Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

I don’t know why you keep bringing up Fourier transform. Most of my tests don’t involve any kind of fourier analysis. Take the dashboard I post earlier for that Carver amplifier:

See those THD+N and SINAD numbers? They are computed *without FFT*. The analyzer simply filters out the 1 kHz tone and what is left is noise+distortion. It then simply reports that sum energy of unwanted signal as a ratio to the test signal. No FFT is needed or used.

You dont get it anything right but always half truth...

I never say that your measure use FFT, i indicated that they are used in the usual theory context about hearings that the ears work linearly and mainly in the frequency domain, this is the inspired Fourier theory of hearing in the frequency domain ... It is falseby being INSUFFICIENT to describe human hearings  and DEMONSTRATED by Oppenheim and Magnasco...And Hans Van Maanen explain it COMPLETELY theoretically and for his own design ..¯Read it...

What you said about your OWN mesures is RIGHT in itself and you dont use FFT... But the Context in which your interpret what is "sound qualities" and what they MUST BE , is a theory of hearing that is falsified by psycho-acoustic experiments and by many audio amplifier designer...see above...

Fourier transforms then are an invaluable diagnostic tool to assess audibility because much of our knowledge of psychacoustics is in frequency domain, not time. In time domain, we are relative quite deaf. This is by design. When you listen to someone in your home, their voice gets bounced around the room, gets delayed (timing changes) plus attenuated and then mixes with the direct sound creating a "phase soup." So the notion that time matters is non-sequitur in most part.

You spoke like a used car sellers here... Where did i say that FFT is not invaluable in diagnostic ? Did i say that Fourier was an idiot ? I said that ONLY using it in the context of an audio theory of hearings based on linear and time dependant domain is TOO NARROW and direct us to false conclusions about audio qualities as human hearings recognize them...Musician for example speaking about timbre perception and picking each multiple timbres of instruments in orchestral recordings or playins etc...

And here again you spew half truth : The bouncing of waves in a small room can create a " soup" yes,but you FORGET to mention that the difference between a "perceived soup" and a balanced ratio ASW/LV in a specific room of precise dimensions is in the PRECISE TIMING and duration.... Reverberation is not always a negative phenomenon... If the timing is not right yes it will be a soup... But all acoustic art is in the TIMING AMOUNT... I know because i created my room...

Certainly, @mahgister isn’t trying to confuse the reader and isn’t obligated to provide anything to meet your definition of "proper proof."

I was talking about the author of said papers, not him.  But go ahead and summarize what you think @mahgister has been quoting and what it means.

This is a hobbyist’s website, not a scientific forum or, in the case of ASR, a quasi-pseudo-faux-scientific forum. At the very least, @mahgister has pretty good grip on logic, which is probably why his posts confound you so.

He doesn't confound me in the least.  Unlike any of you, I have been interacting and answering what he is posting.  For your part, I am pretty sure you can't even summarize let alone defend what he is posting.  But go ahead: show the respect to him and tell me in your words what he is advocating.

amir_asr

He doesn’t confound me in the least. Unlike any of you, I have been interacting and answering what he is posting.

Your interaction reveals confusion. You might want to read your own words!

... show the respect to him and tell me in your words what he is advocating.

Again, you seem very confused and it’s not my role to assist you in promoting your site.

@amir_asr  I need to ask you a question...

Hypothetically, a speaker manufacturer somehow manages to develop a speaker that sounds to everyone ( including you).. exactly like the sound of real 'live' instruments in a non-amplified setting. This very speaker is what everyone believes is the best sound reproducer they have ever heard. The designer and the manufacturer take the steps you are supporting and do every measurement that you believe is appropriate, and these measurements show --- major distortions and errors in the design. Question for you is this, should the manufacturer go back to the drawing board and scrap this design, or should they produce this model for the market...but withhold the measurements as they know that folk will decry their design with knowledge of these results? (or disclose the measurements- and face the kind of scrutiny that will possibly result in most (many) folk dismissing this speaker before even having a chance to hear it!)  Your thoughts...

@mahgister 

I never say that your measure use FFT, i indicated tghat they are used in the usual theory context about hearings that the ears work linearly and mainly in the frequency domain, this is the inspired  Fourier theory of hearing in the frequency domain  ...

Of course you did:

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...

Just because an axis is showing a frequency doesn't mean the test is in "frequency domain."  The test is actually running in time domain.  It sends a single at at specific voltage, and measures what comes back, again as a voltage in time domain.

What I responded to clearly said that as well:

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...

That aside, your hearing works as bank of auditory filters, each tuned to a certain frequency:

You see all those humps? Those are the center frequencies of each filter.  See how their bandwidth changes as you go up?  This is just one aspect of why so much of understanding of our hearing comes from frequency domain, not time.

As I explained, time is not something we are very sensitive to.  I gave you example of how timing is completely smeared in our everyday life as you listen to other people.  If you were sensitive to timing you would go craze as you or loved ones moved around!  The brain has learned to filter such things.

Sadly manufacturers have figured out that by throwing the word "timing" in their marketing material, they immediately play to the lay understanding of the term and they no longer have to provide any proof that such things matter.  Don't fall for it.  Ask and demand for proof in controlled listening tests without the eyes.