Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Amir did not read neither  Oppenheim and Magnasco, nor Hans Van Maanen...

Nonsense.  I read Maanen paper and comment about it when you first post it.  I explained to you that he made up an electronic circuit that has hysteresis and then showed a couple of rudimentary simulation that says there is a memory effect.  I explained to you that he did not:

1. Show that same in any real amplifier circuit

2. There are no controlled listening tests in the paper saying any of that is real or matters with real products and listeners.

 I have shown how incredibly using Fourier transform is because we are able to then perform psychoacoustic analysis of impairments in audio.  There is nothing whatsoever in that paper to invalidate this analysis which is the standard in research into audibility of distortions and noise.

Heck, there is not even a single fourier transform in the paper you post!  He is only showing  you time domain clipping/highly non-linear behavior of a made up circuit which does not exist in an amplifier.  

A fourier tranform would have shown huge non-linearities in the circuit he is simulating showing how it is butchering the signal.  And whether that would be audible or not.

Bottom line, in no way or shape this backs your claims that fourier analysis of audio signals is a bad or wrong thing.  Nothing remotely like that.  

@amir_asr its funny business you think you dont answer purposefully. Are you and @soundfield going to kiss and make up?

Must be nice living in that $3 million castle of yours acting like the king of audio.

@daveyf 

If we believe ( and I have no idea if you do) that all appreciation of SQ is subjective; IOW one person’s appreciation of the sound of a stand up bass is another’s definition of a cello, then we have to come to the conclusion that what sounds great to one, is not necessarily the case to another.

Again, in your hypothesis you said everyone said that speaker produced the real sound including me.  So what you say above is not consistent with that.

Fortunately, it appears that most of us are surprisingly similar in our preferences when tested blind, i.e. when we don't know what we are looking at.  There, when presented with sound coming out of a handful of speakers, we agree with each other to a high degree in what makes good sound.  This is independent of any group we belong to.  From Harman research into this very topic in an extensive project:

Notice how the speaker in light green was voted as poor sounding by every class of listeners from reviewers to trained listeners.

This is a very fortunate thing.  It means that sound reproduction is not wild west.  That many of us will like a speaker that is neutral sounding.  That too much  highs or lows bothers us similarly. 

I have tested and listened to nearly 300 speakers now.  Regardless of who makes it, when a speaker is neutral, it puts a huge smile on my face!  It just sounds right.  

Above is the only hope we have of standardization in audio.  If production of music is done in neutral settings, then we can have the same in our home and for the first time hear what was heard in the production of said music.  We can always put salt and pepper on that if needed with equalization to our preference.

This is *the* most important thing to learn about proper sound reproduction in our room.  

I never said that Fourier method was wrong..

You put this in my mouth...

These methods are the basis of design in Audio... 😊

I INSISTED on the point that Fourier linear methods are not able to explain hearings power , and they are not enough to create musical design ... The designer must quit his tools and listen TOO... Thats the point...

Bashing Fourier method will be stupid , i NEVER did that, criticizing the context of their application and interpretation in human hearings is the point...

The ears works non linearly in his own time direction, that is the point which make it powerful for extracting information... We must use this fact in the creation of the design and not use our own linear and time symmetrical measure to determine the design as "perfect" because no distortion and low noise ...It is not enough...Musicality exist ... For you it may be a myth... For some designer it is not...

Nonsense. I read Maanen paper and comment about it when you first post it. I explained to you that he made up an electronic circuit that has hysteresis and then showed a couple of rudimentary simulation that says there is a memory effect.

And now you distort what Van Maanen said :

Any electronic circuit changes in amplitude and phase of distortion components caused by modulation frequency. Van Maanen use that fact to show the limit of Fourier method for predicting his behavior...Your three lines attributing to him the idea to made up a circuit with hysteresis HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS POINT ...

Here it is in his own word...:

«When we look at electronics with active components, such systems are non-linear as has been described in a separate paper (Feedback Flaws). Which is why we have to deal with distortion.
So, the first condition is, in general, not fulfilled. Memory effects also often occur in electronics, which can even be enhanced by non-linear effects.

The determination of the frequency response of such a circuit is next to impossible (note that nthe dynamic impedance of the diodes depends on the current, flowing through them and is therefore also dependent on the amplitude of the input signal) and it is obvious that the system is highly non-linear. The charge on the capacitor will be a clear function of the history of then input signal, so the system is also not time-invariant. In other words, the application of Fourier theory to electronics is error-prone and there is a severe risk that the properties for continuous
sine waves cannot (and will not) predict the response in time domain correctly.

Figure 1: Example of a circuit where the Fourier theory is
not capable to predict the response, even if the continuous
sine wave response would be known by measurement. The
reasons are the non-linear behaviour (due to the diodes in
the circuit) and the memory, created by the capacitor as its
charge will depend on the input signal in the past.

i cannot put the figure but anybody vcan go there :

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf

I have tested and listened to nearly 300 speakers now.  Regardless of who makes it, when a speaker is neutral, it puts a huge smile on my face!  It just sounds right.  

Above is the only hope we have of standardization in audio.  If production of music is done in neutral settings, then we can have the same in our home and for the first time hear what was heard in the production of said music.  We can always put salt and pepper on that if needed with equalization to our preference.

This is *the* most important thing to learn about proper sound reproduction in our room.  

If this were true then every audio engineer, producer and mixer would use the same speakers. They all want neutral. They all want something that comes close to it. It is important but the most important I would say is misguided. Take a trip over to gearspace.com and see the multitude of threads that exists by the people who create all of the audio and voicing we hear in music and audio today. They still are in search of speakers that do what they need. Fit their room, go as low as they need to, and have voicing they need showing the mix in the orignized way they want. Some mix on Harbeths, B&W and others like a more modern take with Genelec. 

That is like saying all cookies should taste the same. They need to have the same ratio of ingredients and follow the same approach. So many ways to cut it, and they are good starting points, but the end result and the journey to get there are the experience we all enjoy.