liked, 30% did not like, %40 didn’t care that much. If you put 30 people in a sound testing environment, good math and statistics will tell you the same spread will recur over and over, cost is irrelevant, and personal choice is all that matters. So, find a reviewer that has your taste in sound and follow them.   Cheers Mate

Pick a component to test an upgrade , in your own system room, let say an amplifier...

Let say you are not a fool you read the specsof the seller before buying to know if this amp, will pair well with your dac and speakers...

Let say you are not a fool and you read before buying Amir measures just to be sure that the specs about this amp are confirmed by an independant tester...

Let say you know well your dac, your speakers and room and your old amp working BEFORE replacing by the amp you just bought ...

Let say you know the definition of timbre in acoustic...

Let say that not only you know this definition of timbre but you are able to improve it or degrade it by just playing with the materials passive treatment in your room and the ratio absorbtion/diffusion and their optimal location and the timing of the reflective surfaces...

For those who dont know HOW COMPLEX the acoustic definition and perception of timbre is here the main factors :

"For example, J. F. Schouten (1968, 42) describes the "elusive attributes of timbre" as "determined by at least five major acoustic parameters", which Robert Erickson finds, "scaled to the concerns of much contemporary music":^[4]

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration" WIKIPEDIA

---- DIFFERENTIATING IMAGING....It is the way sound sources are differentiated one from another laterally and in detph...

Blind test had nothing to do directly with a training of the ears in music , or in acoustic implicating an incremental thousand listening experiments all INTERRELATED to give at the end an acoustic room , not a perfect one, but an incredible one able to give me all factors of a good musical experience...

An acoustic concept as holography, listener envelopment or timbre cannot be perceived only for the reason young ears are able to take an audiologist test...The young person must learn the concept before perceiving the complex object , being it timbre or holography, acuity is not enough at all...

These concept must be understood by EXPERINMENTS in a room and then to be under the control of the ears/brain imposing the right acoustic constraints to create them or controlling them... A room is like the varying lense of microscope, it is the variation of the acoustic conditions that make you able to FOCUS on the right aspect of the phenomenon... Then imposing blind test to an acoustician or a musician is a valid test in experimental psycho-acoustic , but the way Amir use this valid test is a kind of abuse against people And his bragging about audiology test resemble a teen bragging...... Not science... When i did my room acoustic and tuning i was already old, and my ears was not the same as 40 years ago... But my ears are healthy for a man of my age and i learned and created the room acoustic so imperfect it was, i created it FOR ME , not as a MODEL IDEAL room for all ears and PERFECT... But so imperfect it can be i can aussure you that there is no relation with the same speakers inside the room between before and after the completion of the process... This was the goal... LEARNING ACOUSTIC was the goal too... And in this i learned why audio is based on psycho-acoustic , not on the electrical measures of Amir...

Wise and right on the target...

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

Some might argue that, if a specific listener claims to expect a difference between, say, a hi-res and lo-res signal, that an ABX test with him is "testing the listener." But that’s mistaken. Such a test could only reveal whether that listener could distinguish a difference under the conditions of the test. Again, this why is why multiple tests yield more useful information.

It’s rather odd that Amir is so preoccupied with conducting measurements that he sometimes doesn’t bother to listen to the devices he tests, and yet on the other hand issues such proclamations about the tests he’s claimed to have "passed."

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected. When they are improperly conducted, such a test has no advantage over a sighted test and can yield misleading results.

Very good last words!

OK everyone stop now so that I have the last word.  

I dont like attacking personality... Amir acted as a gentleman at least...

The way he answered with specific USELESS measures for the debate , about some products instead of adressing my questions and articles,

The way he NEVER gave even the beginning of an answer to the relation between measures and hearing theory,

The way he asked for proofs confusing measures with proof, whereas the problem precisely is to RELATE our set of measures to what we CAN hear from them and with them and to what we CANNOT hear with them and from them ...

The way he answered never as a scientist because ignoring ALL psycho-acoustic facts i presented CLEARLY with 4 physicists , two he attacked ad hominen, never on the ground of their perspective in psycho-acoustic,

The way he drowned the fish of the psycho-acoustic fundamental question about the relation between electrical linear measures and audible hearing qualities, by teleguiding others questions and debate toward measuring this product or this product so and so and then coaching others in the dead end alley of THIS product debate or THIS one, and inviting others to quarrel about these products value measures INSTEAD of his claims about hearing...

The way he ignored even basic physical small room acoustic and feel confort ONLY around equalizer and measuring toys...

All that spoke volume...

I lost my trust even in his measures not because they are not well done, i cannot know that nor verify, but because i noticed clearly what he knows ( limited measures) and what he dont knows ( psycho-acoustic) , and when someone dont want to learn or even knowing anything about what he does not know because it does not suit an agenda, it is a bad omen for what may come after...

it is clear that he is a crafty seller...not a narcissist sorry, nobody here is a psychologist and anyway no diagnostic done in this way reflect any reality, just a seller with experience with a limited set of measures, useful to falsify market gear specs NOTHING ELSE ...

But Amir want to sell his measuring toys as the first and last truth in audio experience, he want consumers listening to his reviews and only to his reviews... Gullible people will...His measures cannot predict audible  musical qualities..

As i said reviews means something only in a statistical numbers and are indicating of value for past or vintage products,... few reviews means little.. Measures only cannot indicate in a direct way the values of audible qualities; these qualities only exist when a component is coupled with others, in a specfic room, for specfic ears... it is why only statistics about each acoustic factors separately from few dozen of reviews can guide us... lIstening in person is the best way but not possible in most case for most of us...

He used blind test to eliminate any contestation about his limited set of measures and any contestation coming from human hearing.. he analysed human hearing only about his acuity and resolution in HERTZ and DECIBELS nothing related to the Fourier context and the measures of human hyperacuity in the time domain and in a non linear way, why ? Because it will shatter his false science relating his electrical linear set of measures as a predictor of REAL AUDIBLE QUALITIES in music , in speech or even in pure acoustic...

Any other critic of him will miss the target and being stated on his CHOSEN ground you will loose or there will be no conclusion ... In the psycho-acoustic debate with me he lost because he was UNABLE to contest any of the facts i surmiss..NONE...

