Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

"@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...

"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.