Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

i believe you ON YOUR WORDS that perhaps this physicist is not knowable in high end audio...

HAVE YOU NOT OBSERVED THAT I CITED ANOTHER PHYSICIST WHO WORK IN HIGH END AUDIO ?

answer him... AND IT IS NOT ABOUT CABLES PROTOCOLS HERE  I am not interest to listen a cable protocols debunking by you ...I am sure you are good at it.... This does not means that your claims about hearing and gear measurements are right...

I am interested in fundamentals about human hearing, and this fundamentals demolish your claim to equate measurements of gear and qualitative hearing perception...

Did you not watch the video I provided where I go through every one of his tests and demonstrate why they are all completely wrong? Here it is again:s cientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review https://youtu.be/a0p3D_Gv6IYI go on for 41 minutes breaking down every claim and test in his paper. Please don’t keep demanding that I answer you when I have already done so.

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

I had no idea "true-believer" Audiophiles were so thin-skinned.

"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 ... 😊"

I read through it.  There is little there to comment about.  Your audio gear does NOT have memory in it.  He creates a simple circuit that does and shows trivial scope simulations of it.  Enough to fool a layman into thinking there is some measuring going on.

He also makes other dubious comments:

". Another well-known example is the upper frequency hearing limit: as humans cannot hear above 20 kHz, the reasoning is that there is no use in reproducing higher frequencies, as these will not contribute to the signal, reaching the brain. This argument has often been brought to the table to disqualify high-resolution audio. However, many high-end enthusiasts claim they can clearly hear the difference and even seniors, with an upper frequency upper limit of 10 kHz (like the author) can distinguish the difference."

First, this has nothing to do with fourier transform.  Second, I post ABX tests of high res that I did pass.  But I am confident none of you can, including the author or said paper.  You never throw such random claims in a proper paper.  If what he says is true, you need to show it in controlled listening tests which he has none.

Really, none of what you post has anything to do with ASR and value of what we are doing.

@somethingsomethingaudio - I have read with great interest this entire thread. I find it very hard to understand how Amir is being so consistently attacked when he appears to be offering a perspective with very clearly marked boundaries. Many accusations here are without any merit or grace.

I have no personal connection with Amir. We emailed once over a year ago with regard to a Phono pre-amp he reviewed. I suggested he re-examine it using the fully balanced signal path offered, not the single ended in and balanced out which was the method used in the review. Our discussion was respectful and informative. Which is precisely my opinion of his responses here.

He is clearly touching a nerve with some. But he does not deserve some of the pig-headed badgering here. It’s undignified.

Amir dont answer to true scientific question...It seems...

I will repeat :

Amir information about gear is USEFUL....

 But Amir claims trashing all listening experience if not based on his measurements is MEANINGLESS by psycho-acoustic science...

I cite 4 physicists saying the same thing on different perspective... He never answer them nor the question ... Save for one which is supposed to be ignorant in cables protocols and measurement...😊 Ok then answer the OTHERS...

The crux of the matter is not CABLES here, it is the relation between hearing which work in the non symmetrical time domain and non lienarly, then Fourir methods are not enough to describe human hearings... Then the allegation to related gear measurements to be the main factor for predicting qualitative audio perception is FALSE...