The point i indicated are so fundamental that the way he refuse to adress their validity and never even reference nor any concepts i proposed or any names with the exception of Van Maanen , because being not only a physicist, van Maanen is an audio designer, he could then dismiss all his facts as seller marketing leaflet... it is here i lost my respect for Amir audio knowledge... i read van Maanen and nothing Amir said about him is valid and touch the heart of the matter... He could not anyway, because Van maanen as a designer and physicist work in audio around the fundamentals facts of psycho-acoustic for his design : the time dependant domain and the non linear working of the human hearings... Van Maanen searched for improved design and is able as other designer everybody know did explaining for us psycho-acoustic elementary facts used in their own design in the past...Van Maanen is not ALONE...I pick him because being a top physicist in fluid dynamics he know acoustic physics and was a hobbyist designer all his working life and at full time after his retirement as physicist..

By the way Amir thanks..

You make me think and i learned in the process... I cannot say that i make you think ...  😊

I will read some of your reviews... Try Dr Choueri BACCH filters...

i go back to my hole...

What do you talk about..

For sure the debate with you was not about acoustic...

it was more deep and more fundamental but you never answered my points about hearing theory and the different meanings associated with different measures...

The debate was : how could someone predict sound qualities and their perception based on a finite set of linear measures of the design of pieces of gear ?

How could he dare seriously promote it as predictive of  audible Qualities ? it is non sense in psycho acoustic basic..

you fail the audiogon discussion  exam...😊

By the way i dont claim expertise, Toole is expert...

Me i only at no cost tuned my room... Thanks to him and to those who spell me the basic to experiment with...

Asking measured proof is like imposing the same question for any problem and imposing blind test is as imposing an answer for all problem ... It is ridiculous ... An answer cannot be at the same level than the question save for children puzzle book of algebra or for car seller ...In psycho-acoustic, the Fourier method is one of the question the answer it pose reside out of the Fourier frame... Using the two hearing theory in complementary experiments is the road to go, especially a road already studied in hearing impairment research...

psycho acoustic is based on fundamentals questions... This interest me not your marketing of toys as replacement for listening...

You did the right thing, experimenting and you learned...

i did as you...

A bit more foolish though... 😊

Most people who focus on gear or on toy, negliging acoustic dont know anything...

In my living room the two easiest acoustic tweaks I made were to experiment with the angles of the wooden louver blinds that covered big glass windows. There was a certain angle that broke up chaotic reflections but did not deaden the room. The other effective tweak was to distribute small throw rugs over the wood floors between my speakers and the listening chair. This was not a total blanketing of the floor. There is a mix of throw rugs and unobstructed floor. A little creative orientation of the rugs brought an obvious improvement to the sound. To allege that this treatment is ridiculous is well...ridiculous.

You cannot have a clue about Helmholtz resonators because you did not even mention them for the bass problem in a room... You mock those who use material treatment favoring EQ alone... It is ignorance...

By the way what you speak about the specialized use of ONE resonator for the bass control for a precise use in a room  is something already commercialized with success , it had no relation with a distributed grid of one hundred resonators,  from 8 feet high to small one,  and their effect on the pressure zone distribution and their effect on the relation between the speakers and the listener when tuned and located appropriately..

... You cannot learn that ABSTRACTLY you did it or not... with your ears...

I had no results my friend, i had an acoustic room better or not too far from what i look as your room at no cost... but hard work...😊

how i know ?

a soundfield filling the room able to gave to each recording a complete faithful translation..

Why it is faithful ?

because each recording in an ideal audio system must be DIFFERENT... Each one...

What is more valuable than buying the book is experimenting with it by the way ...

By the way you suffer from Alzheimer...

i already said multiple times i have the Toole book.., then when you speak to me speak to me not to an invisible crowd...

stay healthy...

I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time... I don’t know what you have learned. I can only go by what you can demonstrate here and so far, I have not seen you express anything in this thread indicating any knowledge of the field. Maybe you know it, but I don’t know that you do. You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them... A claim of knowledge is not a fact. Nor have I mucked anyone individually. I discuss the technical point and show measurements, references, and other data to prove them. You have something like that, let’s see it. Start by demonstrating how you know the perceptual effects of lateral reflections. As to the book, it costs so little compared to what people spend on gear/content. I suggest you go and buy it and read that, instead of wasting time here. And yes, that includes reading my posts. The book is that valuable.

Are you playing with me ? why deforming my thinking ?

I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time... You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them...

You proved you know little in acoustic because you never done it yourself... using EQ is not an acoustically "tour de force"...

State for me the fundamental problem in psycho-acoustic and show me your deep understanding ...

You never did it a bit in the last 5 days... 😊

What is even more comical is thinking any of those disciplines teach you anything about acoustic science. My piano teacher doesn’t know a tweeter from a woofer.

What astonish me with your arrogance and despise for audiophiles here, is not what you say, it is the fact you are not even conscious that anybody reading your posts with a brain know you know NOTHING in psycho-aqcoustic save the tools instruction manual of your psycho-aqcoustic costly toys..

you dont impress me and me, apart my acoustic experments, i am a nobody in audio .. I learned how to listen tough... Try to tune your room from your basement plumber and house discarded materials and come back to show me the soundfield results ? We will see if you had digested Toole information as more than ABSTRACT recipe ... I know designer here who i read and i KNOW that they KNOW what they speak about... They dont play boss..

😊😊

My motto was : at peanuts costs...

😉

That’s a hell of an investment. $100k on a measurement system as opposed to $100k on a system. Whatever boat you float….

Tuned resonators are a bad idea for any unskilled audiophiles to dabble in. They are very narrowband and their response can be screwed up easily in construction. Measurements to tease out the specific frequencies you need to deploy them can be difficult (due to multiple axis resonances can occur).

A single PEQ filter can solve the same problem and lower distortion of the speaker to boot.

Net, net: don’t do it.

You spoke to  me as if i was a child and not really there adressing a crowd  and as if i did not do it already with complete success... You are right on one point, it takes me one year of tuning non stop ... It was very fun but very complex... By the way it COST ME NOTHING.... I did it for two reasons :

it was the more fun experience ever in audio ... Upgrading pleasure related to a component dont even compared in fun and upgrading power..

