@mahgister I think I have to let this word salad go, my man. I still can't tease out any real critique of ASR that would meaningfully impact what he does in terms of reviewing audio equipment. As is always the case, I encourage those who have new and innovative ideas to find ways to express them and change the world, so I look forward to seeing the Mahgister Audio Science Review in the future!
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
You can call "word salad" (an insult not an argument) evident facts about ASR claims, this will not change reality... Asking me to create my own marketing scheme is pre-supposing, as Amir do, as solved already what is at the core of this debate : What is audible qualias and why a Fourier theory of hearing cannot do it... ( and i am not competent as Amir compared to me to do it as anyone can guess) Begin here with a competent peers reviewed scientist : «Currently, the design requirements are based on the Fourier theory, applied to human hearing but the Fourier theory is a linear theory, but “The human ear is not a Fourier Transformer"
The name of my site is "Research in the sins of Amir" or RSA... My site is here and i recommend articles and books...
I hope my recommendation of articles has been useful to you and i had more and deeper one by the way under my sleeves ...Thanks for the discussion..
|
@mahgister Well, if you could point to a specific flaw in an ASR review it would be meaningful. For example, demonstrate that FFTs are incapable of showing important, hearable differences between specific devices. Now that would be a great start for RSA! |
I already answered among my "word salad" with two specific articles: Van Maanen slides (second link in his site) help a lot and discussed the design problem, The second article is quoted by Van Maanen and the title is clear : “The human ear is not a Fourier Transformer"
Anyway all the articles i pointed to and quoted 8 in total+ one book a doctoral thesis on the history of acoustics, all implied an ecological approach to hearing theory contradicting the fact that hearing and design can be reduced completely to Fourier transform as claimed Amir by his ideological stance and the way he use his tool: Amir claim that all qualias are artefacts of the computing brain and illusions which us at ASR pointed to by using double blind test and the specs measures which are the only way to know if a design piece of gear will sound "good" ... If you are not able to see that this is pure marketing ideology you have not understood anything... Your only argument save this question (where are the flaw in Amir set of measures), already answered by my articles you put again and again is qualifying my posts of being "baffling word salad". Generally the first to insult is the one with no argument ... I dont need to insult you myself i only need to read and quote real scientists... But you have clarified your intention here in the beginning: writing about audiophile myths (subjectivist are wrong but objectivist are right )... Then your idea are settled to do debunking circus not to understand hearing in relation with audio design and you are in the direction where you argue to justify Amir marketing it seems..( i distinguish as i said Amir marketing and specific Amir measures) I am more serious ...
to make a resume : «What the cochlea is actually doing is somewhere between a wavelet and Gabor. At high frequencies, frequency resolution is sacrificed for temporal resolution, and vice versa at low frequencies.»https://www.dissonances.blog/p/the-ear-does-not-do-a-fourier-transform#footnote-3-148555184 This means there is a trade off and to understand hearing we must takes seriously the fact that there is more in the brain analysis than only Fourier transform as well as there is more in good design than only Fourier transform...Read Van Maanen here ...
"The description of the cochlea’s processing,balancing temporal and frequency resolution in a way that’s "somewhere between a wavelet and Gabor" transform,is closely related to the Magnasco and Oppenheim results on human hearing exceeding the Fourier uncertainty principle." And it is closely related to the necessity of an "ecological" theory of hearing...
By the way
"There’s some debate— a 2015 comment critiqued the experimental design of Magnasco and Oppenheim as not purely testing Fourier limits—but the core finding holds up in subsequent studies." (Grok consultation )
To clarify my "word salad" i asked Grok to put it in clear well written English for your own sake :
Read it many times then you will not ask me where are Amir flaw in his measures set...
 «The Magnasco and Oppenheim results show that human hearing surpasses the Fourier uncertainty principle, achieving simultaneous time-frequency acuity that linear models (like the cochlea’s wavelet/Gabor-like processing) cannot explain. This suggests the auditory system is not a generic signal processor but a specialized system shaped by ecological demands—survival tasks like detecting predators, communicating, or navigating complex soundscapes. An ecological theory of hearing is needed to.» Grok
|
- 148 posts total