Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

There is no controversy...

Measuring gear performance is a good thing, and interesting, especially if someone can falsify audio conmpanies claim...But thats all...Thanks Amir...

But once this is said, we learn how to listen only in OUR ROOM, with acoustic experiments...( not by upgrades according to our "tastes" by the way, )

Tuning a room is a long process, incremental one, and has nothing to do with the comparison of two cables or amplifiers according to our " taste" or according to their specs verified ...

Give me any relatively good system i will make a room able to serve it well... Then gear choice is a secondary matter compared to acoustic and psycho-acoustic...

As Amir said it himself , objectivist and subjectivist focus on gear choice and design, but he did not say  in his zeal to convert subjectivists to gear measures falsification  that  they forget doing so  the hugely more powerful acoustic embeddings in the room... And the best amplifier in the world will not cancel mechanical control of vibrations nor electrical high noise floor of the house nor the acoustical bad content of the room ...

Also in our room listening music we are not in a laboratory...We create an acoustic to serve our neurological hearing biases...we learn basic acoustic in the process...Blind test is accessory as gear choice is acessory ...

There is controversy ONLY if an objectivist want to convert a subjectivist, and only if a subjectivist dont understand that the gear components of his "tasteful choice" so important they are , anyway are secondary to the acoustic embeddings for a full satisfying experience...If not, he will NEVER experience the full potential S.Q. of his gear... Its my experience...

Instead of trying to convert people or instead of refusing to read information measures chart, forget the gear for a month  ; people must think about acoustic to LEARN HOW TO LISTEN and then to learn how to be able to embed their system properly in the electrical, acoustical and mechanical dimension...

Subjectivist and objectivist act sometimes fanatically... No acoustician on earth is a subjectivist or an objectivist...They dont mind about specific gear piece, they tought about their optimal acoustic embeddings...

«Crocodiles had tastes and act accordingly , acoustician had not» -- Anonymus acoustician 😎

«Biases are like savage animals , they must be tamed and controlled, but not erased or negated» -- Anonymus acoustician 😎

That is NOT at all what he said.  He is talking about adaptation or how we can "hear through a room."  This adaptation takes a few minutes so people in controlled tests needs to be allowed to acclimate a bit.  He said nothing whatsoever about "confines of their own listening room."  You made that up.  Here are some bits I transcribed:

I made nothing up nor did I attribute the last sentence to what he said. That was my takeaway re:"confines of their own listening room." A very logical take on the whole process. Love how you use quotation marks to make it look like I said it was Paul speaking when I never used them.

You're getting kinda paranoid...no?

As for "hearing through a room", how is that really any different than what I summed up as "people listening to the room and not the speakers." You're down to splitting hairs or as they say, "a distinction without a difference."

And Paul did say that the subjects had to wait about half an hour before going in and thereafter, it took a few minutes to adjust, now that they understood the room, their hearing processes having adjusted. 

A point of that podcast that seems to elude you is that the speakers were tested as they were being made so the final product is fine as is. To go to the bother of testing the speaker for your sake and pick it apart is just overkill. That goes for all other gear as well unless the maker is unscrupulous and cuts corners , which you give the impression of thinking practically everyone does so you have this ready made audience of insecure hobbyists eagerly awaiting your next pronouncement. Nice gig if you can get it.

All the best,
Nonoise

At last Amir replied to @painter24.  Anybody see a straightforward apology.  Told you so.

For someone trying to defend their honor, Amir sure is digging this hole deeper. Clearly he wont address the Erin stuff or the old posts Soundfield brought up. If you want to be accurate and thorough, address everything. Literally your reputation is built on objectivity. Address it.

There are scientists who believe in god and preachers who believe in science. Open your mind to the possibilities. It's not either or.

"When someone critiques an audio product based on measurements  -   and then never listens to the product, it greatly minimizes credibility and the overall review.  "

I assume you are talking about someone else as I do more listening tests than many reviewers combined.  Again, every speaker, headphone and headphone amp gets listened to.  And some others including audio tweaks.

I don't do them in all areas because subjective tests there have the potential to create massively incorrect conclusions.  Credibility takes a big dump when you just do listening tests that are uncontrolled and subject to huge error.  In that sense you have it backward because I follow proper protocols in science of audio.

Mind you, you are welcome to perform a controlled test and prove me wrong when I don't do them.  Alas, no such test has come about despite me performing hundreds of tests.

Any more talking points you want me to address?