You cannot KNOW IT by reading Toole by the way ,formula are only that : formulas in a book ....This is learned by DOING it...

You are right about a point though, it is so long to do and ask for so many listenings experiments to do it right that i did not recommend it save to someone who want to train his ears and learn dedicated  small room acoustic at all cost and retired because i cannot imagine doing it in the evening after works in a living room  😊..

it was really fun... Each day a new problem arise... Each day i was partially satisfied and frustrated, i searched the timbre problem and how to solve it...It was a slow incremental process like tuning a piano but on one year time ... 

There is also more to say as how to distribute the Hemholtz grid around the room to increase the speakers frequencies response on some band to compensate for the room , because the speakers had his frequencies response and the room too but i will not be able to describe that here...Anyway it is not useful save if someone want to experiment... No speakers is the same and no room either...  The main problem was creating a timbre experience right, the second was at the same time creating the right ratio relating sound sources positions and dimensions and the listener position , it is called ASW/LV... japanese acoustians research was inspiring and useful for me here...

The reason i did not like your attitude  now is because you never spoke to me really, you adressed the crowd reading the posts and you swim to keep your face clean, drowning the fish ... You had no good faith in this discussion ... It is my conclusion... or if you were of goode faith, you are completely ignorant out of your tools manual of use... I dont know.. Anybody reading my posts and your answers can figure it out for himself ...

But listening to people online about acoustic science will absolutely lead to screwing up the sound in your room. Don’t do it. Don’t listen to these people.

it is comical if you realize there is top musicians here, designer engineers and others very informed people about all aspects of audio... i dont put myself in this group ... I only know how to read...And i make a few experiments..

You adress grown up as if they were all children...

Why could you not imagine that some if not many here can read and interpret and experiment with ACCURATE principle and information ?

I know for sure a few things about you :

You are able to read and interpet the dials and maps of your toys tools..Thanks for the information...

You dont know how to create "immersiveness in a room...because it is not a simple recipe precisely with the furniture ... It is related to a complex set of factors you NEVER adress...it is not a sin...Most people cannot adress it in a living room, i never could either...But why then disparaging small room acoustic ? You suffer from tool idolatry perhaps...

You have no cue about hearing theories and their relation to measures interpretation in a fundamental way...Sorry... In all this pages you have been unable to set one argument about that... i am not even sure if you understand the basic problem...

Your site has many good aspects but alas! is insuferable if some dare to post there with a different take on hearing and measures than the groupies around you entertain... I know because i read an thread dialogue between a designer and some of your groupies...This designer was a "saint"... Or a very wise man , unlike me, conscious that debating with someone unable to figure out crucial points is of no interest...

Then thanks for the set of measures...But i will keep friends here, i am not interested by a discussion on ASR as the one i had with you with ZERO argument coming from you about my central point in hearing theory and measures set...

i will read only on ASR some useful information like Dr. Choueri discussion...

Where do you think i get ideas about Helmholtz resonators ?

If you want an extremely cogent synopsis of them for almost nothing, again, buy Dr. Toole’s book.

There is many research paper on the internet ask any students..

By the way what is the relation of a set of measures and hearing theories and why there is a deep debate  in this field ?

Then why nobody can predict Qualities of sound reading some set of few dials  and graphs ?

Amir give us something positive... Nobody can deny that... ASR is useful... Once this is said ...

 By Jove! he must return to school in the evening 😉...Learn how to read a text... Learn why philosophical question matter to understand the relation between technology and science...I suggest Feyerabend ...

And learn in psychology course that you can isolate some bias but you cannot erase all biases and you cannot make all biases negative or positive... Biases are not only prejudices they can be the results of training...Biases must be controlled and became conscious not eliminated...

Do you know that placebo effect and nocebo effect can be observed WORKING REALLY and EFFECTIVE exactly as benzodiazepin drug for example  in the same nervous system zone under pet scan imagery ? Then trusting you ears induce in training something positive or very negative if you think you are ONLY the prey of illusions... the ears mut not be believed, it must be trained..  i learned that this week listening the best virologist in the world...

Than those who negate to classical musicians and to acoustician or to well trained mmusic lover any competence in hearing ability are IGNORANT ...They call that hard acquired gift a pretense : "golden ears"

Those who want to shame you because you trust your ears are ignorant ... They ev en dont know how to serach for serious papers on the net it seems.. 😊

The basis of a debate is good faith,,,

Good faith means you are able to repeat the opposite side arguments as they stated it...No ad hominem attacks and no caricature...

Here a caricature with an appeal to an affective reaction instead of a rational thinking...

Bottom like, get speakers that are well designed, do some EQ for low frequencies where acoustic products have little prayer of fixing issues there, put standard furnishing if this is an everyday room, and start enjoying your music.

What about Helmholtz resonators for taming the bass ?

What is a well designed speakers ? Is Tannoy dual concentric bad design ? They sound way less good in my living room than my Mission Cyrus in a better acoustic environment.. Guess why ?

Do NOT listen to people claiming expertise based on stuff they have read online.

Do you know that every scholars research is available on the internet ?

Even doctorate thesis in acoustic ?

is this observation include ASR or just audiogon ?

And certainly don’t let them shame you into throwing blankets on the wall or else your system sounds like "crap." They don’t know what they are saying.

You are right here... I will only add, dont let them shame you because you use your ears not only measures and trust your ears to experiment and pick you gear... Because those techno babble measuring zealots they dont know that a set of measures describe SOME ASPECTS ONLY OF the design and cannot alone predict "musical qualities" ...As demonstrated  Amir , they dont even know what hearing theory science is and why a debate exist there and what is at stake..

And for those who use technology to DEBUNK not to design  , so useful it can be, the adjective "musical quality" which can made sense for a craftmanship designer of amplifier using psycho-acoustic concepts about distortion and the non linear working of the ears, this adjective suddenly  is a word devoid of simple numbers meanings on their limited set of dials..Guess why ?

Great post! thanks

Here prof is right...

