I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.
As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.
Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.
The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.
a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.
b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.
For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.
Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.
In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.
3. Crossover point and dispersion
One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.
Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.
Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.
In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response. One big reason not to is crossover costs. I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range. In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies. Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.
I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.
There is actually a vast well of acknowledgement of the applicability of these measurements, though there of course remain deep discussions about aspects of their relevance to certain areas of audio science and listener experience.
The creators of audio equipment are engineers and use all the same principles in designing the gear that you enjoy. Noise and distortion are characterized and measured and how to manage them is part of the design process. For something like tube amps, there are deep technical issues in harmonic distortion components, and so forth. You can go to the primers at ASR on the relevance of measurements to understand more.
I disagree that it is a waste of "our" collective time. It instead provides depth and clarity, debunks long-held myths, and even improves the quality of components as a reflective market signal (see design changes by Schiit Audio, for instance) delivered by the community of users. That is a new and rare kind of social and capitalist phenomena.
I think you may have misunderstood the statement: audiophiles were in the less-trained cohorts (with reviewers as their proxy; trained listeners were trained by Harman), therefore it goes against the claims...
Speculating about the buying habits is based on, admittedly, a quick perusal of ASR and the reviews. Dont see a great deal of higher end product and what I did see was reviews of equipment on loan from ASR members. Hmmm.
Well hand bags and audio is a terrible analogy. We dont cross our fingers we base our choices on how things sound. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous and speaks to your uncertainty regarding your senses. Just because you find comfort in what you consider to be "quantifiable data" dont condemn others because they do not.
Amir provides evidence in the form of measurements, but there is no universal acknowledgement as to the applicability of these measurements and which measurements explain things properly and are of actual significance. If I want to know about measurements I will go to those that create, not a populist wannabe. This is a really old argument that is no closer to being resolved than it was 2 decades ago.
Listening test data! What data and what proof? A graph, some mention of trained listeners and all this coming from Amir of all people. Who could you possibly take this seriously without a significant amount of additional detail?
Buy what you want, believe what you want, but dont lecture others that the enjoyment they experience with their tube amp is anything other than aspects of reproduction that are deemed superior during the listening experience.
Less trained listeners are much less picky though which goes against the claims of audiophiles that they are have extraordinary hearing ability.
Less trained listeners are much less picky (having lower standards) which goes to affirm the claims of audiophiles that they have extraordinary hearing ability.
There, I fixed it. The data points the way but the inference needed some work. I can skew conclusions as good as the next guy.
Women pay more for designer handbags all the time. I think it’s because they look better! No metrics needed. Someone should set them straight. Some things sound and look better……just because. You can take that to the bank and…..keep your fingers crossed.😊
Well, he just provided listening test evidence above that suggests that experience, belief, and listening are not accurate or discriminatory. Therefore at least some of the group you claim to represent are actually wrong in their beliefs. The bundling of that is firmly tied up by known properties of human cognitive bias, everything from frequency effects to sighted bias and individual differences.
As far as characterizing the spending habits and wealth profile of ASR visitors, I wouldn't speculate. Speculation is an imaginative way to fail when not held at arm's length as a mere hypothesis that must be backed by facts and data.
I thought my post was very clear on most points but I will address one key thing. It is Amir and the ASR narrative that we are wrong and they are correct. The other side simply believes that they hear the difference and base this belief on experience. Amir constructs reasons why we are wrong, lumps the experience into a tidy bundle and gains a few followers along the way it seems. My guess is that his core group are not high enders, but rather some mid-fi hobbyists who Amir has convinced are missing out on very little by paying less rather then more.
Many people couldn't tell the difference between coke and Pepsi in a blind test, but there is definitely a difference in taste. I bet that at home in a more relaxed atmosphere more people could tell the difference.
Amir measures things which is fine. But no one can adequately explain how a majority of people in this hobby gravitate, through experience, away from notions that much of what Amir says is true.
