Is ASR for real, or is it only for those sub $1k or even sub $2K?

In my last discussion with Amir i quoted 8 sciences papers from different scientists all going in the same direction : true science is over the ideological  line subjectivist/objectivist, because acoustics investigate human hearing seriously...

 Amir did not answer once with an argument...

 He gave only  his measures example as truth with no concept at all of what they implied as tools and what they erroneously supposed about human hearing...

He is a marketer man not a scientist he never was one. Using  hammer and saw  dont make you an architect...

As i said between the two groups:subjectivist are less wrong than objectivist, at least they kept educating their hearing abilities, objectivist read dials as hearing truth...

it seems very few people has read a real acoustics books about hearing theory  which is way more  than  room acoustics ...

Acoustics  investigate hearing. Amir suppose hearing fool us and if we eliminate it with double blind test it is enough, the important for him  is some set of measures specs...

For Amir most subjectivist are nuts....

But for many  subjectivist, objectivists with their parameters are nuts too...

A costlier dac with the hyped brand name  appear always more important than a straw in the room because they ignore that even 2 milliseconds of difference can make a huge audible difference, in a mechanical way with a straw as the neck of a resonator well placed in a room or electronically with an integrated DSP (localization cue correction or also crossfeed for example) ...

The result is the same for our hearing; huge...

I knew it because i experimented with this...

And i experimented with this because i picked acoustics book or articles which suggested the experiments to me...

Here or on ASR all speak about buying gear mostly... Generally costlier upgrade here, and best measured and often  low cost gear In ASR...

They all spoke about gear, not so  much about optimization, mechanical or digital optimisation ....But acoustics is about that not about the gear measures,design,cost, only but more about his optimization for our hearing or vice versa optimization of our hearing by better devices(hearing aids which are also  specialized speakers by the way ) 

@mahgister I believe I responded to some of your claims about the papers in that same thread? As above, though, you have a tendency to write in scattershot and incoherent ways. I assume English is not your first language and am very sympathetic since I can’t make consistent sense in any of the other languages I study, but it does make it complicated to understand your arguments!

If your point here is primarily that room optimization is important, you can, for instance, search for REW on ASR and you get 20 pages of posts on various aspects of using REW. A search for DIRAC also yields 20 pages of posts.

@markwd 

It seems you are mistakenly conflating a person's native language with their ability to articulate a cogent point.

To wit, there is no shortage on this forum of obviously native English speakers who don't make any sense either.

Incoherence and nationality have nothing in common, assuming the writer possesses a minimal level of proficiency in the language being used. To suggest otherwise - and I'm sure that's not your intent, but it never hurts reiterating - hews dangerously close to discriminatory talk.

@devinplombier Of course! I've interacted with @mahgister on many occasions and have fairly consistently been baffled. As I mention, I am very sympathetic if that's the driving factor but my secondary point was that Amir might simply not have understood him.

I am accused to be incoherent in my debate with Amir. You supposed that by acoustics (with an s) and psycho-acoustics  i was speaking merely about room acoustic (without s) which proves not only you misread completely what i was speaking about, theoretical and applied acoustics.

But you prove you had not read even one of the 8 articles   i posted all related from different scientists, all aiming to  old theory of acoustics  as insufficient  to explain hearing with linear frequencies response without taking into  account  the non linear domain where lives our ears/brain...( the  Fourier maps are not the territory)

I spoke about the perception of "timbre" as something Amir dont understand...He never answered about Van Maanen observation  about this because he does not and cannot understand them, if he did,his marketing will appear as a fraud or a bad informed claim...As said the maxim if you are paid  to see nothing, you will not see nothing...

Comical and pathetical that someone accuse me of being unable to wrote coherently here but dont even understand the matter which is at stakes...And i dont mind if you dont read my posts but the articles i refered to  were fundamental et spoke for themselves...

My English is not good but my brain work very well ...

@mahgister I believe I responded to some of your claims about the papers in that same thread? As above, though, you have a tendency to write in scattershot and incoherent ways. I assume English is not your first language and am very sympathetic since I can’t make consistent sense in any of the other languages I study, but it does make it complicated to understand your arguments!

If your point here is primarily that room optimization is important, you can, for instance, search for REW on ASR and you get 20 pages of posts on various aspects of using REW. A search for DIRAC also yields 20 pages of posts.

i underlined your mis- repreasentation of my debate with Amir...

Acoustics is a complex field where room acoustic is a small part...

the acoustics context where measures and parameters made sense or not or are not sufficient this was the core debate not room acoustic...

it seems no one read a single line of the 8 articles i posted...

Then someone dare to accuse me to be incoherent...

We can laugh or wept...it is our choice...i laugh....

Is this post answering you is clear?

Coherent?

I hope so....