Stop with the cheap attempts to pigeonhole rather than produce intelligent arguments.

Prof is right here too...

Not once, ever, in this thread or anywhere else have I even implied "Amir is always right, everyone else is wrong."

Incredible that some people after reading dont understand that everyone welcome his set of measures... At least me...Even more, ASR present  also some informative discussion...

I thank Amir 16 times for that... Who among you thank him 16 times ?

But his ideology about measures, supported by some zealots,  stating on the basis of mainly the small set of linear measures taken by him did not make any sense for PREDICTING AUDIBLE MUISICAL qualities of components then are useful to verify official specs, some engineering design problems and help for synergetic pairings... THATS ALL... The word qualitative "musical" did not have  even meaning for him...

You must trust your ears to pick a component or judging it...You must trust measures to pass over the worst design and coupled it optimally with other components.. Is it a mystery to understand ?

I explained why this is so with basic psycho-acoustic... Amir had not ansd cannot contradict me... he only distorted the 10 articles i suggest, use ad hominem attacks against 2 physicists... And never adress the problem of the link between gear measures and deesign and the hearing theory context...

i attacked his good faith ONLY after his behaviour convince me , he did not understand what is at stake or does not want to...

There is very knowleadgeable people in Audio here and on any audio sites ASR included..

But there is there and here too techno babble ignorant who use technology without understanding his relation to psycho-acoustic basic...

Simple...

Someone saying that small room acoustic is not good or something to even consider is so ignorant, apart from hearing theory ignorance, that i am speechless.😁

i know nothing... I experimented a bit ...But i am able to read Toole book or some others and think by myself... Toole did not have the time and taste to transform his living room in an acoustic laboratory; it was his work day job, and he must be married, you know what i means ?

But this does not means that passive materials treatment with a good ratio between diffusion/reflection/absorbtion and timing , large band mechanical controls of the room with Helmholtz principles and a bit of frequencies refined electronical equalization are not ALL complementary...They may give so astounding results that no acoustician is an obsessed upgrading fools.. They know how to extract the best sounds from any relatively good gear...

A journalist asked to perhaps the greatest pianist of the century why he does not have a piano in his living room, he answered with humor, no mechanics keep their tools in the living room...I dont think Toole was different... And he know very well the difference between great hall acoustic, and studio acoustic, and living room acoustic and acoustically dedicated small listening room .. Same physical laws , but completely different applications..

I will add this :

As Einstein famously said :

Amir said this :

Our mission at ASR Forum is to see if a product is well engineered or not.

It will be perfectly weel if it was the case...

But ASR impose through a fanatics kernel of techno babble groupies of him what are the NORM of engineering that will produce REAL sound qualities, the so called "transparency" with no distortions... To do so they negate the ears/brain real working ways , non linear and time dependant, and they bashed and attacked a well known competent  designer using basic psycho-acoustic facts about the way we perceived harmonics signals and accused him bluntly to create BAD DESIGN to please deluded audiophiles...Incredible arrogance coupled to complete ignorance...

Amir called this dogmatic ignorance about psycho-acoustic , science...

And me, who tuned my room using my ears learning concretely acoustic, i am supposed to be the deluded one...😊

No one deny there is information on ASR and useful one...No one deny there is balanced mind people on ASR not only Amir groupies ...

No one can deny there is also  a basic dogmatic ignorance of elementary psycho-acoustic pushed as SCIENCE, because they use some set of  measuring tools..

By the way, i did not used only material treatment with the right ratio for reflective/absorbing/diffusive surface and volume, i created my own large band MECHANICHAL equaliser with one hundred distributed tuned Helmholtz resonators all around critical spots in the room... I used equalization in my own way with SUCCESS...No cost...

Am i deluded ? Yes for Amir...

He read Toole book but never apply it... He trust only tools not his ears...

He think the brain /ears work like a Fourier computer...

He really claim all the phisicists i used to explain all my points were deluded, incompetent or they are as Van Maanen gear seller...

Bad faith at his top expression...

Not a SINGLE argument to counter the fact that we need a non linear and time dependant theory of hearing for interpreting sound qualities real meanings in an ecological theory of hearing and to MEASURE the limits of our Fourier tools themselves  ... it is WHY any acoustician know that the Fourier hearing theory need to be complemented by an ecological hearing Theory... Amir does not know how to spell e-c-o-l-o-g-i-ca-l ... 😊 He never wrote this word to counter it with an argument...

read all his posts...

He sell his tools and site ideology...nothing else...

Yes, it is hard to believe that seeking the straw in our eyes you never seek the beam in your own eyes...

As Feynman really means , FOR you ,is you fool ourself by believing that all biases are equal...

What are Rodman and me our common biases : we confide and trust our ears experience and history, it is the straw in our eyes...

This straw sometimes must be takes off by blind test or the ears must be better trained yes anybody can contest common place evidence...Because not only blind test, but training can replace past erroneous biases with better useful new acquired biases...For sure...

What are the beam in your eyes, the biases you dont see and fool you completely ?

It is from the psycho-acoustic history, and from the Oppenheim and Magnasco experiment which confirmed it, the non linear working of the ears/brain and his working in his OWN TIME DOMAIN , not in a symmetrical independant time domain as ALL linear Fourier tools..

The Oppenheim and Magnasco demonstrated, as many others psycho-acousticians demonstrated and thought it before , that the ears/brain PERCEIVE aspects of sounds in his own acquired evolutive way... it is in this way that we created speech in the same gesture than music in a rythmic, melodic unidirectionality of time ...ears/brain work in this time breaking symmetry and caused it... The ears brain dont perceive sounds linearly what does it means:

it means that higher harmonics are not evaluated by the ears in the same way with the same tonality nor with the same perceived value, it means that " Like vision, hearing — which is to say, the ear–brain system — has a nonlinear response to stimuli. This means that increasing the stimulus by, say, 10%, does not necessarily increase the response by 10%. Instead, it depends on the power and bandwidth of the signal, and on the response of the system itself." it means even more , it means that in an ecological theory of hearing :

"under some circumstances, most importantly in the presence of a detection threshold, adding noise increases the signal-to-noise ratio.

I’ll just let you read that last sentence again.