Majority of people? Where on earth did you get that from? ASR is now nearly the largest audio site in the world. The high-end audio market where people have these notions you talk about is tiny part of the overall market.
But let's say you are right. The reason is simple: audiophiles have no awareness of how their perception works. Or how to conduct proper listening tests that truly test the thing they are after. Given these two factors, they wind up concluding that "everything matters." When in reality vast amount of it doesn't.
How do we know this? When the rare opportunity comes to test one of you in controlled situation where all that is involved is the ear and nothing else.
A long time member of this forum who has a half a million dollar audio system and believes everything matters, volunteered for such a test. This is my summary of it:
"So our results with Mike as our listener were clear: for this particular methodology, Mike could not accurately identify a difference in the cables."
M ike was so sure of his ability hear differences in cables yet the moment all but the sound of cables was presented to him, he was unable to reliable tell his cable from another apart.
"yes; i have, to some degree, changed my perspective on cable differences....but...my mind is still processing the results and what they mean for me. i hope that i can coherently relate the various thoughts that go thru my mind. as Chris mentioned; the controls were successful at keeping me from knowing which cable was which. for each test i felt confident about my choice (except #6...see below).
[...] when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'. we had discussed prior that any result 7 out of 10 or better or 15 out of 20 or better would mean a positive result and to continue. once we got to only 3 out of 7 it was clear that we were not going to get a positive result.
why did i fail?.....or put another way.....why did this test show no real difference? was i overconfident?
yes; regardless of the eventual answer i was not respectful enough of the challenge.
[...]
in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it."
----
Sadly he didn't learn anything from the experiment and now he just avoids such tests or pays attention to what measurements, and audio science and engineering says.
All of you have the potential to have a revelation here. Just conduct a test blind and repeat it a few times. Grab your cable, fuse, or whatever you think is making a difference and test it blind that way. I assure you that whatever you think you can hear, you won't.
im simply saying there are things that can’t be measured accurately with pink noise tone!
Good because I don't use pink noise for any tests.
I think most people with descent hearing hear close to the same thing.
Indeed, they do. When it comes to preference for speakers for example, it doesn't matter where you are from, whether you are audiophile or not, whether you are old or young. Strong similarity exists for neutral and uncolored sound when tested in controlled testing.
These four speakers were ranked the same way across multiple listener groups from trained listeners to reviewers and students. Less trained listeners are much less picky though which goes against the claims of audiophiles that they are have extraordinary hearing ability.
I'm unclear on your points. You seem to begin by claiming that poor measurements might sound "more correct overall" which begs the question of what "more correct" means? I think you are smuggling in preference; what you like is somehow more correct than the preferences of others. I've less certitude beyond saying that accurate reproduction fidelity is mostly my preference.
What is in fact "completely false" about Amir's statements? Is it just that you claim, without evidence, that a majority of people disagree with accurate reproduction or flat frequency responses, etc.? That seems unlikely given the very high interest in ASR based on visit frequencies.
And, finally, no clear idea what sublimities you are fishing at in your final paragraph or why you consider his listening "mechanical." Is it because he uses different language to describe his listening outcomes or doesn't tarry sufficiently about some aspect of your preferences for listening adjectives?
Of course reducing noise and distortion are desirable. I dont think anyone disputes this. Sometimes the other qualities that you get from components that measure poorer in these areas still sound more correct overall.
Very few really talented solid state designers will dispute that they cant duplicate what tubes do well in their designs. Just as few designers of any amp type will dispute that their designs sound better with higher impedance speakers.
Amir measures things which is fine. But no one can adequately explain how a majority of people in this hobby gravitate, through experience, away from notions that much of what Amir says is true. In fact much of it is completely false.
He doesnt come across to me as a listener of any acumen. He completely missed the sublime aspects of this hobby. He speaks as if it were a mechanical undertaking and also listens in the same fashion.
Most just need to start with good quality low noise and distortion gear. Then you can and should use DSP like that on Roon to tailor the sound. That’s the powerful 21st century way of doing things. No need to find the gear that has just the right distortion seasoning out of the can for your personal tastes. That is not a very efficient approach to getting the best sound for most in this mostly digital day and age.
