2. misc-audio
  3. 185168-1635

Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.”  And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything?  For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think. 
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is. 

chayro
dabel
1,658 posts
 

Information Society … (ugh, the band).

amir_asr
777 posts
 

"I use science". The ostensibly invincible intellectual shield.

Only if it is stated but not demonstrated.....

amir_asr
777 posts
 

Keep for yourself your theory that all there is to say about sound qualities is relative to your limited set of measures...

I don't have to keep what I have not stated.

Objectivist must learn psycho-acoustic science behind technology and develop humility....

This knowledge used to be part of job function and responsibility. Getting it wrong would impact the fortunes of the company I worked for and myself.  Have you been similarly situated?  What is your level of knowledge of psychoacoustics on scale 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest?

amir_asr
777 posts
 

• The common conclusion is that reproduction of sound from
20 Hz – 20 kHz with only the correct amplitude is completely
sufficient for sound reproduction, indistinguishable from the
original, but quite in conflict with the above mentioned
anecdotal findings and with what I hear.

Anecdotes and $5 will get you a cup of coffee....  Nothing in the research you are posting supports stuff like that.  There was no test of human perception of frequencies above 20 kHz.  Or impact of eliminating such.  This is all stuff you are reading into the research which has no justification whatsoever.

amir_asr
777 posts
 

The Fourier theory is very powerful and useful for audio, but it can only be applied correctly when the conditions imposed are fulfilled.

Fourier theory is not part of the design of any amplifier. Nor is Fourier theory what the paper is about that you keep posting. The Fourier theorem as it is more properly called, is a mathematical proof. It used in some signal processing domains such as lossy audio compression. It has no applicability to an analog amplifier. Such an amplifier is not performing any transform from analog to digital or vice versa.

You are intermingling topics because of lack of understanding of the underlying concepts.

The research simply says that for a special class of signals our hearing system seems to be able to detect their frequency and timing more accurately than the uncertainty principal in Fourier predicts. It has no relevance to topic of audio measurements, or function of analog audio equipment. Extrapolating otherwise shows that even the most basic concepts here are not understood.

And again, much of our audio measurements is done in time domain with no usage of Fourier transforms. They are not bound by any uncertainty principal because they don’t attempt to quantify either time or frequency. When we use Fourier transforms, it is to decompose a signal, i.e. its distortion products. We don’t intend or rely on its frequency resolution.

More to discover