Sorry ...
I will stay mute...
but if someone ask me questions i gave answers...
My apology...
Is ASR for real, or is it only for those sub $1k or even sub $2K?
I did some browsing on the forum and it seems like most don't own very expensive gears. Most of them own mostly sub 1K or 2K gears.
I recently ask about feedback on the Polk R700 but after about a month with no responds. I did a search "ASR Polk R700", with all but one poster which actually owned a pair. Most of them would point you to some measurement and some theoretical discussion but non actually own a pair.
I also looked at a few posts on budget speakers such as the Kef Q7 or Polk R600, but I didn't see any actual owners responding.
I don't mean to knock on them but ASR seems like a lot of hype but very little substance.
- ...
- 148 posts total
@mahgister I'm very serious. For instance, Fourier uncertainty has been partially debunked as leading to a discounting of FFTs for analyzing signals due to nonlinear behavior in human hearing: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06890 More, FFTs do a fine job for examining temporal behavior. Fast time domain events manifest as high frequency spray in the frequency domain. So, back to my specific question: give me one testable claim that contradicts some analysis by Amir. |
A critic on details of the experience and his reinterpretation in a larger context dont negate it... Their one page critic do not invalidate the original experiment of M. and O. completely but ask for a reinterpretation of the way the human hearing work in his own time domain in a way difficult to describe by standard Fourier method, they ask for more refined experiments... The others articles i quoted all of them, not only Magnasco and Oppenheim. goes toward an ecological theory of hearing... It is like throwing the baby with the spoiled waters.. But at least i see you are serious... It is the first time someone proves to me that he read the article.. «we demonstrate In their own word they dont criticize the main thesis but the way the experiment were conducted and ask for more... Thats all .. I knew this article by the way ...Science goes from experiments to new experiments ... This dont means that human hearing is understood now and under the power of the Fourier mapping and reducible to it...
Now to understand what i spoke about you must investigate the difference between an ecological theory of hearing and a non ecological theory of hearing... Here an article to begin somewhere :
|
@mahgister But even if any of that is true, does it mean that ASR measurements are flawed? After all, no company producing audio technologies has access to special time-of-arrival analysis systems that they can then use to build completely novel DACs, amps, etc. that exceed the standard methods. The current best-of-breed technologies are based on solid engineering principles of reducing noise and distortion in achieving their goals. So, once again, give me a specific testable claim that shows a specific flaw in ASR's test methodology. |
I just came up with one! Let's say that human hearing exceeds Fourier Uncertainty due to nonlinear cochlear structure and that this does actually mean that FFTs are not sufficient for characterizing the transfer function of devices (contrary to the debunk paper). In that case, it should be easy (hah hah hah) to show that certain fast temporal signals are discernible by highly discerning musicians and whatnot. More, the FFTs are not able to predict that. Soooooo, all we need to do is prove this is the case. For equipment design we need a new paradigm that, well, preserves the original signal as well as possible both WRT general noise/distortion and this new Fourier Uncertainty temporal phenomenon. That is all new work, however, and doesn't really have anything to do with ASR testing! |
- 148 posts total