Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

@somethingsomethingaudio 

@texbychoice not only that but Amir himself profits from it by constantly promoting revel products. How do I know this? Well I once early on before I knew better was interested in his company and thought maybe I’d grab a pair of revels from him. He does exactly what he forbids others from doing. Allegedly. 

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:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-c763l-in-ceiling-speaker-review.42029/

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.

@mahgister 

I'm curious: what happened to the photos of your virtual system on Audiogon?

The...uh...very interesting layout of your tweaks?

speaking of which, @prof, I was curious about your system…

@soundfield 

Exactly! There was a perfect opportunity to clearly state that most of your measurements fall well below audibility thresholds AND, even if they are perceptible, there is no clear evidence one is preferred over another.

And how do you know if some product falls in the "most" category or the other?  By measuring!!!  You don't just sniff the box, look at the price or reputation and decide that.  You measure.  Then you know.

Of course you are just waiving your hand on that "most" bit.  You have no background in psychoacousts, measurements or even electronic design.  You have never participated in a single blind test presented to you.  So what you are spitting out are just claims.

Here is the good news though: superlative measured results cost next to nothing.  So if you are purchasing something new, there is no reason to settle for "just enough fidelity."  You can get to what I call provably transparent.  There, we compare the measurements to threshold of hearing (which is determined by listening tests).  If the equipment has less noise and distortion than this, then those factors are simply not in play and we can prove it!

The moment you go above that level, then it becomes shades of gray which requires interpretation.  A skill that our soundfield friend does not remotely have.

You do ZERO valid listening tests. Yet you not only "Rank', but routinely "Not recommend" products based solely on measurements with zero listening test correlation.

I have post numerous blind tests that I have passed.  We ask people to run blind, level matched tests.  And when they do, backed by training and skill they have, across countless such challenges, you jump up and down claiming they must have cheated.  Well, you are dead wrong and have no proof of it.  In the video I post on listener training, I actually explained how I passed Archimago high res challenge.  Ah, you don't like the fact that I knew what impairment to look for.  Well, that is how a proper listening test is done.  We want listeners to know what to listen for.  We don't want to stick our head in the sand by removing that skill and hoping to get negative outcome, the reality be damned.

Yes, it is inconvenient for likes of you to see someone like me disprove your ideas of inaudibility.  Tough.  Next time learn the topic itself and not just repeat talking points that nothing can sound better than something else.

Finally, I looked at your website.  There is no measurements of any speakers except for one random one with no documentation.  Surely you don't claim that speaker measurements are of no use, are you?  You are not that deep into subjectivity, are you? 

Then I saw this bit of absurdity on your home page:

"Our products reflect the philosophy that loudspeakers should strive to sound like the real thing. "Hi Fidelity" once meant exactly that. If you know what live acoustic music sounds like, you will appreciate our products."

Oh really?  How does a speaker convert a microphone recorded content into the sound of the real thing?  Magic?  You have some scientific research to link to that states anything remotely like this?  Or is it that when it comes to selling speakers, you are just as bad as the next guy in ignoring audio science and engineering?

Distortion level detection is not what the human ears do well ...We do not perceive distortion in itself we perceive natural and musical sounds WE RECOGNiZE...

This is precisely the problem...

You use blind test to confirm your linear measuring tool and design in the symmetrical time domain... The problem is human hearing dont work in this way and in this time dimension, human hearing is non linear and time dependant  , he is sensible to natural sounds, and music not to distorsion "per se" as an electrical measuring tool ...We dont listen sine wave function in real life...

We dont speak the same language...

The physicist Hans Van Maanen explain it completely i dont expect you will read it... You are on your technological blind crusade...