Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

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

"So you deny that knowing the measurements before listening may cause bias?"

You are asking a loaded question as to say, "if measurements can bias listening tests, let me use my eyes just as well to do my listening tests."  Answer to that is that if you know such biases exists, then you better not do any sighted listening tests.

On my end, when such knowledge can create corrupt outcomes, then I don't even do the listening test.  Example is DACs.  Unless distortion is very high, I don't do sighted listening tests.  

In other cases, measurements provide incredible value in creating the proper listening test.  If for example I know from measurements that a headphone amplifier has trouble driving low impedance headphones, I use that information to drive a such a headphone with content specifically designed to push that corner of fidelity.

For speakers/headphones, it goes without saying that we can tell the difference between them so blinding is not needed on that front.  What I do in my listening tests there is to use the measurement as a guide to see if I can improve the response using EQ.  If I can, then I publish that EQ for others to try as well.  Knowing measurements there is therefore a wonderful tool just as it is for your doctor. 

People who claim they should listen first and measure second, just have it wrong.  They will then be giving you a random subjective opinion in a sighted test with no reliability factor.  Who is to say their ears tell the truth?  Or that the speakers are setup in the way that the room is not dominating the response?  Or the content?  I have done a video on this very topic: "Reviewing Speakers - Measurements and Listening Tests"

https://youtu.be/_2cu7GGQZ1A

In there I show published studies involving professional audio reviewers and how unreliably and poorly done their assessments are.  If they can't produce reliable evidence for speakers, what hope is there for amps, DACs, etc.?  Answer is none.

So once again, measurements are your friend, not  your enemy.  Don't try to convince yourself otherwise with an argument like that.

You dont get it Amir...

No one with a brain had problem with your measurements information...

Everybody with a brain has problem with your dogmatic stance about human hearing abilities limitations in relation to audio experience and your claim that only electrical measurement tell the story to be told about listenings acoustic qualities of gear ...

have you read what i posted ?

So once again, measurements are your friend, not your enemy. Don’t try to convince yourself otherwise with an argument like that.