I almost always add a bump from 4-6khz to my sound. It gives the sound a little extra edge like a good set of high efficiency horns. But look mom….no horns!
Ummm, no, that is wildly inaccurate. Please read some ASR reviews and read/watch the primers to get an understanding of how measurements are performed. There is no pink noise, but there are various frequency response measurements, very similar to the way that DIRAC or other room calibration approaches work because that is exactly what they are emulating.
Ok, so we agree that there are preferences and those preferences may not correspond to the Harman curve, for instance, which is an aggregate measure of preference. In DACs and amps the notion that there is a preference for distortion artifacts is simply at odds with valuing accurate reproduction, however. I'm fine with that. Folks be free, always, but I still have no clear idea why anyone gets bent about basic accurate engineering that targets fidelity or make astonishing claims without evidence about cables or power conditioners?
We do have a disconnect with scientific reality that is itself hubristic because it strays from (repeating myself) epistemic humility by suggesting all these listening preferences supervene on basic measurable facts about music reproduction.
I left out preferences in listening pleasure as well as the rooms gear is listened to, it being so obvious that I felt it need not be mentioned.
This reminds me of a review Ron did over on New Record Day about (I think it was) a Dali speaker. His measurements showed a rather large frequency spike around 12 or 15 KHz that didn't manifest itself as shrill, etched or zingy. He spoke with Dali about it and it was designed in. He found that it had lots of air, ambience and detail without the negatives. The speaker had a lively and not fatiguing quality that made listening a pleasure.
I find it odd that many who are into measurements cite the Harmon/Toole studies about preferences that were pleasing to the general and uninitiated public, resulting in that V curve which is not all that accurate and faithful to the original that's held up as something to aim for. So which is it? Accuracy or pleasure?
The answer is it has to be both. Strict accuracy leaves out the variables we haven't nailed down as of yet, small and elusive they may be and to dismiss it as mysticisms and deepenings smacks too much of hubris for my liking.
Print " In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...blah blah blah, Hans Van Maanen blah blah "
OK, so the engineer/designer has used measurements and therefore understands the sonic characteristics of the device, but you are emphasizing that after it is complete some people have preferences about the different measured outputs? That's not the same as saying that there are things that aren't measurable, which many suggest above, or that there are secret measurements from special pixie dust that are some kind of hidden knowledge.
All it means is that people have...preferences, like enjoying the distortion signatures of tube amps because that is what they are used to. If, however, we value high fidelity to the original recorded music, then we know very well that removing noise and distortion (which are measurable) results in close approximation to the original.
It's really very odd to argue passionately and affirmatively about something that just amounts to preferences, hopes, pleasurable mystifications, deepenings, and so on. Just ignore ASR if it doesn't add value to your hobby. I value good engineering and high fidelity, but the glow of tube amps is really neat too. It doesn't bother me that some folks like to listen to high distorting amps or think cables make much of a difference, but there is a kind of gradualistic erosion of these myths that forums like ASR help to promote, which is good for me in helping avoid crap products!
I have yet to see anyone here posit that measurements aren't used in constructing gear. In fact, they go to great lengths saying they are. What they take issue is with measurements taken after the product is complete as the sole arbiter that it sounds good or bad.
Measurements can show where something is amiss but they also confound when they measure odd or off at certain things but still sound wonderful, just as things that measure great can sound sterile, shrill, flat and two dimensional. Go figure.
If there are all kinds of sonic properties that can't be measured according to these well-researched and standardized methodologies, how is it that engineers are able to formulate and use science/engineering to design the components in the first place? Do they just combine metals together and listen to them until they are happy? Do they just hope that they can get the right mix of tubes and opamps?
Your ideas don't seem very well thought through.
