You read my posts but you did not understood how an ecological hearing theory based not on Fourier context and just frequencies based , but enlarging it, can explain how "sound qualities REALLY EXIST and are not artefacts of an "impure " electronic design ? as Amir claim...
You read my posts then you read the link between Oppenheim and Magnasco experiments and the physicist and designer of audio Hans Van Maanen , but you did not understand how the human hearings which cannot be understood in the Fourier context where the elementary ABSTRACT factors of sounds are linearly related in a TIME INDEPENDANT domain, you did not understand how the non linear time dependant domain where EVOLUTION trained our non linear working ears/brain can help us to DESIGN BETTER CIRCUITS to serve the human hearings FIrst and last ? then you never read any paper of Hans Van Maanen ... nor you understood at all the signifiance of the Oppenheim and Magnasco remarks about the necessity to change hearings theory paradigms by enlarging the Fourier inspired many theories by a time dependant and non linear one ?
You read my posts and you think that audio goal must be only to give the lowest noise possible and a minimum distortion ,without even kowing how distortion works differently on different harmonics affecting our hearings differently as used by some tube amplifiers designers ?
You read my posts and you dont understood how ecological theory critiques of spectral analysis can be relevant to the design of reproducting device? You cannot imagine as Amir claim that qualities perceived by the ears/brain are not only mere illusion but INFORMATIVE process with meanings ? Then they must be used in the design process said the Physicist and designer Van maanen.. You dont undetrstand that fact ?
You read my posts and you cannot imagine how any measures set MUST be interpreted in the context of a hearing theory and could not be interpreted correctly out of THE RIGHT HEARING THEORY, which is not linear and not time independant as the Fourier theory , but non linear and time dependant as Magnasco and Oppenheim , and the DESIGNER Hans van Maanen demonstrated it in his many papers...
In a sentence : No successful design can be really good if the basic needs of human hearings are not adressed correctly or NEGATED as meaningless in the name of transparent electronics ...
The way Amir conducted is measuring set do not adress the needs of human hearings at all... He does not even bother with this problem of measures interpretation and QUALITIES... For him they are artefacts to be elimnated from the design process , not used in it as Van Maanen demonstrated ...But being in ASR is enough for you , no need to read and think by yourself ... All audiophiles are deluded but you at ASR are not ?
I dont think so...
It is incredible that almost nobody from ASR can read the articles i put and understand them...Why ? Because the idea that qualities perceived by human hearings can help designing better audio will destruct the techno babble ideology of reducing any sound qualities perceived by a trained ears to some imagined ghosts...
All psycho-acoustic for you CANNOT have no relation to amplifier design for example ? All amplifier designh is set ONCE FOR ALL if Amir measure it good ?
For you low noise floor and no distortion are the ONLY the ideal ? No need for the amplifier designer for example tu USE distortion and control it for the needs of human hearings instead of always eliminate it for the sake of a measure ideology which is not even based on the right hearing theory ?
It is completely preposterous if it is what you means...
@mahgister I just noticed this thread from my weekly Audiogon roundup. I am actually familiar with Gibson and his ecological approach from grad work in cognitive science. I took a moment to check out some of the papers related to your unnecessarily long and murky posts here, as well.
I don’t think ecological perception critiques about spectral analysis are relevant to musical reproduction devices. They certainly are interesting in terms of explaining human listening experiences where expectations and environmental affordances certainly play a part in how the brain perceives the sounds emanating from a device. But if the goal is just to successfully reproduce audio with minimum noise and distortion, and with maximum fidelity to the original recording, I see nothing to suggest that following the guidance of sampling theory will not result in exactly the kinds of "transparent" or "uncolored" devices that are available today. Gibson then gets to critique how the human hears/understands the purity of the emerging sounds, and reconciles them with all the affordances of space, room, materials, mood, and much else.
There are edge cases where general psycho-acoustics can be influential, like using compression techniques that de-emphasize parts of the spectrum. We would prefer to de-emphasize only where the results have low impact on human listening, for instance. Phantom center images, Dolby Atmos, etc. certainly are another area where there are great research opportunities, too, for the ecological perception-focused researcher.
In any case, I have learned a great deal on ASR and recommend it highly. It provides an excellent counterpoint to vague assertions and hush-voiced listening reviews. Most interesting for me, however, is the internet culture role of how it is deconstructing the faith aspects of the audiophile subculture. We see that playing out here!
