Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

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

"@amir_asr ever consider changing ASR to Amirs Measurements Science Review, since zero listening tests are/will ever be done?"

Not at all because there is a ton of discussion of audio science.  Audio Science is not just about blind tests.  But sure, we have a number of blind tests posted.  

DAC blind ABX in-home test: Hegel h390 internal DAC vs Mytek Manhatten ii DAC

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dac-blind-abx-in-home-test-hegel-h390-internal-dac-vs-mytek-manhatten-ii-dac.37447/

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-listening-test-2-neumann-kh-80-vs-jbl-305p-mkii-vs-edifier-r1280t-vs-rcf-arya-pro5.43343/

I have also been posting blind test results for literally decades.  Here is a sample:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav

18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

If you believe in blind tests, how come you are not arguing with folks here saying they are not useful?  Not convenient for business AJ?

Yet another example of someone claiming what we do ats ASR, only to trivially be shown to not have any idea whatsoever.  

DEBUNK THIS ONE AMIR :

This physicist is Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen, His hobbies are listening to music (mostly classical), developing high-end audio systems

«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

«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

Instead of AD HOMINEM ATTACK about the physiciss i cited ( as they know nothing in high end audio) debunk this last one who say the same as the one you attack as ignorant in Audio matter....

Are you serious? ANSWER about time domain and the Fourier uncertainty  and the impossibility to reduce human hearing to Fourier tools and frequencies analysis..TIME domain is fundame4ntal and the relation between hearing and natural sounds impose a time symmetry breaking and the brain non linear tools...

I find this hostility toward Amir more than shocking. Some of the accusations here border on the libelous and certainly do not reflect reality.

This is becoming akin to a forum for those seeking to prove that, despite measurements and ample evidence, the wold is indeed flat because, well, because...

Objective testing to a given set of criteria does not indicate whether that piece of equipment will be "to your taste". I have the exact same issue with colleagues in the motion picture industry that judge lenses purely on the basis of measured performance using specific techniques. While this is very useful in understanding how a lens might look, the data is a guide to understanding what you might prefer. The same is true of audio.

I've spent enough time in the best recording studios on the planet to know that even these carefully calibrated environments have their own sonic signatures. The speakers I use at home had a former life sitting in a mastering suite at Abbey Road and are the exact speakers so many recordings I love were mastered on. But I am foolish to think they sound exactly the same as they did in the environment they were made and calibrated for. 

Still, I'd be very interested in seeing what the results would be in him testing them, if they didn't weight 140lbs each, I'd ship them to him to find out. But it wouldn't really alter the fact that I like the way they sound, in the space I have them working.

"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 ..."

I have made no such claims.  You all keep making up stuff about who we are and what we do.  We absolutely value listening tests and more so than measurements.

What we do NOT value is joe audiophile sighted listening tests.  Science doesn't care how good you claim your hearing is.  Your eyes should not be involved in said evaluation.  Conditions must be made equal.  And statistical rigor needs to exist in the outcome.

Failing that, we can measure.  Measurements tell us a lot about the design of a product and audibility of its response.  Take this amplifier frequency response measurement:

See the comment about load dependency?  The amplifier output impedance rises with frequency.  That then interacts with the impedance of the speaker causing variability in tonality of sound.  Same thing happens with tube amps although their high impedance tends to be across the board.

A person without measurements and understanding of the above technical topic would connect some speaker to this amp and declare it as sounding warm, bright or neutral.  Any of those could be true depending on what speaker he hooked up to it (and his hearing to some extent).  You would not at all know then that his evaluation may not apply to you.

There is no way you can sniff and tease out the above factor by just playing music with this amp.

Next measurement of power shows you this:

This amplifier costs less than $100 yet it produces this incredible amount of power at 190 watts (peak) per channel!!!  I bet all of you would just one look at this little box and think it would produce a couple of watts:

From noise and distortion testing we know that it is keeping those factors below more than half of the 240 amplifiers I have tested as well.

Information does not need to be complete to be highly useful!  But it does need to be reliable.

So no measurements don't tell the "whole story" but they sure as heck tell you a lot  more than some random, totally unreliable listening test by random audiophile or youtube reviewer.