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.
@amir_asr ever consider changing ASR to Amirs Measurements Science Review, since zero listening tests are/will ever be done? I seem to recall some very funny excuses as to why no AVA ABX box. What are your thoughts of being subjected to an actual valid listening test at PAF 2024, with no peeking at your measurement devices for the first time ever and putting it on Youtube? |
@soundfield like I said I would pay to see this, and he won't answer you because he has selective hearing. |
I will not post for a fifth times the article proving that we cannot deduce from gear measurement tools what human hearing is about and able to do... We can debunk cables or gear alleged specs yes with the tools Amir use or help a room acoustic embeddings nothing else, especially not predicting the perceived quality of an audio system with electrical measurements of gear specs... It takes few minutes to understand this article neither Amir nor prof make a comment.... They answered to insults but not to science it seems ... 😊 I am the only one i think in this debate to argue with a HARD psycho-acoustic science argument , no technological babble about hearing and measures and blind testing "golden ears" and debunking them etc ... The problem is that Amir cannot at all prove any relation AT THE END between gear measures and listening experience... He will never be able to prove it because it is impossible to do it with his tools... The ears dont work as our tools works...Period... If it was not the case the article of these two physicists will be proven wrong...
here simple remarks about Fourier method conditions of application by a Physicist, Hans Van Maanen: «Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though neither fulfill either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the results are inconsistent with listening experiences. » https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
Now imagine Amir with his linear modelling gear measuring tools saying to us WHAT WE MUST HEAR... Amir thanks for debunking gear, but stay there; dont try to judge people from your DOGMA and tool prejudice and stop debunking people hearings experience, history or even alleged "golden ears" ... You cannot do it with your tools if someone read any science ... |
| Post removed |
«The effects in time domain of non-linear behaviour in combination with memory effects could explain why e.g. amplifiers with similar properties regarding frequency response and distortion This physicist seems to know better than Amir ... 😊 By the way he say the same thing that Oppenheim and Magnasco : «Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to be neither linear nor time-invariant,...» https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf
His bio resume : Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen was born in Arnhem, Netherlands where he attended primary and high school. After finishing his high school education, he started working at the Shell laboratories in Amsterdam. As it was clear to him that he would need more education, he studied at the University of Amsterdam in the evening hours, from which he received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Physics with Mathematics, Information Science and Chemistry, both with honours. At the Shell laboratories, he worked on flow measurement techniques, fluid mechanics, chemical engineering and turbulence, resulting in several publications. Then he worked on the application of small computers in experiments and the related data-processing. He applied his experiences to the dataprocessing of Laser-Doppler Anemometry data, which he laid down in his Ph.D.-thesis for the Delft University of Technology. In 1997, he moved to the Shell laboratory in Rijswijk (Netherlands) and worked on multi-phase flow rate measurement in the upstream sector of the oil and gas industry. He was heavily involved in wet-gas measurement, for which he extended the work of Rick de Leeuw and others for horizontal Venturis. This resulted in a mathematical model for the multi-phase wet-gas flow in Venturis. After leaving Shell in 2010, he became an independent consultant for Hint Europe and in that position he extended his modelling to vertical upward Venturis. He presented his work on many different conferences and published numerous papers. His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems and riding a motorcycle in a touristic way.
|