Add noise to increase S:N? It might seem bizarre, and downright wrong, but it’s actually a fairly simple idea. If a signal is below the detection threshold, then adding a small Goldilocks amount of noise can make the signal ’peep’ above the threshold, allowing it to be detected."

https://agilescientific.com/blog/2014/6/9/the-nonlinear-ear.html

Then All the Fourier linear and TIME INDEPENDANT tools and methods applied so well to the good predictive beahaviour of the designed electronic components so efficient they are, cannot alone by themselves be able to EXPLAIN the ears/brain way of processing sounds as evolution tuned up for natural sounds perception and emission or production in some recursive loop oriented in his own time domain and making us sensible MORE to the burst of a sound and to his decay than to the inverse direction :decay and burst... It is the time symmetry breaking and the creation of his own time domain by the ears/brain...

But for a set of Fourier linear maps, in a time independant way, the direction not only does not matter, but the basic abstract factors as frequencies, amplitude, and phase and duration, must be linearly ordered and interlinked , and are linearly related under the Gabor limits...But Oppenheim And Magnasco demonstrated with SELECTED MUSICIANS WITH TRAINED AND ACQUIRED MUSICAL BIASES, that the ears/brain can beat the Gabor limits or the Fourier uncertainty limits even thirteen times in some case...

Then what is the BEAM in the eyes of the Amir sect: it is the erroneous equation determining with  very small set of linear tools , the Fourier tools used to design gear and electronic components which must well behave linearly in a time independant way, which are now  dogmatically used to characterise all audible qualities  as pertaining to gear "transparency" or to be illusions or artefacts of the deluded brain biases... This dogma is the BEAM in your eyes...It induce a BIAS which you are not conscious of and this bias reduce all Musical qualities perceived by audiophiles or the average people as REAL  MUSICAL QUALITIES,  to be mere illusions of the brain, or mere artefacts, or the biase we must eliminate...

It is this bias acuired by  trained musicians which biases  you want to eliminate that what SELECTED and  used by Oppenheimer and Magnasco, selecting trained musicians to demonstrate how the ears/brain beat the Fourier uncertainty limit by working non linearly and in his own time domain,with this ACQUIRED BIAS as a DETECTING TOOL  for a privileged or biased or favored direction in time , which is the BASIS OF THE ECOLOGICAl theory of hearing, A THEORY BADLY NEEDED IN PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC SCIENCE TO COMPLEMENT THE FOURIER FREQUENCIES BASED THEORY...

Do you understand now why Feynman say that the easiest person to fool is ourself ?

It is because we dont know at what MOMENT in our life, the biases we express would be positive for the results of an experiment or negative for this experiment, or positive for hypothesis or negative for the hypothesis, as Salomon did with his judgement with the two mothers, or as Christ expressed it with the beam and the straw, we must chose the right set of biases or became conscious of them...Sometimes we must listen to ourself not to Amir and sometimes Amir is right... We must learn this timing in our life , if not, we will fool oursself each time...

Then Feynman was not speaking about ELIMINATING all biases indistinctly , which act is impossible generally, and a trivial Barnum like saying,  he ask us to choose the right set of biases...

Biases are inevitable as you know... Think about it then...We must select the right one at the right time...

In his dogmatic marketing for his site and to sell his methods of DEBUNKING, Amir is not interested to replace his biases about the way the ears/brain works, this Fourier based tools and frequency based theory of hearing, the way he used it, is  wrong...The ears/brain perceiving musical qualities dont work as a Fourier computer linearly and in the independant time domain ...These musical qualities are real for a trained ears of an acoustician and a musician or for any self trained person able to tune his room they are not biases we must eliminate IN ALL CASES... But it is not the way  Amir see it as a propagandist of his tools/toys...

No, you wrote in utterly vague circles, never landing on his actual point.

His point clearly had to do with what separates the scientific endeavour from everyday level inferences.

When Fynman says "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

That is clearly a warning about the influence of human BIAS in distorting and guidling our conclusions. "You are the easist person to fool" is a reference to how easy it is for us to filter explanations and evidence to fit our desires or biases. In fact, we are easy to fool through various pitfalls in thought, even when we are trying to not be biased. When YOU are the one doing the testing YOUR actions and interpretations will have a blind spot of your own bias.

He admonishes us therefore The first principle is that you must not fool yourself," which means we have to incorporate guardrails against fooling ourslef in to our methods of inquiry.

This is so obvious it’s just hard to believe folks like you and rodman can’t just state what he meant.

Since our biases form such an obvious, first problem in interpreting results, this is why there are various methods of mitigating the influence of bias in scientific testing. It’s why for instance many therapeutic trials are done blind, double and even triple blinded.

It’s why you want to have a hypothesis that is testable by other parties, looking to prove your hypothesis wrong, themselves using safeguards against their own bias effects.

This has OBVIOUS implications for testing audio claims. If for instance sighted bias is a known confounding variable - a prime way of FOOLING YOURSELF - then Feynman’s admonishment clearly indicates you should find a way to rule out that way of FOOLING YOURSELF. Job ONE of the approach he is advocating!

This is why most of the scientific level of research on human perception in general, and much that is available on the perception of audio gear (e.g. the research often cited by Floyd Toole) is done with controls for those variables so the FOOLING YOURSELF part is mitigated as much as possible.

Of course neither you nor anyone else no this forum needs to do scientific-level rigorous research in order to enjoy the hobby or buy whatever you want. But if someone is invoking Feynman in a thread that clearly entails the relevance of science to audio, then at least get what he was saying. You can ignore it...but at least understand it.

 

 

 

 

"Why?" You haven’t covered the "what." You said people shouldn’t use measurements to assess fidelity of amplifiers.

Why putting in my mouth what i never said... You are in complete lack of arguments about my main point in hearing theory ?

I never said that measures dont matter, i said measures cannot replace listening , nor in evaluation nor in design process...

I showed you that your own expert witness in two occasions used tones and measurements. And that the disconnected sine waves in his paper has zero resemblance to any music. How come he can do it but you complain about me?

Another distortion of what i said and of what Van Maanen said...You repeat that without being able to refute my point about hearing theories are you too frustrated?

