Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

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.

"«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"

Kunchur has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to matters related to audio.  His expertise is in physics and has nothing to do with this domain.  I have done a full video on his last paper with totally incorrect test protocols:

Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review

https://youtu.be/a0p3D_Gv6IY

In every field, you can find people who write official looking stuff that will impress the layman.  Don't fall for it.  Learn the topic yourself and then you see that such "experts" are not that at all.

I speak about human hearings and abilities, i cited his article and you answer that his protocols in cable listening is not good...😊He is a physicist then i aqm not surprized that his protocols for cables measuring and hearings may be criticized... This dont invalidate all of what he say about the capacities of human hearings...

What about what he say about hearings ?

What about Oppenheim aqnd Magnasco article about human hearings in the time domain ?

I DONT SPEAK ABOUT CABLES PROTOCOLS...

I speak about citing these articles of 4 different physicists, about the impossibility with simple electrical me3asures of gear components TO PREDICT QUALITATIVE HEARING IMPRESSION IN THE TIME DOMAIN .... The ears is non linear...

it is impossible as you claim to correlate human perception of qualities in a linear correlation with your measures of gear... thats is the point... You can debunk gear specs by falsifying them , but pretending to inmpose your TOOLS over human listening experience is DOGMATIC cultist ideology not science...

And what about the human ability to beat the Fourier uncertainty in the time domain ?

Kunchur has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to matters related to audio.  His expertise is in physics and has nothing to do with this domain.  I have done a full video on his last paper with totally incorrect test protocols:

Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review