Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

@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.

Specs? What specs. Some of you gone so blind on asking for proof points that manufacturers feel like they shouldn’t give you anything. Have you seen the type of measurements I have been posting on any gear you bought? You have not.

So no, I wish I was just verifying things. Instead, I am having to do the work that the company should have done when designing said gear. Because if they had, they would have seen the many awful sins that they could have fixed which have nothing but negative impact on fidelity of equipment.

I think that you are not used to people able to UNDERSTAND the limits of your perspective...Or not much people dare to confront you on your site because because they are also technology fad ...

I am not...

And your memory is not good...

I thank you 10 times already for the verification set of measures you takes for your interesting reviews among all insults some gives you...

But I cannot accept AT ALL what you derive and impose on us about what is hearing and the qualities we must or must not perceive by listening in our own room...Nobody tune his room with blind test... And nobody use blind test for understanding music ...I am not against measuring tool but the context where we use tool MEANS SOMETHING...

Your implicit theory of hearings, the context from what you spoke is FALSE...

It is simple to read and comment 2 pages article... You never adress it for refuting it, or for commenting it and use it to prove me wrong...

it is not publish in stereophile it is published in physics reviews...

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301

@mahgister +1

@amir_asr You have not considered in my example the fact that all who heard this speaker found it to be the best that they had ever heard. Is this possible in real life, I believe it is, as we have examples of gear that sounds great and yet measures poorly. (For example, a number of low powered single ended tube amps).

In my example, i would state that the measuring devices are simply measuring the wrong things, and not that the speaker is in fact inherently flawed. Your reply tells us this ( the opposite)-- you believe the measuring devices are in fact perfect, and that the audiences’ hearing is in fact flawed. This is why I think there are other members here who are taking you to task, they do not have the same absolute belief in the results that your measuring devices deliver to always correlate to the sound that gear produces.

One thing I do agree with you about--100%, and it is this, IF everyone hears a piece of gear that sounds poor to their ears, and also measures poorly, then it is a service to disclose this aspect to the a’phile community. Folks still need to hear the piece for themselves before making a purchase decision, but the fact that it performs poorly and yet is touted by the manufacturer/dealer can be possibly explained by its poor technical design. ( which is again why i believe that the measurements JA performs for Stereophile have definite value).

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..

@mahgister YOU were the one complaining that you posted something 4 times and didn't get a response. You seemed confused as to why you seem to be lecturing in a void. (And who cares what your first language is? The content goes on and on and on. I can write more briefly in non-native languages. It's not hard.) Clearly, you're too sensitive for constructive criticism. Forget it. I will just scroll past your 1000 word posts.