Every engineer is at some level applying science and engineering to the technologies they work on. In civil engineering they measure the soil properties to identify the correct foundation and footings. In ME they measure the elasticity of materials (like speaker cones). In EE we measure the transfer functions of systems and characterize noise and distortion properties and channel capacity and signal attentuation.
How is it that consumers of these engineered products have developed a mythic idea of how it all works? Measurements are core to engineering audio products. The opposite is faith mixed with marketing signals, which is fine for those who are so committed, but is not how the actual products get created.
I think Amir knows how to use his equipment. What it means is another thing. Baseline measurements tell you practically nothing about how something sounds. According to Amir.....all amps sound the same as long as they meet his SINAD number.....same with DACS, preamps and cables. Nothing could be further from the truth. Basic SINAD and the spectral of distortions are just a couple of a million things in a product that affect the sound. I have been doing serious listening tests to passive and active parts since the mid 70s. I was one of the first people to do straight wire bypass tests on wire.....back in the 70s as well. No, no wire passed the test. All jacks, wire, solder, damping, shielding, capacitors, resistors, switches, relays, fuses. power cords, etc to infinity ALL change the sound of an amp....and NONE of the things I just mentioned CAN be measured.....NONE. It is so juvenile and simplistic to think that a certain distortion measurement number means a certain pure sound. Only the deaf or stubborn would claim such. You have to listen to know how something sounds.....this is the simple truth. Those that follow Amir are and were already disposed to cheapness, a super "scientific bent"....and cynicsm about the high prices of some audio gear. Amir is their savior. He claims he KNOWS.....but he is ignorant of the truth. Look at the reviewers/listeners who listen.....they all move on from the Topping DACs......dry, two dimensional and uninvolving......not REAL...and I am not talking tube colorations needed......just a more natural sound.....like real instruments in real space......goosebump city.
Does not mean you cannot get good sound out of a Topping stack and generic cords.......yes, the lowest levels of gear today are really good. But if you want to hear what brand of string is on the guitar, and you want to have goosebumps higher than Everest......you will need to go higher than SINAD measurements can take you.....and to do that.....you must listen.
I think Amir/ASR does an EXCELLENT job of measuring and evaluating all sorts of audio equipment. Another reviewer who does excellent work is Erin’s Audio Corner. I trust reviewers who do actual measurements. Although such measurements are not the last word they are a good baseline. Everyone’s ears and listening rooms are different but those baseline measurements can give you an idea of what to expect. Nothing is perfect but who performs reviews better than Amir or Erin?
The reviewers I don’t like are the guys on YouTube that only give opinions on what they hear. One of those reviewers actually asks his wife’s opinion. That type of review is useless to me.
So the distortion figure of an amplifier is in itself of little use.A spectral specification would be more useful, but is rarely given.
I give that in every dashboard view of audio electronics I test. This is the response of a $10,000 Bricasti DAC:
Now you can apply the very analysis he is performing with respect to power of harmonics. Without my measurements, you would have no idea. Therefore, my work is sanctioned by him.
@mahgisterI've read most of this literature, including the new (for me) Kunchur paper (his previous paper on cables is neither relevant nor well-designed). I'm not certain, however, as to how to parse your long digressions on these topics.
For instance, if we can measure noise and distortion in audio equipment, it is valuable to reduce or eliminate it in the reproduction chain regardless of whether there are potentially complex heterodyning/non-linear ultrasonic interactions or whether hearing capabilities can be shown to have greater sensitivity than assessable via Fourier analysis.
If there is an additional claim that perhaps cables and other tweaks that are measurably irrelevant to the signal reproduction can actually be heard, it is still in the best interest of general epistemic humility to remain skeptical until such measurements/ABX hearing results (with the LTM/STM refractory suggestions in Kunchur maybe) can be found.
So, in the meantime, we just get great measurements from ASR and can merely speculate that something might be missing, not that it demonstrably is missing.
In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...
You have 125 posts on this thread alone, most within the last month. In the last year you've referenced Van Maanen 64x. This is the very definition of a loop.
