Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

You distorted Van Maanen intention above ... I corrected you by citing the text and reestablishing his intention...

But it seems distorting facts to suit your gaol is an habit...

All reviewers and audiophiles DIFFER all day long about anything... There is a multitude of groups and cultist about all possibilities in audio...

No one IMPOSE DICTATORIALLY a theory of hearing and a normalized set of measures for all ... With the Correct and only one accepted vocabulary...

Are you kidding ? or you are blind so busy to sell your salad ? 😊

Audiophiles debate without end unable to impose anything... They are FREE and want to stay free ... They dont tolerate to be imposed hearing standards through the only good measures theory by statistical and blind tests proof...

Musicality for Furtwangler is not the same as for Karajan... Guess why ? A clue : it has nothing to do with "neutrality"...

Wait and i will explain it in my musical thread... Hilde45 measure my words numbers post... i must watch myself... 😊

The problem is imposing our own theory of what is hearing and what is musical...Which is what the audiophiles and their reviewers do day in and day out.

The fact here that you reverse the accusation is revelatory... You are the one who want to IMPOSE a unique view about the relation UNIDIRECTIONAL  between measures and what we hear ...No audiophiles do that... Offering his opinions to other is not imposing it through a site with this  goal ... Audiogon is not like ASR... There is no hearing ideology here... Only subjective impressions... You are the one claiming what hearing theory MUST BE...

By the way i appreciate your site and your reviews AS I SAID NUMEROUS TIME... i dont accept  the one way mandatory  direction from measures to hearing  as hearing theory...

Neutrality is good but wanting neutrality as a perfect obligatory mandate in design will cost something... You are not God and you cannot decide that tomorrow all trade-off choices in audio will be declared unlawful and only pure abstract neutrality will be the goal and the only qualitative adjective usable for describing a good sound or a PLEASANT ONE...No more pleasure because it is illusory if i read you right... Only perfection is acceptable... The problem is by definition of what is a trade off in audio no perfection exist from recording to speakers..

No one is taking away anyone's choices in designing a speaker.  Nothing about what I or audio science stands for mandates anything in that regard.  We simply as for flat on axis response and smooth  off-axis.  You can get there a million ways.

To be sure, it is not my job, and should not be yours either, to make anything easy for manufactures/designers.  They have their challenges and they signed up for that when they decided to get into that business.  I am a consumer and want a performant system.  You can't deliver it?  Don't get in the market.  

We have speakers that cost just a few hundred dollars that deliver on these metrics.  That expensive speakers costing many multiples can't is no reason to relax the criteria for them.

12 pages later….

DonT relax anything... Go on criticize them those costlier speakers designer... I will congratulate you for that...

And who in his right mind can oppose to someone who ask " for flat on axis response and smooth off-axis." Not me ...

But designers will go on with their trade off choices and you will criticize them... All is OK...i will read you...

But dont come to me saying that all there is to say about audio components is their measures set...And dont come to me saying that human hearing impression are all illusory and with no value out of blind test ...

Psycho-acoustic dont say that... Trained ears are not the same as untrained one... Furtwangler and Floyd Toole or Dr Choueri or the creator of my headphone a physicist acoustician of genius Dr Gorike all had trained ears...dont put them in the same basket as people who buy an amplifier for the price tag and dials... Dont put them in the same basket than people unable to tune their own room... Etc...

The human ears beat the Fourier uncertainty why ?

Because he use some aspects of sound by virtue of his non linear structure and brain tools which made him able to EXTRACT 10 times the accuracy information in the time domain permitted by the linear Fourier treshold between frequency and time ... This means that hearing is not explanable only by Fourier methods, and it means that human hearing can be trained and is very trustful when trained at long term... Furtwangler dont need a blind test...he dont pick up his amplifier by reading your measures... It does not means that measures are useless... Who would pair the wrong amplifier with the wrong measures to the wrong speakers?  We need measure for regularity and standards... Deriving all  audible qualities from them is non sense...

No one is taking away anyone’s choices in designing a speaker. Nothing about what I or audio science stands for mandates anything in that regard. We simply as for flat on axis response and smooth off-axis. You can get there a million ways.

To be sure, it is not my job, and should not be yours either, to make anything easy for manufactures/designers. They have their challenges and they signed up for that when they decided to get into that business. I am a consumer and want a performant system. You can’t deliver it? Don’t get in the market.

We have speakers that cost just a few hundred dollars that deliver on these metrics. That expensive speakers costing many multiples can’t is no reason to relax the criteria for them

This thread deserves it's own website.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Otherwise, carry on folks, but I have been down every one of those roads before.