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

You dont understand what i say at all...

I never said that Amir is wrong about measuring any specs as verification of  a design well executed or not...

Read this two times please...

I said that Amir theory about audio reducing all acoustical experience  to his measures is an ideology...

measures had meanings in a hearing theory context...

They had no meaning in the absolute...

Amir sell an ideology to make his site the only one "scientific"...

It is a false claim...

Acoustics parameters are all interpreted in some theoretical context about hearing ...

 Amir claim that all about hearing is already known and all audiophile claims are bullshit...

Kunchur say no...

All the scientists i quoted said no...

 The fact than one experiment can be criticized do not invalidate the thesis no more than kunchur alleged errors in measuring cables  invalidated his claim about hearing...

 You asked me this question three or four times...

my answer is very clear... I dont spoke about details  or errors or flaws in Amir measuring tools and results...( i am not competent enough to point to that  anyway ask Kunchur he already answered to your question in the quote above and in his text in 5 points... Why do you act as if i had not answer to you ?

I contested his general interpretation of his measures,  i do not  allege flaws  in his measures...(Kunchur can do it and did it  not me) 

Kunchur answer about the flaw:

«The temporal (time) resolution of the auditory system has no direct connection with 1/f (reciprocal of frequency). Mr. Majidimehr mixes the two. Humans can detect a time differencen between left and right ears of 10 microseconds at a frequency of 900 Hz. This time is 100 times shorter than 1/f ~1 millisecond. This has been known for over half a century5,6»

 Why is this such?

It is because human hearing lives in his own time NON LINEAR  dimension created by his evolutive history with sound...

It is call an ecological theory of hearing...

Read the articles above instead of asking me a  question already answered by me and by all the others scientist together clearly ...

 

@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.

 

@mahgister It's all terribly vague to me...I don't know that Amir is selling an ideology or that he believes he is the only one who is scientific. He measures gear and ranks them. Often their differences are beyond audible according to most theories and experimental results. He admits as much.

Can you give me a hyperlink to the Kunchur paper in question? Kunchur seems like a crank based on his fatally flawed work on cables, but I'll take a look. I can add it to the database!

I criticize Amir about what he said not about his measures as such... Many measures he gave us are useful... Who is idiotic enough to contest that ?

 not me...

But claiming that we can judge a piece of gear only with his measures is ideology and marketing nothing more ...

read Kunchur and you will see that he is a real scientist and by the way read Van Maanen , he is serious scientist more in applied acoustics and audio design , here the links :

 

 

Kunchur articles

https://sites.google.com/view/kunchur/audio-acoustics

 

Hans Van Maanen articles are very deep and meaningful too : 

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/index.php/en/pyra

 

Thank you for the discussion and your patience...

 

begin with this one of Van Maanen :

Discrepancies between measured and perceived
quality of sound reproduction systems

http://file:///C:/Users/Propri%C3%A9taire/Downloads/AES_UK_presentation_7_October_2025.pdf

@mahgister  Excellent! Thanks. The final link to Van Maanen appears to be a link to your local Windows file system, BTW.

It turns out I previously read all of the Kunchur papers. I haven't delved to validate the Van Maanen though the feedback in amplifiers papers ring a bell.

I'll just mention that Kunchur's response to Amir doesn't really go after the major flaws in the cable papers, so your quotes about the limits of frequency analysis that are derived from that are just an argument from authority and nothing more.

The longer-form paper on human auditory systems is worth reading by anyone and the one I recalled as a "long-form paper." I don't think it has any bearing on ASR's methodologies.

The most interesting one from Kunchur is on temporal discrimination for square waves. Kunchur thinks that the results provide justification for higher resolution (above the Nyquist frequency) audio files, which is interesting. The test population was fairly small, though, so I'd be interested in seeing larger studies that are looking at things other than square waves.

But I appreciate the refresher and will try to get some of the Van Maanen soon.

I don't see any ideological marketing from ASR reflected in these papers. What happens in science is that there are new findings and they reach reliability over time and that gets pushed down into engineering where there is a practical application. It takes time and it is proper to have "epistemic humility" as I mentioned above meaning healthy but not dogmatic skepticism.

The paper i recommend is the slides in the second position...

All the articles are interesting :

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/index.php/en/pyra

 

 

I don’t see any ideological marketing from ASR reflected in these papers.

I never said that these papers attacked Amir ASR directly as such (save Kunchur rebuttal of Amir which go to the core problem anyway)   they described the concepts about hearing theory (non linear time domain of our hearing) and the unsatisfied necessary  conditions for the application of Fourier theory in design (Van Maanen ) or in hearing theory Itself (Kunchur and the others) which facts  discredited Amir proposal of his measures as anything else than SOME specs verification  assessing good or bad design  anything else proposing these measures as the standard to determine S.Q.  is ideology and marketing  not science  ...

 Hearing theory rule acoustics(psycho-acoustics) and acoustics concepts, to begin with & at the end, rules audio engineering...Not the reverse ...

Example: Amplifiers, speakers and hearing aids design, dacs etc must takes into account how we hear sound and interpret phenomena to be improved ...

 

these are wise words:

What happens in science is that there are new findings and they reach reliability over time and that gets pushed down into engineering where there is a practical application. It takes time and it is proper to have "epistemic humility" as I mentioned above meaning healthy but not dogmatic skepticism.

Good night ...