ANY DESIGNER USE SINE WAVE PULSE ...Van Maanen too... But he use also real music bursts ... Is it too much difficult to understand why he use the two?

You are so frustrated you invented contradictions which had no relation with hearing theories and Fourier methods and the qualitative aspects of hearings .. ... Anybody can read Van Maanen articles ...

Really, it is the holy grail audiophile claim that "something that measures bad sounds good." As to shout "science doesn’t matter."

Another falsities you put in my mouth ... Are you just a marketer now or have you retain some scientific biases ?

Are you speaking to ME or to a crowd?

I spoke ONLY about science here, Magnasco and Oppenheim and Van Maanen are scientists not marketers, and Gibson is a science genius in the psychology of the visual field..

Then why speaking to ME : "science does not matter" as if i was the most idiotic here...

I NEVER said that "something that measure bad will sound good"...This is the opposite of your claim about measure... what i wrote and try to demonstrate is that because hearing cannot be explained by Fourier method which are used for the best in material design , trained listenings is always necessary as evaluation and in the design process , as was necessary to implement in the design process the right Fourier conditions to be able to predict a well behave working by each designed parts...

In a word good measures are not LINEARLY linked to good sounds.. And bad measures are not linearly linked to bad sounds... Why ? because no set of measures is COMPLETE and perfect concerning all aspests of design ... And because we dont understand completely the relation between our tools and hearing...

You miss that essential part in Van Maanen articles ?

I actually think it is possible to show pathological cases where the above is true but folks are not even trying. So trusting they are that people will just believe the salesman/engineer and give them the ticket to produce less peformant amplifiers while charging so much more for them! It is such inverted logic and remarkable that it works with people.

Fortunately this is changing. We are making that change. We are taking some control of our destiny and driving toward proper, transparent audio gear that can be shown to be so.

 

Sorry but you spoke as a seller yourself more and more it seems ... You market your own methodology as truth...You did not bother to answer my hearing theory explanations which are a refutation of your HUBRIS and claims that your idea of "transparency" is all there is in audio listening evaluation  and all come from your  limited set of measures... Your listening test and blind test are there only to debunk any opposition..

But the evaluation by listening is necessary even for parts and complete systems... And a sine wave trhough an audio system dont tell all the story there is to tell to the ears... Music matter...

i will not wait for future answers... You never adressed my objections and anybody can read them and see for himsdelf that you are unable to contradict my points..And now you did not speak to me personnally but you speak for an IMAGINARY crowd ...

i learned a lot trying to explain these things to you...

But when you explain to someone a truth that contradict his way of living, nothing will convince him... i like to discuss too much😊... I miss my students after my retirement ... But it is no more possible to go further, you cannot and dont want to understand... For you Van Maanen is a seller and Oppenheim and Magnasco experiment is a mere  anecdote... You are not interested in hearings theory, you play with toys...

Thanks for the discussion ..

my best to you...

You are right and i welcome all Amir information...

my disagreement with him is not about his free measuring verification but about hearing theories and the relation between measures and audible qualities evaluation...

I still can’t figure out why so many people get bent out of shape with Amir. I see the measurements as one part of the equation. Then I check peoples reviews and use that as the other part of the equation. He’s doing all this for free and all he gets his headaches from people who don’t like when he posts scientific information that might be less than flattering to a piece of equipment. So what’s the big deal?

In my discussion with students for 40 years i discovered that lesser mind are unable to distinguish and separate the meaningful and meaningless aspects between two quarrelling side using historical and epistemological CONTEXTS to go on a subtle deeper and longer road OVER the two partial sides...

The great American polymath scientist, chemist, mathematician and logician and probably the greateast american philosopher, founder of pragmatism , Charles Sanders Peirce, say that Hell is binary and Heaven ternary; he founded alone modern semiotics with this joke about graphs and trees ... 😊

i am misunderstood completely by the two of you ..Sorry,...

I never called all ASR members zealots... Dr Choueri and Toole discussed there among others respectable people...I even invited people here to go and read there interesting discussions .. VERIFY...

i called zealots on ASR techno SOME babbling people, SOME  techno objectivist groupies, because there is some as there is also insulting idiots here, I see some zealots attacking an experienced designer on ASR because of their ignorant zeal they ACCUSED him of designing "distortion" full product to "golden ears"...Incredible arrogance and ignorance together...They are zealots there as there exist idiots here ...

I called "idiots" those who insulted Amir here REMEMBER ? They even invited me to shut down my discussion ...

Read my posts...

i submitted more than 12 articles by 4 physicists and one geologist... And one acoustician...

I debated Amir with very precise argument from the 3 articles by MaGNASCO and Oppenheim because my main argument was there...No answer from him about this article save a remark disparaging his content as a mere secondary uninteresting or meaningless acuity test ... VERIFY...

I THANKS Amir 16 or 17 times for his set of measures as more than welcome ..Some idiots dont liked that at all...

I did not accepted though his claim about predicting ANYTHING about audible qualities from a finite set of measures on the gear ... ( his concept of "transparency" testing and his transparency concept apply to software file not to acoustic listening experience with all interfering aspects from the recording to the room acoustic )

Confusing the lenght of my posts and my clumsiness in english syntax with my alleged ZEAL, when i was winning with deep argument over some zealots of ASR or some idiots here insulting Amir, calling me a zealot is PREPOSTEROUS:

I will repeat my criticism from the first post i put here on this thread till today

The audio market condioned people to buy gear and focus on gear component, they sell them by the specs they bragged for or by the "musicality" they bragged for, Anyway the division between "subjectivist" and "objectivist" has his roots there in this PAVLOVIAN CONDITIONINGof the attention ON THE GEAR PIECE...

The main and real focus in audio, the attention , the scientific aspect of audio must be centered on ACOUSTIC AND PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC science , there is no objectivist and no subjectivist in psycho-acoustic methods...There they take the HEARING SUBJECTIVITY SERIOUSLY , they studied it experimentaly to understand this deep mystery, they dont eliminate subjectivity systematically by blind test and they dont negate his power as delusions or artefacts or illusions even if there is for sure...In the opposite they used subjectivity power and they even proved it to exist..

