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 ...

«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
levels, sound different. It is to be expected that ten (10) different designs will produce ten different responses to music signals and thus receive a different perceptual qualification.»

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 :

The conclusion of another interesting article by a physicist:

The result presented here has relevance for the perfor-
mance requirements of audio components and digital en-
coding schemes. It is known that the bandwidth require-
ment for sonically transparent audio reproduction is higher
than the 20 kHz: in the coding of digital audio it has been
noted [57] that listeners show a preference for a 96 kHz
sampling rate over the CD (digital compact disk) standard
of 44.1 (i.e., a 22 kHz Nyquist frequency). It is sometimes
thought that this may be due to the less drastically sloped
cutoff of the digital filter and the reduced disturbances in-
troduced in the audible pass band. The present work shows
that the bandwidth requirement into the ultrasonic range
is more fundamental and not just due to artifacts of dig-
ital filtering. It is also commonly conjectured in the au-
dio literature that the time-domain response of a system
(e.g., temporal smearing caused by capacitive and other
energy-storage mechanisms in cables) is a key factor in
determining the transparency of reproduction (see, for ex-
ample, [58]). However a search of the literature revealed
an absence of a controlled blind experiment comparable to
the one conducted here. The present work thus contributes
toward a better fundamental understanding and provides a
quantitative measure for audio-reproduction standards.»

......................................................

Temporal Resolution of Hearing Probed by
Bandwidth Restriction
Milind N. Kunchur
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

@soundfield like I said I would pay to see this, and he won't answer you because he has selective hearing. 

Amir doesn't monetize or accept payments. Just donations. So you'd have to "donate".

Interested in those ML amps at Madrona that have better bass than any AB amps, according to Supreme Leader? Donate at the cash register.