Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Fourier theory is not part of the design of any amplifier. Nor is Fourier theory what the paper is about that you keep posting

I never said a such non sensical thing about Fourier being part of the material design of an amplifier... They are the background theory for the hearing based frequency theory... i always spoke myself about hearing theory and the impact on design QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION and the predictive relation between perceived "musicality" of the gear and some sets of LINEAR measures IN THE MASS MARKET INDUSTRY which are not enough to predict "musicality" of the gear because the human hearings work non linearly in the time dependant domain Simple.... I only said that some set of measures are interpretated in the LINEAR context with Fourier theory as a frequency based Hearing theory in the background interpretative context instead of a time dependant theory...By the way going in the time domain with your measures interpreted in a linear context, DOES NOT MEANS YOU WORK IN THE TIME DEPENDANT DOMAIN of hearing theory...The CRUX is not the time domain symmetricality in itself ( laws of nature can be read mathematically in a time independant way ) but it non symmetrical direction, then time dependant one, in a non linear way for human EARS/brain workings..

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.

All your measures being interpretated linearly OUT OF THE SPECIFICS NEEDS from a hearing theory based on what MAagnasco and Oppenheim and Van Maanen asked for, cannot have then any concluding value for interpreting them as "good sound" in a psycho-acoustic sense and i a predictive way... A good standard design dont means a "musical" pleasurable sound quality... You then really means only "good sound" as an attribution in a mass marketing standardized designing sense of the words... ... What you call "good sound" then with your set of measures has nothing to do with real "perceived sound qualities" in a psycho-acoustic SUBJECTIVE sense.... Then objectivists claiming the opposite are wrong...If anyone claim the opposite then it is because someone want to IMPOSE what must be a "good sound" with a hearing theory which is linear and TIME INDEPENDANT...

But now we have no debate TOGETHER you said it very clearly : Your set of measures cannot be claimed as to have any PREDICTIVE PERCEIVED SOUND QUALITY VALUES out of the numbers revealing some aspect of distortions and jitter, etc ...The fact that you equate it with good sound QUALITIES is purely an abuse of words; you means good standard design... Then Probability of a good sound with no predictive attribute .. As you say you LISTEN with behind your head the measures biases you had taken BUT you submit yourself to blind test...perfect then...

Then i had no more point of disagreement with you... It is the objectivists around you reading your reviews who EXTRAPOLATE and ATTACK subjectivism claiming to some "musicality" and grow in a cult using some specialized set of measures as PREDICTIVE instead of being only : minimal or optimal standards with no predictive value for "musicality"...Which quality is "unreal" or "illusory" anyway for them ......You are more "neutral" than this circle around you and you do a job thats all... And effectively you cannot be faulted for the rudeness and wrong interpretations of others.. yOu stay silent and give your reviews... Anybody can interpret your verdict as predictive of "good sound" or not... It is up to them... And up to a blind test... 😊

Thanks for the discussion... I learned a lot... i am not qualified in any way, i am not an engineer, but i know how to read... And Hans Van Maanen is more than qualified here... I read his very simple and very clear articles among others.....magnasco and Oppenheim experiments are after 60 years the culmination of a trend growing in hearing theories : Human hearing must be based on an Ecological theory of hearing as exist an ecological theory of visual perception by J. J. Gibson and based on the AFFORDANCES given by natural sound analyased in a non linear way in the time dependant domain by the ears/brain... I suppose you know this book :

wikipedia:

«James Jerome Gibson (/ˈɡɪbsən/; January 27, 1904 – December 11, 1979) was an American psychologist and is considered to be one of the most important contributors to the field of visual perception. Gibson challenged the idea that the nervous system actively constructs conscious visual perception, and instead promoted ecological psychology, in which the mind directly perceives environmental stimuli without additional cognitive construction or processing.^{[1 »}

he wrote one of the most influential book about visual perception research in the century...

All my observations about the non linear and time dependant dimension of hearings and their future impact on gear design must be interpreted in  this book context ... Van Maanen use this hearing theory to design his amplifiers ande speakers... This is the reason why i used it...

