Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
Amir, can you share what constitutes a "properly run listening test" from your perspective? What characteristics are you listening for, specifically?
|
You play with words here.. Proper listening tests are LONG TERM MEMORY TESTS using musicians, acoustician or trained music lovers...( not sellers and reviewers as you say) Short term memory test are good for SUPERFICIAL debunking ...The basic of psycho-acoustic is not founded on blind test , they are SECONDARY tool...
Why long term memory for test ? Because hearing is better in long term memory span than seeing, it is the opposite for seeing which is better in the short memory window... And BECAUSE Human hearing IS based on time dependant evaluation and non linear means , time independant measuring linear tools as fourier tools cannot capture his tracking and resolution power adequately... It is the reason why the main tool of acoustician cannot be blind test and it is the reason why Fourier modelling does not describe human hearings.. ...As Oppenheim and Magnasco demonstrated in their experiment where human hearings beat uncertainty of Fourier method and the Gabor limit... You use blind test to confirm your biases about your own limited set of measures linear and time independant one...ThaTS ALL... This physicist here contradict most of your claims in these videos: And he designed his OWN components speakers and amplifiers.. Will you claim he is incompetent ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW74J7CxqDo
Instead of answering my points about the importance of this discoveries by Oppenhein and Magnasco about the non linear and dependant time ears/brain working and his relation to our perception of audio qualities and the way the perceptive abilities of humans beat the Fourier barrier uncertainty you said that my physicists were phony... In the same way you attacked AD HOMINEM 2 of these physicists and now you attacked me for being "verbose" as your LAST argument... Listen this one demolishing your approach in twenty minutes.. Debunk him... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW74J7CxqDo
|
That is a myth and insult to many audiophiles who don't consider themselves any of those. Nothing about a controlled test says you have to do short term testing. You think a cable sounds different? Spend a month listening to it and another month listening to another. As long as you don't know which cable is which when listening, and repeat the test enough to know you are not guessing, you are performing a valid test. Now, we encourage you to not rely on long term memory as it is an extremely lossy system and sharply reduces your acuity when it comes to hearing small impairments/differences. This is backed by medical science (look up echoic memory), and controlled listening tests. Please see this summary of an AES paper on this topic: AES Paper Digest: Sensitivity and Reliability of ABX Blind TestingThe results were that the Long Island group [Audiophile/Take Home Group] was unable to identify the distortion in either of their tests. SMWTMS's listeners also failed the "take home" test scoring 11 correct out of 18 which fails to be significant at the 5% confidence level. However, using the A/B/X test, the SMWTMS not only proved audibility of the distortion within 45 minutes, but they went on to correctly identify a lower amount. The A/B/X test was proven to be more sensitive than long-term listening for this task. I have done a ton of such tests. The longer the switching time, the more sensitivity I lose. Again, this is due to our short term memory being almost lossless compared to the highly lossy long term listening. Once more though, you are welcome to take as long as you want in comparing products blind. As to you putting your fait in certain group of people, that again is false. I showed example of how audio reviewers did so poorly in blind tests of speakers. As to Musicians, while they hearing does get trained in certain areas (e.g. detection of reflections in a room), they do no better than general public when it comes to matters related to audio fidelity. If they did better, then they would mostly be audiophiles which they decidedly are not. My piano teacher for example just gives me blank looks when I talk about anything related to audio fidelity! Musicians listen to music from a spot in the performance venue that is different than us as listeners anyway. As to those "trained music lovers," when tested in any kind of blind test, they do very poorly. Most would not dare taking the same tests that I have taken and passed. It is entirely too convenient to declare yourself as trained with no proof point whatsover. |
I do zero promotion of Revel speakers. Every year, a handful of people reach out to me asking if we can sell them Revel speakers. I quote them a price. Half the time they get it from us, half the time they go and buy it elsewhere. My company's business is NOT retail audio. We make our living designing million dollar whole house (or commercial building) lighting, security, shades, etc. Our clients are not audiophiles and the most they want is a whole house sound with invisible or nearly so speakers throughout their house/estate. I run AudioScienceReview.com as a separate venture that has nothing to do with Madrona. Every review of a product that may bring even appearance of conflict of interest comes with a clearly note: Note: our company, Madrona Digital, is a dealer for Revel speakers. So feel free to read any level of bias in subjective comments from me. And this was my conclusion: "Many are thinking about using these speakers for Atmos height speakers. I don't see them being optimal in this configuration given the narrow usable angle." You think that is going to result in more sales? I don't think so Yon keep throwing these innuendos all you want. At the end of the day, I conduct myself with highest level of ethical conduct I know how. That you think money speaks more than anything else should be reason to avoid the work of many others who chase the same. It is not a motivator for me as I have repeatedly explained. |
