Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

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.

@daveyf 

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.

These two assumptions are orthogonal to each other.  Research conclusively shows that if you have those response errors, humans, with no reference to what real sound is like, show a dislike for these speakers.  They consider them less faithful to what they think fidelity is about.

It is like saying "let's assume that you are simultaneously sick and healthy, are you sure I am sick?"  Answer is that you can't be in both of those states at the same time.  If I examine you and you are sick, then that is that.

Now, if you are saying the speaker is that faithful and has no *audible* flaws, then sure.  For that, you would have to come up with proofs of fidelity as you stated in a controlled test.  Failing that, at least provide measurements that show that.

The problem we have, and it is where you want to go, is that someone in faulty subjective test claims this speaker is the best there is.  Then we measure and find major flaws.  Answer to this conflict is that the reviewer/tester didn't know what he was doing, not that the measurements were wrong.  Again, this is how people do in general when testing speakers:

Let's agree that we can't trust what people say in the four categories past the Trained column.