Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
It is comical to see Amir arguing about acuity test,... And bragging about it... Acuity is useless to perceive a bird song if you dont have the concept of bird nor the concept of song... You will perceive noise not a "bird song"... i think Amir never had a course in philosophy... Even elementary... It is a pity... Because science without philosophical basic make no sense at all... Anything perceived by the ears/brain must be recognized, it is why acoustician and musician train their ears/brain to acquire the right set of BIASES... Acuity as sensitivity to hertz scale and decibels scale alone cannot replace TRAINING...Without this training it is not surprizing that someone in love with electrical tools claim that electrical measures are the only valid predictive way to assess audio hearing qualities... About this matterc the two most influential philosopher of the last century are Merleau_Ponty, and the mathematician turned philosopher Husserl... But i know for sure that someone unable to read a simple paper as the paper of Magnasco and Oppenheim will not be able to read Husserl... it is not like reading cartoons or cartesian graphs or electrical graphs at all ...
|
Every body has a brain. Some are unfortunate and may have medical conditions. That”s not their fault. Others have a brain and value learning. Others do not. One’s values help determine how and what is learned. Amir is laser tuned on scientific measurements. You on philosophy, embedding and now psycho acoustics and how that affects what one hears. It’s all good. The point is you and Amir both WANT to learn and you each have your way. Good. Yay! Bravo! Do your thing! The problem is some have perfectly good brains but have been conditioned to devalue learning including in science and other fields . All the while reaping the benefits of what other smart people learned and they didn’t . Think about it! Learning is a core value in some cultures In others increasingly learning is the enemy! We all are human and have our biases and limitations. Some learn to learn and others fight it tooth and nail and want to rely on “instincts” only. I respect that As long as one is not trying to obstruct others from doing their thing their way however that may add value. End schpiell…. That’s all.
|
No. If you are going to comment on a "too long post" maybe read it first. Did you even see what I wrote about how the Opera experiment scenario exemplified much of Feynman’s advice? It's much richer than just "blind experiment." I’m not running experiments on fundamental physics. But as I said, when it comes to my own tests and I want to be more cautious, I adopt methods that align with Feynman’s cautions about "fooling yourself" (and like I showed, presenting my method and data to others for critique). You either can’t admit how this fits well with Feynman’s words...or you just don’t understand Feynman (or the scientific method). You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.
|
@amir_asr Yes I am AJ. How did you know? I can prove I am not him. You can’t prove that you didnt run the audio externally through whatever listening device you used through another analyzer. There is no way to verify this, unless someone was watching you do it. You absolutely could cheat that test. Nothing is monitoring the output sound. |
