Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

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. 

Exactly...

The problem is Amir want to create a standard in design... It is not a bad idea in itself...But imposing it will negate creativity in a field where there cannot be a perfect speaker anyway, and there could not be ONE SINGULAR PERFECT SPEAKER FOR ALL NEEDS Why ? Because speakers are interesting by the mutiple trade off choices they offer by DESIGN ...

There is no SINGULAR ROOM for all customers too...

In industrial design for big company , it is useful and desirable to STAY AND OBEY standards and their trade-off choices ... But individual creative small designer will choose other trade off, he will innovate to PLEASE THE HUMAN EARS OF HIS CUSTOMER NOT HIS MEASURING TOOLS DIALS to be regular for the industrial mass production needs ...

Then confusing Industrial and small craftmanship , not only in speakers but in amplifier design, and imposing the same set of measures coming from the same hearing theory is not desirable nor doable...

Hans Van Maanen will design his amplifier differently than the Fosi amplifier reviewed by Amir... So positive was his review and i trust him that this amplifier is not bad for the price, you cannot judge with the same set of measures the Van Maanen amplifier design and the mass market Fosi ... The difference in price is astronomical too..

I dont think that the pope of Audio elected will be Amir... He measure well for sure, but he negate what is "musical" for his own "transparency" technologically perfect measured ideal 😊... In sound and acoustic the goal was never and never will be "perfection" of electronical design by the numbers, but musicality even if we dont like the measures of this so called " musical" amplifier ..

You can call as Hinton do, A.I. more intelligent than human, it only reflect your ignorance about what are human beings.. At least Hinton know that A.I. is a danger in our corporate dictatorship...

In the same way you may call "musical" what your measuring tools reveal as "perfect" but it is human ears who will decide, in blind test or in their room BY THEIR FREE CHOICES not by design ...

Why ? i will not explain it here, because Hilde45 will come and denounce me as creating too long posts.,..He dont read post he measure them... 😊

That is like saying all cookies should taste the same.

@amir_asr In my hypothesis, I was attempting to point out that IF a speaker was ever designed that could sound like what people (including you) believe to be as close as possible to the sound of ’real’ instruments in a ’live acoustic space’, and if this very same speaker measured poorly; people like yourself would point to the measurements and not believe in what their very own ears were telling them!

This is fundamentally where I believe we differ in our approach to music reproduction. You are seeking something that you believe looks right on a scope, or what the measurements say is what should be ’musical’, whereas I am looking for a product that can reproduce the closest to what my recollection of the ’real’ sounds like. As a former pro musician, I may have a bent/bias on what that is, but it also has allowed me to be exposed to numerous instruments and their sound in varying venues. If a product meets with my expectation of this sound, and still measures poorly, I have no concern on this. OTOH, if the product measures well and does not meet with my musical expectation, I am not interested. That simple.

@daveyf 

@amir_asr   In my hypothesis, I was attempting to point out that IF a speaker was ever designed that could sound like what people (including you) believe to be as close as possible to the sound of 'real' instruments in a 'live acoustic space', and if this very same speaker measured poorly; people like yourself would point to the measurements and not believe in what their very own ears were telling them! 

This does not exist.  It cannot exist.  You are saying you want to be in the two places simultaneously.  Again, what extensive research across many decades shows is that we as listeners prefer accurate and neutral measuring speakers.  

This is no top of your premise that people thinking some speaker reproduces real instruments from a recording that itself is not such a copy. 

You can't make up scenarios that are in conflict and don't represent reality and then draw conclusions from them.

But let's say what you say is true.  Then what you call "bad measurements" are the measurements we want to look for in speakers.  In that regard, those measurements would be considered good, not bad.

This is fundamentally where I believe we differ in our approach to music reproduction. You are seeking something that you believe looks right on a scope, or with the measurements say is what should be 'musical', whereas I am looking for a product that can reproduce the closest to what my recollection of the 'real' sounds like.

Not remotely the case.  I listen to every speaker I test.  I  have already said that measurements are about 80% predictive of speaker performance.  That last 20% such as directivity is not quantified. 

The difference between us is that I believe in comprehensive research into speakers says that we can easily rule out bad speakers with measurements.  That if they measure poorly as you say, we can conclude with high confidence that without other biases, majority of listeners would not like such a speaker.

As a former pro musician, I may have a bent/bias on what that is, but it also has allowed me to be exposed to numerous instruments and their sound in varying venues. If a product meets with my expectation of this sound, and still measures poorly, I have no concern on this. 

That's fine.  Have your personal belief.  Come back when you sit in a blind test and your beliefs prove to be reliable.  I have.  I found that my beliefs were NOT reliable in that situation.  I repeated it.  Same outcome.  What happened?  I voted just like majority of listeners situated completely different than me.  So I had to throw out my own personal notions of what is correct and listen to what science says.

OTOH, if the product measures well and does not meet with my musical expectation, I am not interested. That simple.

Wouldn't be mine either.  Again, this is why I listen and occasionally go against the measurements and recommend a speaker.  Again, it is OK to fall in the 20% bucket.  But don't say the science knows nothing about this domain.  We know a ton.  A ton.  Dispute it at your own peril.