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. 

chayro
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
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 :

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.

 

 

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.

Now the nail in the coffin of Amir debunking audiophiles hearings by DOGMA with his electrical linear modelling tools used to verify the gear specs:

This dude is a physicist i will not reproduce all 33 pages of his article of 2023 , Amir can read it himself...He wrote also about human hearings beating the Fourier uncertainty limits... There is a section dedicated to audio application which is very interesting...

Only a short extract where this physicist seems to think the opposite of Amir about the "super" hearing abilities of human :

«Claims that differences in upstream components
(e.g., source or amplifier) can be heard even when the
system is bottle-necked by a mediocre downstream
component (e.g., speaker) shouldn’t seem surprising—
given that the NEP ( neurals excitation pattern) can resolve 1 part in 10 at the 40 power » Millind N. Kunchur

http://file:///C:/Users/Utilisateur/Downloads/SSRN-id4437822.pdf