Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Amir dont answer to true scientific question...It seems...

I will repeat :

Amir information about gear is USEFUL....

 But Amir claims trashing all listening experience if not based on his measurements is MEANINGLESS by psycho-acoustic science...

I cite 4 physicists saying the same thing on different perspective... He never answer them nor the question ... Save for one which is supposed to be ignorant in cables protocols and measurement...😊 Ok then answer the OTHERS...

The crux of the matter is not CABLES here, it is the relation between hearing which work in the non symmetrical time domain and non lienarly, then Fourir methods are not enough to describe human hearings... Then the allegation to related gear measurements to be the main factor for predicting qualitative audio perception is FALSE...

"I am interested in fundamentals about human hearing, and this fundamentals demolish your claim to equate measurements of gear and qualitative hearing perception..."

Then you better hang around ASR, watch the videos I post, etc. and really learn the topic.  Don't go hanging your hat on stuff you don't understand and put them forward as proof of anything.  These papers such as Kunchur's have been discussed extensively and he has been shown to have no relevant knowledge of audio.   Join us, ask questions and we are happy to explain and discuss.  Otherwise you are not really interested I am afraid.

"Amir claims trashing all listening experience if not based on his measurements is MEANINGLESS  by psycho-acustic science..."

Totally wrong.  Listening tests are incredibly valuable.  But they only create value if they are conducted properly.  If not, they produce noise, not data or knowledge.  

Above has nothing to do with whether you believe in measurements or not. 

First, this has nothing to do with fourier transform.

The crux of the question is precisely about the fourier method and the impossibility to work with it in the time domain...

YOUR TOOLS WORK measuring gear components not hearing abilities...

YOU PLAY WITH ME... It is not polite...

The article by Oppenheim and Magnasco is about LISTENING TESTS...

And they demonstrate the human hearing abilities beating the Gabor limit and the Fourier uncertainty...

Then your measuring tools are adequate for gear measurements components not for  establishing  the value of hearing experience...

You act as a GURU equatiing  measuring gear components tools with hearing experience...You refused to discuss the meaning of the Oppenheim and Magnasco listenings experiments...

Your tools dont works in the time domain analysis and work in a time symmetrical domain... The ears /brain dont work as that...

Answer this physicist who works in high end audio ABOVE , and state that clearly the ears /brain works in the time domain and your tools cannot measure hearing experience only the specs accuracy of gear ...

DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR :

This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems

«Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. »

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf

«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion
levels, sound different. It is to be expected that ten (10) different designs will produce ten different responses to music signals and thus receive a different perceptual qualification.»

This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊

By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco :

«Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...»

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf