Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

You go @amir_asr !  Taking em down like John Wick!

You dont get my points...

I am not against blind test...They are the norm in some  psycho-acoustics experiments and in some design process ...

I am against posing blind tests as replacing ears training in acoustic and in progressive and FINAL evaluation..

I am in favor of rigorous tests as you are...

But bashing audiophiles for some right reason ( you are right audio is not about Taste) dont justify your ideology: only my measuring tools linear and time independant tools in the frequency domain will say the last truth about the qualities perceived through the gear...

I dont "put my trust in the wrong person" as you said reminding us of an attitude in cultist group, I THINK WHEN READING, and i read that most of what the ears does to create meaning and catch meaning , in music , in speech , in natural sound, and then in a psycho- acoustic laboratory is not only in the frequency domain but in the time domain where the brain extract information in a non linear way...

Then there is a high cost to pay if we TRUST the Fourier linear tools and if we work ONLY in the time independant and frequency domain... The price is we loose contact with the basic of human hearings...

Then your tests are useful ONLY to reinforce your false hearings assumptions... Not about the limits of hearings, we are as you know limited indeed in the decibels and in the Hertz scale, even if we beat the Fourier uncertainty, but the meanings and qualitative physical sound phenemona associated with a system/room cannot be described by your set of measures... Saying the opposite may be ressembling a technological cult but it is not science and it is not amplifier design... It is debunking stategy nothing more... But you debunk the wrong thing easy to debunk : human earings , you never debunk the false assumptions from psycho-acoustic ruling audio design... On the opposite you try to reinforce them...Ears /brain dont work like a Fourier computer...

I am not in this cult , i think when i read... I dont read only Hans Van Maanen by the way...And anyway all his work is founded on psycho-acoustic, among other thing funmdamental, the psycho-acoustic fact behind Oppenheim and Magnasco experiments you NEVER EXPLAINED NOR COMMENTED HERE EVEN AFTER I SUGGESTED IT 5 TIMES....

You could not because this will demoslish your pretense to capture the audible qualities through measurements... And you could no more bash audiophiles for their ignorance which is an half truth, because they ignore acoustic most of them but at least they trust their ears even if they go in the wrong direction ( upgrading with the wrong purchases) by lack of information...Anyway even your "disciples" trust their ears at some point... Your analysis of gear dont cause any unanimous acceptation for sure...

It is more easy for you with dac, less easy for amplifier, and way less confortable with speakers/room... More you go near the human hearings the more difficult it is to impose your analysis tools... At the end even yourself know and you said it that hearing must be used...

Then all the fuss about your ideology is bashing people and anyway you used the tools in the wrong way, instead of using it to modify the audio design accordingly to psycho-acoustic non linear workings of the ears in the time domain, you use your tools in a linear way in the frequency domain to DECIDE what gear is good and which one is bad and to as you said DEBUNK ... You debunk thinking you are right, you do not design...The proof is in the pudding, Hans Van Maanen DESIGN according to his understanding of psycho-acoustic law, "temporal coherence" is his trade mark..

By the way without naming names, there is amplifier designer who designed according to what they know about the time domain even here ...There is many Van Maanen in the world... All creative designer go accordingly of what they think work from psycho-acoustic, for example in the tubes amplifier design... It is the same for speakers design at some high level...

@mahgister

Sure. Make sure you conduct such listening tests with rigor and report back. Don’t tell me you like the story from the guy who designed something. That is putting your trust in the hands of the wrong person.

@bato65

In audio, we are still measuring rudimentary stuff.

A key point. Because we don’t fully understand the brain, let alone the complex mechanisms of perception -- and then interpretation of all that, and (still further) the language we use to describe the interpretations -- measurement is neither complete nor foolproof. This does NOT say it does not help. But it has its limits.

@ossicle2brain -- +1 Calling someone a troll is a kind of trolling, especially when the person in question is coming back with replies again and again. You’d expect more from an educated adult, but keyboards are too easy to use these days.

@mahghister -- you post an extraordinarily long article, 4 times and you’re wondering about no replies? Perhaps you see that this is a medium built for brevity, not long briefs. You write, "You dont get my points..." -- my guess is that people mostly skip your posts because they're too long. If you cannot control this, you're going to get ignored. Free advice, not meant as a personal attack, Sir.

@ghasley Why is this a thing, indeed? Probably because we like binary choices and the "objectivist OR subjectivist" dilemma has speared people. Something Mahgister gets at nicely (if obtusely) in his emphasis on the room-listener aspect of psycho-acoustics.

@decooney

Again, the majority here at Audiogon do not need a meter or graph to know what sounds good. Listen, then measure.

There’s a lot of confidence expressed here in listening skills, that’s true. Too often, these skills are reported out without much in the way of detail about rooms, preferences, etc. So, there’s a lot of miscommunication here.
My prefer method is listen-measure-listen-measure-listen. It’s a long and iterative process. And I’m an amateur; I don’t measure gear, just room acoustics. But by alternating between those, I have learned to better correlate what the SPL or Impulse or RT60 graph means in sensory results for my space and how to aim for certain measurements which then are tested, again, by listening.

@piaudiol

Some people hear.
Some people listen.
Some people measure.
Some people know the difference.

Is this supposed to be profound? Some people do multiple things.
As @amir_asr pointed out, "That is not what we do with the tool. The tool gives you data. A human interprets it against psychoacoustics research which is based on listening."
And of course, after that, the end consumer gets to be a king and pronounce whether it’s good-for-them or not.
So what the eff is the problem here?

A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

You say this to me till the first day...

English is not my first language ...

Perhaps you must SPOKE and DISCUSS the truth and depth of the psycho-acoustic points and articles i submitted , instead of repeating that my posts are too long for 2 years now... No more longer than Amir posts here by the way...

And remind this, i am not here to win a popularity contest about my posts... i submit content and ideas not short sarcasm, and short bashing... Explanations need space especially if someone must separate the frequency domain and the Time domain analysis and illustrating it with the articles which are related to this...

Put you in my shoes: what will you think of someone who never DISCUSS your ideas but never stop to say that your posts are too long ?

You are intelligent i think, then use it... And patronizing people even politely work few times, i even thank you and i apologize, the last time but patronizing dont work for two years... I will not change my english skills mastery nor my thinking in the next month..Sorry...

i dont want to be rude but i hope for DISCUSSION WITH YOU ..Not for the same repeating useless criticizing of my style..

Discuss with me... Dont repeat the same melody about my long posts.....Do you think there is NO SUBSTANCE in the works of the 4 physicists i proposed here ?

By the way these 4 posts of the same articles were for Amir who never commented till this day about the Magnasco and Oppenheim experiments and their consequences about human hearings and audio analysis .. And by the way instead of repeating this critics about my posts, WHY YOU DONT READ THE ARTICLE AND COMMENT IT HERE YOURSELF ? I mind about facts and i think now your posts are TOO SHORT and miss the point`: THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE BY OPPENHEIM AND MAGNASCO ... Not my syntax...

@mahghister -- you post an extraordinarily long article, 4 times and you’re wondering about no replies? Perhaps you see that this is a medium built for brevity, not long briefs. You write, "You dont get my points..." -- my guess is that people mostly skip your posts because they’re too long. If you cannot control this, you’re going to get ignored. Free advice, not meant as a personal attack, Sir.

By the way you miss my point here ... Perhaps you could have read the articles in my long posts instead of bashing my too long posts because they appear too long for your taste...

The data measured and read coming from the frequency domain and interpreted from this linear Fourier perspective is not the same that the data measured and interpreted from the time domain in a non linear perspective of analysis ... The ears works non linearly... Do you catch it ? If not read the articles of Van Maanen...If i resume it all details it will take 15 pages...

Then Amir is wrong and you are wrong: the tools give us data yes, this is a common place useless fact ;  but the CONTEXT where these data will be interpret or not is the most important factor , will it be only the frequency linear domain or also the time non linear dependant  domain ?

Dont imitate Amir, who dont read them, and stop repeating his points as a parrot...

My post are LONG sometimes with no reason you are right, but sometimes there is a reason...

Is this supposed to be profound? Some people do multiple things.
As @amir_asr pointed out, "That is not what we do with the tool. The tool gives you data. A human interprets it against psychoacoustics research which is based on listening."

@yowser John Wick?! More like John D...

He has managed to alienate me, when I was a pretty big fan before. Plus I am still on ASR and will just continue to post while subverting the norm. He thinks he is the second coming of Jesus for audio and loves the smell of his own farts.

@amir_asr Is great at deflecting. Thats about it.

@mahgister sounds like my experience.

I am not in this cult , i think when i read... I dont read only Hans Van Maanen by the way...And anyway all his work is founded on psycho-acoustic, among other thing funmdamental, the psycho-acoustic fact behind Oppenheim and Magnasco experiments you NEVER EXPLAINED NOR COMMENTED HERE EVEN AFTER I SUGGESTED IT 5 TIMES....

You could not because this will demoslish your pretense to capture the audible qualities through measurements... And you could no more bash audiophiles for their ignorance which is an half truth, because they ignore acoustic most of them but at least they trust their ears even if they go in the wrong direction ( upgrading with the wrong purchases) by lack of information...Anyway even your "disciples" trust their ears at some point... Your analysis of gear dont cause any unanimous acceptation for sure...

It is more easy for you with dac, less easy for amplifier, and way less confortable with speakers/room... More you go near the human hearings the more difficult it is to impose your analysis tools... At the end even yourself know and you said it that hearing must be used...