Insulting people posting content , articles and rational arguments, will not do...
I dont like that anywhere...
But instead of criticizing my arguments with the many articles i posted you attack me...
pathetic!
by the way i posted in classical music thread and in jazz thread and in thread about acoustics and music very different content ...
By contrast you send few posts suggesting i am "nut"...
Find a post of me where i attack someone which had never harass me as you just did for the second time ?
I am interested by music and acoustic and i intent to spoke about that here ...
In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...
*I wait ...
As a test of your understanding if my posts are only simple loop from a nut brain, explain to me what means for you dude "an ecological theory of hearing perception "...
if what i spoke is only non sense i think it will take you few second to point toward his meaninglessness?
Go i wait instead of writing two insulting paragraph...
i will see if you understand or if you are here to throw insults...
Perhaps you read too much time the word "acoustics" in my post and your brain concluded that it was a loop ?
Answer rationally now, why an ecological theory of hearing matter for audio ? or did not matter...
And explain to us why Amir is not in a loop predicting sound qualities from his narrow set of measures...
Answer instead of insults or stay mute as the perfect brain you claim you are with no noise inside ....😊
After all this set of insults prove to us that you are able to think by yourself...
You, if anyone, are not polite. You explode with anger all the time and when confronted with your behavior, you apologize. You've done that many, many times.
As for infestation of threads, that seems to be your forte. You've done it for years. Practically everything you've said in this thread, you've brought up before to the point of boring the heck out of members. You go off on your tangents demanding that others must respond and when one or two do respond, you claim vindication and insult other members when they complain of your tactic of highjacking a thread.
You post multiple times in a row but no one answers and it spoils the thread and intention of those who want to participate. Like others have already said, they (we) just pass over what you write hoping you lose interest (at least I do).
If you're of the mind, why don't you go over to ASR and start posting there and let us know how that goes.
By the way, if you really think members here are "gangstalking" you, reflect for a moment as to why and you'll discover it is because of you and your manner.
All the best,
Nonoise
@mahgister, You could move over to ASR, but i highly doubt they would be as open minded or patient with you. It might end quite rough for you there.
Do the following exercise. Scan your own posts spanning the past 6 months and examine the sheer magnitude/number of times you've repeated the same lines (over and over) in every thread attempting to discuss different topics. Does that seem "normal" to you, clinically speaking? Imagine for a moment that it was someone else doing it (because your defense for yourself would be coming in pronto). Would you consider that "normal"?
I would suggest that you visit with a healthcare professional, especially one who specializes in mental health and maybe say something along the lines of, "Hey doc, i think my mind gets caught in repeat loops all day". Thereafter, he could further examine you and provide a diagnosis/treatment. There are various conditions that respond well to certain types of medication. Good luck.
«Power amplifiers are an essential part in the sound reproduction chain. And although semiconductor amplifiers have been around for over 60 years, there is still a lot of development going on. Nowadays, the distortion figures of high-end power amplifiers are very impressive (e.g. < 0.001% harmonic distortion) and easily outshine those of microphones and loudspeakers. Yet, when it comes to listening, differences are noticed between amplifiers and their distortions can be heard in spite of the use of loudspeakers with much higher distortion figures. In this note I will discuss some aspects which play a role in this –at first sight incomprehensible- phenomenon, albeit that I will address a part of the puzzle, not all noticeable differences can be explained by the points I will bring up, partly
because I don’t know everything there is to know and partly because not all causes have yet been identified, I think. So please see this as a contribution to the discussion, not as the final word on it.
