Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Keep for yourself your theory that all there is to say about sound qualities is relative to your limited set of measures...

I don't have to keep what I have not stated.

Objectivist must learn psycho-acoustic science behind technology and develop humility....

This knowledge used to be part of job function and responsibility. Getting it wrong would impact the fortunes of the company I worked for and myself.  Have you been similarly situated?  What is your level of knowledge of psychoacoustics on scale 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest?

• The common conclusion is that reproduction of sound from
20 Hz – 20 kHz with only the correct amplitude is completely
sufficient for sound reproduction, indistinguishable from the
original, but quite in conflict with the above mentioned
anecdotal findings and with what I hear.

Anecdotes and $5 will get you a cup of coffee....  Nothing in the research you are posting supports stuff like that.  There was no test of human perception of frequencies above 20 kHz.  Or impact of eliminating such.  This is all stuff you are reading into the research which has no justification whatsoever.

The Fourier theory is very powerful and useful for audio, but it can only be applied correctly when the conditions imposed are fulfilled.

Fourier theory is not part of the design of any amplifier. Nor is Fourier theory what the paper is about that you keep posting. The Fourier theorem as it is more properly called, is a mathematical proof. It used in some signal processing domains such as lossy audio compression. It has no applicability to an analog amplifier. Such an amplifier is not performing any transform from analog to digital or vice versa.

You are intermingling topics because of lack of understanding of the underlying concepts.

The research simply says that for a special class of signals our hearing system seems to be able to detect their frequency and timing more accurately than the uncertainty principal in Fourier predicts. It has no relevance to topic of audio measurements, or function of analog audio equipment. Extrapolating otherwise shows that even the most basic concepts here are not understood.

And again, much of our audio measurements is done in time domain with no usage of Fourier transforms. They are not bound by any uncertainty principal because they don’t attempt to quantify either time or frequency. When we use Fourier transforms, it is to decompose a signal, i.e. its distortion products. We don’t intend or rely on its frequency resolution.

@amir_asr Gremlin or Aztec? The world wants to know! You should post your answer on your site though.

@amir_asr  - little reminder, amir : )

Thank you for your quick response, amir. I hope you won’t mind if I can clarify an issue (I realise how many queries you are attempting to answer at the same time, so I fully understand if you missed this) - 

My question was if you could advise if the test was a good way to gauge listening ability, but your reply involved "Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems", training and learning.

My question did not have anything to do with a method, or training, or audio systems, just whether the test, even if intended to have participants give a ‘no, there is no difference’ answer; only if you could advise if it was a good starting point to gauge ‘listening ability’.

The first response you gave me the impression you had already decided the test was not good for training or or learning. The test was certainly not posturing as being anything other than a simple measure if an individual could hear the differences of resolution in the two files presented.

It seems to me, with the results I got from the twelve friends I asked, that the test, however basic, served its purpose. I wondered if you could advise if this simple test works well enough as a beginning to determine good listeners from bad listeners, all training aside.

Thanks again, and I look forward to your reply! 

In friendship. - kevin