There is no gear objectivist in psycho-acoustic because they MEASURE all aspect on the controlled environment and all aspects of hearing to understand and APPLIED it to new design or to help with hearing impairments in natural environment experiments..

Then i am not a zealot , a zealot means someone pertaining to an ideology, objectivist measuring ideology or subjectivist listening "naieveté"; my focus is in acoustic training and psycho-acoustic learning...

Then i dont like to be called "zealot" by mistake or misunderstanding...

Call my posts too long and bad written , this is a FACT... but try yourself in a better english to convey all these complexities and answers in short posts of a few line... It is IMPOSSIBLE...

So much frothing and veins popping out on foreheads! Mahgister, you win the prize my friend! Your outpourings are truly epic and everything I have come to expect from the golden-ear brigade. And you call an ASR member a zealot?

Lots of stones thrown in glasshouses all around.

calling a ASR member zealot is just plain stupid and counterproductive. They actually have their beliefs anchored to something, a foundation, vs no anchor at all of the “it is all in the ears” people, which isn’t even remotely factual. It is all in your brain, not your ears. But hey, facts never stopped the anti ASR crew before!

A short dialogue from ASR... ( a cartoonish dialogue, a fiction not too much far from reality )

« ASR zealot : I dont know about the cymbal decay time and the brush rustle sound time envelope , i must use my tools to analyse the recording ...

---why dont you use your ears?

ASR zealot : i have nobody to supervise the blind test in a correct way... As you know the ears are dubious...

----How do you know if your analysis will reveal less about your audio system and more about the recording itself and what about if your system is not in a good room or if your system is not really so good ?

Are your tools able to gave you everything about all factors of transparency : the recording trade off ? the audio system parts ? the audio system synergy ? the audio system with no acoustic optimization ? or the same audio system in a well controlled acoustic room ?

you never use your ears first to differentiate all these factors?

ASR zealot : No need, a well behaved component measured for his linear behaviour is all there is to know... Hearing delude us in a way an oscilloscope cannot. i always listen to confirm my oscilloscope lecture.. My acuity is so good that i am always synchonized with it...

----I understand, but if the cymbal decay is not good , perhaps it is a bad file, or a bad recording technic which was used, or perhaps a bad component, or perhaps a bad synergy between them , or perhaps a bad room ? And perhaps your ears defect ?

ASR zealot : no problem i dont use my ears much because of their biases anyway...But i pass very hard to pass acuity test with success..

----And you will write a review with this recording anyway only if you are able to measure the amplifier or the speakers and use blind test with a few reviewers, is this so ?

ASR zealot : yes...

--- But suppose the recording engineer was not so good especially for the cymbal part even if the measured speakers or the measured amplifiers are measured as good with a linear behaviour what about the recording engineer fault for the cause of the lack in transparency...

ASR zealot : you dont understand the method... All audible qualities are illusory or subjective anyway, even transparency... What matter is the OBJECTIVE blind test results for our readers and the measured specs of the amplifier ...

--- Then you will go on with the amplifier review ?

ASR zealot : yes... transparency of the amplifier will be measured... not the recording technique..And the amplifier will be objectively measured and confirmed by blind test

---- Then the choice of the recording and of the room did not matter at the end ?

Asr zealot : what matter is objective measuring science... Room acoustic is a market superstition... Well measured speakers dont need a room, they will do well in any room ..

---- If even transparency is subjective as the end result , the only real objective factor is measuring tool ?

ASR zealot : yes...our role is to explain to each consumers they cannot trust any non verified by us gear component, they cannot trust their ears either...The measures is the objective level of transparency...

--- you are then the only hope to tame the audio jungle market ?

ASR zealot: this is why we exist... Law and order...

--- But psycho-acoustic experiment just demonstrated that the Fourier linear time independant mapping based models of hearing is wrong , the way our ears/brain work had no direct relation with our tools ?

ASR zealot : it is the reverse ,the experiment demonstrated that our ears cannot be trusted, i precisely stated to you that our ears cannot be trusted , even mine with top tested acuity, and this experiment by Oppenheim and Magnasco confirm it completely... The tool behave well linearly in a predictive way, the ears dont work in this way..

Only our set of linear tools verify each market component and can say something objective about sound quality... the ears works as a pair of uncontrolled horses ... our tools are the necessary blinders to tame and trained them in the right direction ... Our ears work bad non linearly as a bad impredictable circuit and dont obey science, mathematic is time independant unlike our poor hearing.. Psycho-acoustic study hearing only to replace it by A. I. which will be an improvement ...You dont seems to understand science ? You are a philosopher no ?

Thanks...

I appreciated Kevn too... and your posts too...

one thing is sure for me, even if Amir is more a market seller than a scientist, he is a gentleman... then we must condemn hateful posts...

 As i said many times i welcome his measures... Not the zealots around him parotting his dogma for the worst...

I invite everyone to read Toole discussion and Dr Choueri discussion on ASR...

There is no competition between ASR and audiogon... To much different sites...

@texbychoice just read @kevn musings and I think you are right. Very well said. I have learned from @mahgister too, so I agree it would be a pity to close this. People needs to see who Amir is warts and all, and it certainly helped me identify my own biases.

@kevn you really write well and I love your meditation on audio

Very good mapman... You are even right...

The problem is that some called "distortion" a bad name something that is used to ease the Ears/brain working when listening music... second and third hamonics are not distortion in a negative sense it is a positive tool based in acoustic...

Some designer use them for long time ago... In S. S. or tube amplification...

Distortion must be CONTROLLED not always eliminated or masked...

but i am not an electronic engineer ... I will shut myself here...

As said Amir i am a philosopher... 😊 It is not false... Even if for him it is almost an insult... For me it is not at all... 😁😊😎

I learned that some people think distortion is overrated.

Dont close this thread... It will be useful for others to read ....

They at least will learn that there is many hearing theories not just one...

They will learn that it is not a small electrical set of measures that is the center of audio but psycho-acoustic...

They will learn About the results of Magnasco and Oppenheim captivating experiment...

they will learn something... There is not much to learn in many threads...