Therefore, I welcome contributions of others as “two know more than one”, as an age-old Dutch expression says. One of the basic problems is that we try to “catch” distortion in a single number. But
one could pose the question whether this is feasible. To take a simple example: would the audible effect of say 1% harmonic distortion of only the second harmonic be just as noticeable or annoying as 0.1% of harmonic distortion of each of the second to the eleventh harmonic? Or be equivalent to 1% harmonic distortion of the tenth harmonic only? I don’t know the answer (because I never tried such a comparison as it is rather hard to do) but there is another example: valve (tube) amplifiers are often highly rated for their musical quality,
even though their distortion figures are horrible, compared to those of semiconductor amplifiers. Could there be a similarity between loudspeaker properties and valve amplifiers, distortion wise? Well, there is: both produce mostly lower harmonics (up to the fifth) with virtually no harmonics above that as is illustrated in fig. 1. Semiconductor amplifiers, however, tend to generate harmonics up to very high numbers as can be seen in fig. 2. In literature, there is agreement that our hearing tends to mask frequencies close(r) to the
exciting tone than those further away. Or, in other words, the lower harmonics are easily masked by the exciting tone whereas the high harmonics are not, as is shown in fig. 3. On top
of that most mechanical musical instruments generate only harmonics up to the fifth of the basic frequency, so distortion products introduce only a small change in the ratio of the harmonics, usually less than is caused by the linear distortion of loudspeakers. So the disSo it is not
really surprising that components which generate only lower harmonics are not so much experienced as annoying than components which generate more higher harmonics, even at a lower level. So the distortion figure of an amplifier is in itself of little use.A spectral specification would be more useful, but is rarely given.
...............................................
for the rest of the article go to the adress above
In simple word for those who will not read about acoustics and the articles above quoted...
We cannot as Amir has done, discarded the "distortion" levels of a tube amplifier as pure noise in all case when we spoke about any tube amplifiers.And we cannot put all S.S. design as better . This is simplistic.
Why ?
The concept of timbre in acoustics is not an unwanted "color" added to a graph of frequencies and duration which ask to be eliminated .
It is a fundamental concept in acoustics that we do not yet fully understand especially when using acoustic theories that are not rooted in the natural context of hearing.
Eliminating distortion in gear design is necessary but the better the design the better he do not interfere with human hearing conditions about "timbre" quality experience and the better he makes the "timbre" perception a qualitative experience.This cannot be predicted as Amir claim only by measuring few specs of the design. Van Maanen has wrote article about distortion and about the physical and acoustics conditions necessary to satisfy the Fourier conditions for the human ears in gear design .
For this any audio design must satisfy the conditions which are described in fundamental psychoacoustics : our ears/brain decode sound using a symmetry breaking mechanism working in his own time domain in a non linear way. it is working in such a way that our ears/brain beat the Fourier uncertainty principle limits about the acoustic amount of processing information. it is the source of our human hyperacuity. ( which symmetry breaking express our evolutive trained biases toward natural sounds perception )
All the articles I have used demonstrate this. Amir ignores this and persists in declaring, contrary to common sense and science, that his measurements and they alone are sufficient to predict sound quality.
Real Test and Measurement Engineers would call audio industry standards rudimentary and lacking rigorous correlation. Maybe that is good enough for audio. However, ASR and Amir routinely claim the scientific, accurate, unquestionable final authority high ground.
He is no such authority.
Here’s a recent example of PS Audio moving on track to post all AP measurements for all their products (Schiit Audio was the first to do this after battling this lousy creature).
The sooner all these companies start providing this information to the masses, the sooner this lousy creature sitting in its garage with a AP kit will be forced into irrelevance, forced to crawl back under its rock.
Moral of the story is....If you don’t come out swinging as the expert of what you are and what you produce, any lousy creature sitting in its garage will claim to be the expert of you. PS Audio is learning it the hard way.
P.S. While it’s real nice of McGowan to offer the questioner a job, the questioner is a business owner himself with a lot more employees to take care of than PS Audio. Hence, he can’t be working for PS Audio! 😁
There was a post that mentioned me which I think was removed. Hard to tell since this thread is scrolling by so fast.
Yes, this thread has gone far off topic so I'm no longer following it, but OTOH, the energy and points people want to make related to ASR seem to have a lot of interest and energy so I'm not getting in the way of them.
When the last person leaves please check the toilet isn't running and the lights are off. Thanks.
