Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

"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.

 

 

 

I myself thank you for the information provided by your measures ABOUT THE GEAR...I did not thank you for your assault on human listening experience with mere few electrical tools used to measure GEAR ...

I dont insulted you and i dont played with you..... dont play with me and ANSWER ME ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THESE ARTICLES ...

But you never answered what i spoke about with 4 articles...

All saying that human hearing abilities and perceptive experience cannot be predicted by the kind of measurements you provide...

Debunking gear and fetichism of audiophiles DONT MEANS THAT ALL THEIR LISTENING EXPERIENCE IS ILLUSORY...

The heart of audio is psycho-acoustic... Not gear mesures so useful they are...

ANSWER this physicist who design high end audio as a hobby without ad hominem attack this time...

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

 

"@amir_asr still waiting to hear about this $100.00 BAC that smokes all other DACs in the $5K range. You are quite the shill. Or is it s schill? "

What the heck is a "BAC?"  If you mean DAC, easy to show.  First up is your expensive DAC: Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC ($5999):

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ps-audio-perfectwave-directstream-dac.9100/

Here is its noise+distortion:

As you see, it ranks way at the bottom in yellow color.

Here is its noise performance alone:

Can't even clear the noise floor of 16 bit CD 40 years after introduction of said format!!!  Multitone test shows heavy rise of distortion in low frequencies:

Reason for that?  Output transformer.  Designer admitted that they cut costs and picked a cheaper transformer resulting in this much increased distortion.  Yes, you pay $6000 for DAC and yet corners had to be cut.

Here are my listening test results (sighted):

"I started the testing with my audiophile, audio-show, test tracks. You know, the very well recorded track with lucious detail and "black backgrounds." I immediately noticed lack of detail in PerfectWave DS DAC. It was as if someone just put a barrier between you and the source. Mind you, it was subtle but it was there. I repeated this a few times and while it was not always there with all music, I could spot it on some tracks.

Next I played some of my bass heaving tracks i use for headphone testing. Here, it was easy to notice that bass impact was softented. But also, highs were exaggerated due to higher distortion. Despite loss of high frequency hearing, I found that accentuation unpleasant. WIth tracks that had lisping issues with female vocals for example, the DS DAC made that a lot worse."

For $100 DAC, I would do you one better with a $99 DAC from Schiit:

Schiit Modi 3+ Review (Stereo DAC)

Here is how it did in noise+distortion:

It nicely lands in the excellent category of blue.  For noise, it nicely clears 18 bits:

Does the same in multitone:

No spitting of distortion in low frequencies as the PS Audio DAC did.

See? Not hard at all.  Give me a bit more budget and I can get you balanced output, nice display, etc.  But if sound you want, the Schiit at $99 is much more performant than the $6000 PS Audio DAC.

There’s a large group of people that think measurements are king. I think Amir is milking that group for $$ , recognition and ego. Maybe he’s Julian Hersch reincarnated! Or he’s simply on the Fox News payroll lololol