Then no i am not qualified, J. J. Gibson and Magnasco and Oppenheim and Van Maanen are qualified more than necessary...

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.

@manuelguerrahr 

I can’t believe I have not received one darn response.

...probably because you are posting on the wrong thread AND this is a discussion forum rather than a sales forum.

@kevn 

Thank you for your quick response, amir. I hope you won’t mind if I can clarify an issue (I realise how many queries you are attempting to answer at the same time, so I fully understand if you missed this) - 

My question was if you could advise if the test was a good way to gauge listening ability, but your reply involved "Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems", training and learning.

My question did not have anything to do with a method, or training, or audio systems, just whether the test, even if intended to have participants give a ‘no, there is no difference’ answer; only if you could advise if it was a good starting point to gauge ‘listening ability’.

You have me at a disadvantage as I thought I clearly answered your question.  Once again, no, it is not a proper test so doesn't make for a good starting point or any starting point for that matter.

It reminds me of buying a Japanese learning CDs years ago at an airport.  It claimed full immersion and quick learning.  I start the lesson and first thing it wants to teach is the words for Horse and Jockey!  I am pretty sure that should not be the starting point to learn any new language unless you are into horses.  :)

But tell me what you concluded about the results of the tests you ran.  Who had good listening ability and why?

@mahgister 

Thanks for the discussion... I learned a lot... i am not qualified in any way, i am not an engineer, but i know how to read... And Hans Van Maanen is more than qualified here... I read his very simple and very clear articles among others

My pleasure.  You make a key point here.  Just like you, other audiophiles can read too.  So audio marketing people will throw big sounding technical words that often they even don't understand to then make a technical claim they don't have to prove.  Said audiophile draws inferences from everyday life and the sale is made. 

Cable maker says said wire needs 200 hour break in.  Audiophile remembers that cars used to have such break in periods and automatically believes that wires must also need the same.  

You should be skeptical of these claims when they are provided with no proof points, either in the form of measurements or controlled listening tests.  You have post repeatedly on topic yet you have not provided anything like this.  Reading your comments, and please forgive me for being blunt, it is very clear that you are not understanding the mathematical nature of the topic being discussed or its relevance to measurements or audio equipment performance.

To wit, you keep saying there is something wrong with all the measurements we run.  Well, yesterday I reviewed the Roksan Attessa streaming amplifier. Here is our dashboard including FFT on top right:

The Fourier transform is decomposing the innocent looking time domain scope measurement on the left and warning us that the power supply is generating a ton of hum and noise.  So much so that it is higher than the distortion the amplifier is producing!  Pure, voltage (time) domain analysis of noise showed the problem again:

Notice that it can't even clear the noise floor of 16 bit music at full power let alone at my reference 5 watts.

Are you going to claim that this is a well engineered amplifier and these measurements are not probative because you read a paper on Fourier uncertainty principle?   Before you say yes, let me tell you that the owner had heard this same amplifier at a dealer and distinctly detected hum in one channel.  He wanted to find out if this was a real problem with all units produced so purchased the new unit and had it drop shipped to me.  Measurements conclusively predict and prove what he heard.  Not only that, it pointed to where the fault in design is.

This amplifier had universally raving reviews online until mine came out.  Stereophile had measured it and found SNR that was much worse than that but swept it under the rug with politically correct language.  

My, again time domain, measurements also showed very audible spike when the unit is powered on and off:

Another own this morning post that he indeed hears those pops in his amplifier.

None of this was done to verify some spec.  No performance spec is provided by the company anyway.  

You paid $3,200 for an amplifier that is not as silent and clean as a $100 amplifier I have tested recently.  

You see the power of measurements to quantify audible issues?  You see how the theory you read in that one paper does not at all related to any of this?  You see how you should challenge the one designer to produce proper measurements of his amplifier and controlled listening tests showing some benefit in his design approach?

I have read the papers you keep quoting.  I will say once again, they have no bearing whatsoever on the topic we are discussion. Go ahead and quote where Oppenheim and Magnasco say anything about audio measurements being obsoleted by that experiment.  You won't find it.