Just the mention of ASR is a trigger here because so many do not agree with Amir's measurement based conclusions. They also seem to resent that he administers his own website and runs it as he desires. The fact that none of the detractors have taken the time to start and maintain their own websites, or to perform the fastidious testing on so many products as Amir, doesn't keep them from complaining.
I agree that measurements don't seem to tell the whole story wrt to the sound of audio gear, and what people like to listen to. I have five DACs currently and the excellent measuring (per JA at S'phile) Benchmark is my least favorite to listen to. However, what I don't understand is why people can't take the measurements and opinions on ASR as information only, the same as they would any other opinions they read on the web, or simply stop reading the ASR website if they don't like it. Can it be any worse than the constant barrage of impassioned, pseudo-scientific, marketing rhetoric audiophiles are constantly subjected to about the next greatest tweak or product?
One thing I notice about Amir is that he makes the effort and takes the time to provide an earnest answer to questions people bring up about his methods and conclusions, whether they agree with him or not.
It’s pretty simple. If you don’t like ASR, don’t go there.
Same for this site.
I like both. Ying and yang.
It is not the question...
Anybody with a brain appreciate ASR... Some here unable to answer rationally and prove him wrong insult him. I have a brain and i dont need to insult him but can explain why he is wrong as i did here with many science articles...
I even thanked Amir multiple times for his work abvout specs verification ..
The question is : is the Amir claims about his set of measures enough to predict sound hearing qualities experience ?
Also all the others to various degrees even if I find some way more useful than others.
Moderators of each site get to decide what goes and what does not FBOFW and then the cards will fall where they will.
It’s a free country and people can say what they want good or bad (at least for the most part so far) but it is a bad habit for folks to want to shoot down everything in this world that they happen to take some issue with. Censorship is bad.
Diversity is the reality in this world and is what makes the world go round whether any one person or group happens to think so or not. The internet confirms that for all no matter where you might actually live.
Nothing is perfect! Take it all for what it’s worth. If its worth nothing to you, so be it. If someone or something is doing you actual harm, then its a different story.
«Signal analysis for evaluating audio fidelity has 2 broad domains: Frequency (spectral) and time (temporal). To focus on only one of these is like approaching audio assessment with only half a brain. A spectrum analyzer focuses on only the first and is not best suited for studying impulse response and transients4, which are influential in defining instrumental timbre. Also Fourier representations cannot properly describe transfer functions of non-linear and non-time-invariant
systems.»
Milind N. Kunchur, Ph.D., APS Fellow
Once this is said...
And i will cite you now :
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn’t follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don’t follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements! In audio measurements, we have a known, usually simple input signal. At no time are we interested in its characteristics with respect to time domain. What we want to know is when it goes into our audio system, does it create noise and distortion that is NOT in the audio signal that was input.
Then your measurements had nothing to do with subjective hearing experience of a consumers ...Because they had nothing to do with hearing and hearing theory...
Your marketing distortion of truth come when you claim that a tube amplifier is "noisy" as defined by your measures not by hearing experiments and then you falsely conclude that those liking it are deluded and proved wrong by your measures, which measures had nothing to do with the experience of timbre as suggested by the text of Kunchur i quoted above when we listen non steady state signals called music ..
Then go on measuring the gear specs but stop saying you can predict what will sound good for us all ... claiming the opposite is not science it is the opposite of science ...
«A lot of the controversy surrounding high-end and
high-resolution audio arises because most of the
community is unaware of many basic and essential facts
about human hearing. From the published literature, it
appears that even some auditory-temporal-resolution
research studies are unaware of the synchronous AND
gating processes taking place in the octopus neurons of the
PVCN and their incorporation as an attack-assessment step
in pattern-recognition in the VNLL.»
You use a temporary conclusion about our set of hearing measures as we know it now and the gear design specs which you measure again and equate them WHICH IS A FALSE EQUATION, and use this measures to PREDICT sound qualities..
Sound qualities suppose a listener...