Some people hate Amir... This is stupid.... Amir is a market seller and very polite...

i learned a lot with this thread...

Am i the only one learning here ?

😊

it seems so....

those who learned something can manifest and say what they learn ...

No bullshit please...

It is an I. Q. test not a contest in hate...😉😊

Way more interesting than a blind test to know if a cymbal decay is good or not ...

Closing this thread is an error... this thread can inform everybody about his marketing  ways..... 

It is the only place where Amir debated with evident sign of ignorance because challenged seriously , ignorance about psycho-acoustic and ignorance of any solid arguments ... He drown the fish with his tools analysis reviews one after the other as ARGUMENTS... Subjectivity must be eliminated by blind test and never used in the design process... It is the opposite of craftmanship design based on psycho-acoustic ...

Anybody can read the arguments and see there is no serious understanding of psycho-acoustic behind Amir defense of his small set of tools... The measure he takes are useful to know but cannot predict audible musical qualities from the gear... The gear must be paired synergetically in an acoustic room and reviewed by experienced listeners and the designers himself...

Agree it is time to close this thread. Although, it does demonstrate a crystal clear difference between Audiogon and ASR. ASR would never have allowed a similar exchange.

A parting suggestion before this thread might disappear. Go back and carefully read recent posts from @kevn. Very thoughtful, reasoned and accurate analysis.

I am astounded by the amount of  prof take as good arguments...

Hearing theories and their link to the design practice ... No value for prof... Amir did not even adress that he called that "philosophy" when i spoke about it and when Van Maanen write about it he called that, leaflet of marketing with no value ...He does not even try to understand the content... Everybody can look for himself with the link above......

The difference between abstracts Fourier map of frequencies, amplitude and phase and duration compared to concrete subjective ears/brain evaluation in the time domain and non linearly extracted from natural sound sources... No value for prof parotting Amir here ...

The fact that it is psycho-acoustic research now that drive audio industry no more the basic traditional gear design from edison to the first tube amp and the first S.S. amplifier and the first modern microphones in the boom after the war , because the industry being mature now, the great innovation comes from dac psycho-acoustic technology improving and mature now, but also from the like of Choueri virtual room acoustic , using positively and not eliminating as Amir do the subjective ears/brain specificities ( HTRF measures and specific inner ears comb filters measures to increase the musical experience by the fine tuning of his BACCH filters application for each subjective listener using his subjective characteristic com-pletelt instead of rejecting them )

Choueri did the exact opposite of Amir, to increase the experience he used and measure each specific aspects of subject hearing DIFFERENT abilities and his room too and speakers... Amir reject all subjective ears/brain aspects as mere illusions or artefacts . he promoted only a small set of electrical measure as REAL FACTOR of sound qualities, except some room measures but he does not advise for small room acoustic (sic)... Is it not incredible ? All that has No value as argument for prof parotting Amir here...

The fact that even hearing impairment studies need experiments in a natural environment not just in a laboratory with Fourier maps around what is called ECOLOGICAL HEARING THEORY , this is no value for prof parotting Amir...

The fact that serious designer even here in Audiogon , not just Van Maanen, use harmonics ( distortion positive control) to ease the way the ears/brain perceive sound qualities , it is of no value for prof parotting Amir whose circle of zealots purist ignorant called that MARKETING for audiophiles (idiots) .. Incredible arrogance and educated stupidity...

The fact that any trained classical musician or acoustician , or mature lover of music as i am one, can judge an audio system by analysing rise and decay of piano notes , the rise and decay of cymbals ( a perfect SIGN for analysing the way the audio system work in time control because the concentric decay of a strucked cymbals increasing as a slow circle before vanishing is better than a Fourier map analysis and way more shorter to analyse ) the bass evaluation with turkish drum or gong , and the organ bassier note rendition , the rise of the higher note of the violin and his decay time etc, all that are IMMEDIATELY revelatory of an audio design better than few electrical measures from the linear Fourier window of a circuit behaviour, but it is of no value for Prof parotting Amir...

it is incredible the knowledge of prof and Amir...they are able to predict everything about audio qualities with few set of electrical measures... Indeed it is exactly what Amir sell to gullible consumers.. His method as catechism...

They know something , and they know better than me on many audio points for sure, but their misunderstanding of the BASIC psycho-acoustic theory and applications is stunning...

They really think that techno cultism is science and replace concrete listening experience and the only possible experiment is with the few tools of Amir...

Amir bragged about predicting cymbal harmonious decay or the timbre of a violin by measuring an amplifier and connecting it with speakers in a room with no acoustic...No doubt any acoustician can go to sleep now and any recording engineer too, any classical or jazz musicians, they dont know what transparency is, Amir know with his electrical tools...

i am astounded and dumbfounded... i had been unable to discuss anything here anybody can verify that Amir produce no argument against my essential point NONE ... Oppenheim and Magnasco experiment no value for prof at all, parotting Amir...

And prof say naively that he is even attacked on ASR by defending something about the hearing subjectivity...Incredible... imagine a naive designer audiophile how it will be treated ? i know because i read many pages of dialogue between an expert designer and some Amir groupies... this designer is more a saint that i am for sure...

it seems we can have a diploma at low price now...

In my time 1963, i studied latin and old greek english too ( but i did not pass my graduation in english 😊 and i struggle with Latin theme writing ) we learned anyway how to read any text and commented it at 13 years old... now it seems that education dont exist. only SPECIALIZATION with empty programmable students....

i say all that because i am stunned by this level of ignorance... i am not an engineer in audio ... And i am able to win easily an argument, so much high is the level of ignorance in techno cultism ...

Ok small set of electrical measure of dac amp and speakers overcome psycho-acoustic facts about the limits of electrical measures and hearing theory facts about the ears/brain ...

 Amir was not able to contradict even one point of my discourse about magnasco and Oppenheim  experiment... You dont read it prof ?

You are a great scientist prof no doubt... 😊

I’m not saying Amir is perfect or some objective Deity. I’m just observing the quality of the arguments here, and Amir is providing the higher quality arguments thus far.

«For high fidelity sound i train my electrons»--Groucho Marx 🤓

«Are you trying to sell me a cable brother ?»😎