Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Stunning, right?  Isn't trivial and simple to conclude that TotalDAC is poorly designed and can't rival this $80 dongle?

Yeah … stunning indeed. Whoever takes you seriously with your findings is in a stunning need for help 🤦‍♂️

@mahgister ,

I will be honest with you. I find your attitude appalling.  Your anger because Amir (and others) refuse to bend to your way of thinking, that you are not presenting in a coherent manner, is off-putting and if there was a mute button I would have long ago used it.  You are not trying to communicate or discuss, you are trying to impose.

So our hearing has non-linear processing. So what. No one appears to dispute that. It appears to be quite common where our senses are concerned. Seems pretty common in industry too.

You are screaming at Amir, but I have you provided a concrete example of how what he is doing is wrong or will lead to improper conclusions?  Not screaming at him this is wrong, but exactly what is wrong, why it is wrong, and very important, how wrong he is. Is he off by 5%? 10? 75%?   You are very confident what he is doing is wrong, so you should be able to confidently tell him, how inaccurate the work he is doing is.  To put it colloquially, put your money where your mouth is.

I went back and read those papers and some of the links I searched. Do you know what frequencies they were measuring and what times they were using? I assumed based on your dissertation that the times would be very small, and the frequencies high. The frequencies were small, 100's of Hz, and the times were large, many milliseconds. I don't know all the math, but if we are testing to 20KHz, I don't think timing of milliseconds is going to be an issue even if there are small technical problems.

I said I was done with this and I should be, but you are determined to dominate this thread.

Interesting thread. One guy producing actual data and others countering with words. Not a fair fight it would seem. The audiophiles may need to up their game, but at least it’s a home game here for them so that helps.  😉

Fwiw I use name brand speaker wires with batteries on them and gotta say it’s one tweak I never have heard a difference with. But it’s OK, In my defense, I bought them used for a reasonable price versus the competition. They work fine and sound good because my system ain’t bad otherwise so no need to measure…they get the job done. Glad I didn’t pay top dollar new though. I might have felt a little silly then.

This paper as you say never negate the benefit of linear measuring methods in GEAR DESIGN , it demonstrated that linear Fourier frequency based methods cannot explain hearing

No it didn't.  It only says simultaneous detection of timing and frequency is better than Fourier Uncertainty limit.  It says nothing about either one being used by itself.  

Magnasco and Oppenheim said this :

«The significant increase in timing acuity unaccompanied by a
drop in the total acuity for a pulse with considerably larger
variances in timing and frequency indicates that either the
precision of human time-frequency perception operates in a realm distant from the true uncertainty bound, or such a bound does not exist for the auditory system»...

See? It says it right there.  They are only talking about time *and* frequency ("time-frequency") detection together and its level of uncertainty.  Nothing about either analysis by itself having an issue.

By the way when we speak of measures in science, ESTIMATION of measures results must be BOUNDED in a set... This set SIZE is ascribed by the theory , here Fourier theory... Magnasco and Oppenheim state that the results of their experiments exceed more than 10 times the uncertainty limit of the Fourier principle... 

Nope.  The research has nothing to do with Fourier *theory*.  It only has to do with time and frequency detection thresholds.  This is reflected in the title of the paper: "Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle"

See the word Uncertainty?  It doesn't say theory.  It talks only about a relationship between time and frequency in our perception.  Any other interpretation is wrong and outside of the scope of the paper.