A room....
Complementary piece of gear...
Then a tube amplifier cannot be a bad sound qualities only because you decide that your measures set will replace hearing theory and even a specific listener biases...
You are not an audio designer proposing a new amp or new speakers better designed to suit human hearing as a TOP designer understand them, as Van Maanen for exemple, you are a marketer of a methodology to verify gear specs thats all ...
At 10 KHz, our hearing's frequency discrimination is as poor as 1000 Hz!
All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation.
No, no, no. Some of the measurements I perform have been around for nearly a century! Way before we have had any audio analyzer had any computing ability to produce fourier transform. You can go on ebay and buy analog THD+N analyzers such as this:
«The, never mentioned, assumption is that the frequency components above the
hearing limit, usually taken at 20 kHz, do not influence the perceived
sound in any way. Although this seems a reasonable assumption at first, it is not as
straightforward as one would think. Two aspects play an important role: the
first is that Fourier analysis only holds for linear systems and if there
is one transducer which is non-linear, it is the human ear. In non-linear
systems frequencies not present in the original signal can be generated
and/or other frequencies can acquire more power than in the original sig-
nal.
This can easily be demonstrated using a 3 kHz sine wave with 5 periods
on and 5 periods off. Although Fourier analysis tells that 300 Hz is only a
weak component in this signal, it is the strongest one hears. As 300 Hz
corresponds to the envelope of the signal it is not surprising using the
non-linear properties of our ears. It can be concluded that frequencies
above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the
hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the
quality experienced.»
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn’t follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don’t follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements!
Another distortion about Van Maanen and my posts :
It is evident for anybody that your audio measurements are aimed at the gear specs verification!
This is what i claimed also and it is why i explained with 6 articles above that because the brain work in his own time domain and in a non linear way any designer must think about the conditions necessary to apply the Fourier theory BEFORE designing a piece of gear...And we dont have a complete and perfect hearing theory , and what is revealed in the articles above is the ears/brain work in a way we do not understand yet to extract acoustic information...
This immediately imply that your gear measures cannot be translated in direct prediction about sound quality perception... As you falsely suggest to all ...
you are really a marketting dude not a scientist at all... you prove it to all here with your distortion of facts...
not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ?
It is the full truth. Fourier transform takes a time domain signal and converts to fundamental sine waves that created it. This is a proven mathematical relationship. Just like Pythagorean formula. It is not subject to debate. And no experiment whatsoever has disproven it. Again, it is a mathematical proof ("theorem").
it is useless arguing with you...
the context of interpretation of all designed gear and all tools is the Fourier context...
it is evident that your voltmeter or your sinad dont need Fourier transform as a tool as such to be used but interpretating the results will be in the Fourier context guess why ?
hearing theory is done in the Fourier context...
you deliberately distorted my posts context : hearing theory and the Fourier context for the design of gear...
If Erin was asking ASR members for donations I dont blame Amir for banning him.
Yes, that is correct if the situation were that simple. Refer to Amir's actions.
Amir allows Erin to violate rules for nearly a year. Amir looks good for helping Erin through a tough patch. Is that a courtesy that would/will be extended to anyone in a similar situation? A rule is not a rule when selectively enforced.
Amir finally bans Erin. Again, he looks goods for allowing Erin to grow - but finally has to enforce ASR rules to look good to ASR members.
Amir next allows Erin to return. Another nice guy move to polish the Amir image.
Another piece of data. Erin posted a video hours after his ban, clearly upset. He said nothing about Amir communicating non enforcement of the ASR monetization rule to allow growth. Nothing Erin stated in that video aligns with Amir's version. That video quickly disappeared.
Amir can continue to prevaricate to his hearts content. The more he does so, the deeper the hole he digs.
"No, it was you who claimed I had banned my competition. I corrected you by stating that is not banned, hence nullifying your claim. "
Amir, you are speaking with a forked tongue. You banned him. Later you unbanned him, but he was still banned for a period of time.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
