Amir and Blind Testing

Thanks for the reference... Very interesting set of articles !

But i was talking about small room acoustic and psycho-acoustic of small room...

And it is a field in itself...

And if you read the site all is about psycho-acoustic and digital technology....

Almost anything about small room acoustic...

What matters for them, at least for Amirm are the tools to measure human hearing in sound PRODUCTION... Not about sound ACOUSTIC TRANSLATION in a small room...Signal processing is not room acoustic....

I dont suggest here that this prycho- acoustician who work with them know less than me... I am not an acoustician myself for sure... I only express my opinion about the emphasis put on DIGITAL TECH. and hearing abilities in the digital tech.context, not in the relation between physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic in small room , which is a field in itself...

My point is that ANY measures of the gear must be subordinated to the small room/ speakers relation and specific ears abilities and listening history of the owner of the room... Because CHOOSING a piece of gear at his peak working potential ask for the guiding listener/customer subjective impression in a room not only about some electronical measures of the gear...A point that NO ACOUSTICIAN can contradict by the way.... Even this one....

In a word what these articles spoke about centered around digital tech. EQUALIZATION, my own approach to room acoustic centered around more Primitive so to speak, Helmholtz MECHANICAL approach... I will read these articles because psycho-acoustic dont change his principles from the digital field to room acoustic...

But in digital tech. the focus is in the technology itself, in room acoustic the focus is around the owner of the small room... Some subjective impressions are  at the center of the matter here;  AFTER an objective disposition of the acoustic content of the room in relation with the specific abilities and limitations of the room owner...

Of course, Amir is not an expert in psycho acoustics,

Fortunately there is an expert who graciously contributes his knowledge at ASR

 

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jjs-signal-processing-and-psychoacoustics-master-library.2066/

In a word i dont need a blind test for any change in the acoustic disposition of my own room...

And the specs sheets of any piece of gear so important and useful it can be to pairing piece of gear with one another SAY NOTHING about the FINAL sound quality of the system as a whole and his relation to the specific room and to my SPECIFIC ears...

Simple no?

I reject the " brand name gear tasting subjective fetichist " and "the digital tech measuring tools objective fetichist " TOGETHER here , because i live and listen in my room acoustic and the two groups completely UNDERESTIMATED small room acoustic power....It is there in my own room that the gear succeed or fail FOR MY EARS , nevermind his measured specs...Correlation between the objective position,size, tuning of acoustic devices in my physical room and my own tuning subjective abilities and preferences are WHAT MATTER....

I called what i added to the classical passive materials room treatment, mechanical equalization and active tuning control of the room after Helmholtz method...

I dont design a product to be sell, i design my own room.... AT NO COST or almost... 😎 But i made it with a METHOD....

Why?

Because a SMALL room is not an amphiteater acoustic....One is designed by my ears for my ears, the other one is designed for a crowd... Timing of waves, pressure zones control distributions for example dont play the same game here...

Acoustic of the room is the sleeping princess, all pieces of gear are the 7 working dwarves with their tools , and psycho-acoustic of my own specific ears is the kissing prince....

A riddle:

Do you think i modified my speakers for example in reading only their specs sheets ? or by listening them in my room? I listened to them and used Helmholtz resonators and diffusers ON THEM also to crossfeed each one and decrease the acoustic crosstalk in my own way mechanically...Results are astonishing...In near listening and in regular listening...

Each one of our ear and singular speaker is a world in itself....

I just rebuilt recently my loudspeakers Xover with top Cardas Litz wire,WBT connectors, and $1500 in Xover parts , no factory even at $30 k are as good , my point mfg take many shortcuts, Magico A5, Marten ,using mid grade Mundorf Parts when Mundorfs top capacitors are their Supreme line Not Evo , the A5 is the first to use their  Excellent New Ultra  $$ resistors which is a good start But on a $25 k speaker you deserve much more , in our group our Magico friend is upgrading his capacitirs now .  My ears are not just getting used to the new parts 

there is is vast improvement in imaging,soundstaging and detail 

another guy has the exact Dynaudio 3.4LE  speakers 

and now he is saving for the same  mods it was a profound improvement ,

used$3k now better then many in some respects then the majority of $10-12 k speakers . buying a Quality used component gives you great value and ability to truly raise the Audio bar !!

Thanks to you djones , i discovered not only these articles in acoustic but an acoustic thread in the ASR site which is more than interesting...

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/refining-a-listener-and-loudspeaker-model-based-on-readings-of-lokki-bech-toole-et-al.27540/

Then yes Amir, is interested by measuring gear, but the site is more than that...

The problem is not Amirm but some audiophiles fanatic disciples indeed here and there...

And yes there is no less acoustic posts in ASR perhaps than in Audiogon and perhaps better one... Then...

Then thanks to your post information....

It seems to me that my own perspective anyway is right about audio: correlation between objective and subjective perspectives... And the gear matter yes, but acoustic/psycho-acoustic matter more...

course, Amir is not an expert in psycho acoustics,

Fortunately there is an expert who graciously contributes his knowledge at ASR

 

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jjs-signal-processing-and-psychoacoustics-master-library.2066/

At least presumably the function of good audio components is to reproduce as accurately as possible any given sound, especially music. So measurements are a way of estimating the efficacy of the equipment. The performance of any given unit must relate to these measurements for it to be considered accurate. 
Now if you don’t like that accurate sound and find it disagreeable does that mean that measurements are bad? Of course not. Tube equipment has a very distinctive sound due to distortion. If you like that sound, which plenty of people do, well and fine. The fact that most people like various degrees of distortion doesn’t invalidate Amir and his measurements. Personally I like the components recommended by Amir, Purifi amp and RME DAC, so in my case the measurements were good criteria to follow. Additionally, Amir has effectively debunked the market for extravagantly expensive cables whose manufacturers falsely claim bear measurable improvements yet they are identical to a $5 Amazon cable. But, if one has spent thousands on cables one may well be hostile to Amir and measurements, and insist that one hears auditory phantasms.