---First : i thanks Amir multiple times for the discussion if you read my posts...
--- Second: i am a passionnate person not a flegmatic type...
---Third: i never bear grudges...In spite of my reactive quick temper...I apologize when needed if i am wrong..
---Four: i look for truth not for a win in a discussion... I recognize when i am wrong ...
---Five :
So our hearing has non-linear processing. So what.
The fact that our Ears/brain work in a non linear manner in a time dependant manner, reflect the fact that the ears recognize REAL QUALITIES IN THE WORLD. and dont just compute them in an illusory manner based on Fourier modelling ...Amir say that ears/brain cannot be trusted only his set of linear time independant measure can be trusted... Do you see the difference ?... He use his set of measures as the only truth in audi9o, it is false claim, the hears recognize REAL QUALTITAIVE INFORMATIVE EVENT in the world...Then audio can be characterise by human hearings and not only by a linear set of measures in the Fourier context...
The Fourier analysis of Signals is linear analysis in some window frame determined by the uncertainty limit RELATION between the time and the frequency factor... The fact that the
human ears treat signals non linearly, in some case thirteen times out of the limites permitted by the Fourier analysis, means that the ears/brain RECOGNIZE discontinuous signals which are real informative event in the world , not computerized randomly constructed information by the brains in the Fourier frequencies bassed space which for amir can be interpretad as SUBJECTIVE only and ILLUSORY if not correlated by a set of Fourier measures in his box tool...
What is perceived is REAL and cannot be reduced to a Fourier based frequency model about hearing... Then you did not understood the meaning of the experiments... It is not an experiments about the frequency limit of human hearing, anybody know human hearing is limited in the frequencies range, it is an experiment about the way the brain use real sound source of information IN THE WORLD, EXTRACT real accurate information FROM IT in a way no Fourier modelling in frequencies, duration, amplitude etc can explain because the ears/brain do it non linearly and this information is accessed in the time domain ... And he do it non linearly because of a real natural connection with a sound source... Amir say that his linear set of measures isthe ONLY REALITY... The ears/brain out of a blind test Amir says has no way to perceive accurate information about reality save by his limites set of measures... Magnasco and Oppenheim debunk Amir saying no, there is in the world real qualitative information to be perceived and the ears/brain do it OUT OF A FOURIER MODEL because it beat the uncertainty linear limit of this model and the only way the ears can do it is by a non random , non computerized, direct qualitative information relation with the sound source determined by evolution in an ecological system ... This information is not distributed linearly in a time independant way, but time dependant, this means this information is not equally distributed as random bits on a gaussian curves and reconstruicted linearly by the brain but is real information or QUALITIES recognized in the world...
Then you get it wrong...This experiments has nothing to do with the limits of hearing in itself, which is a common place fact but has all to do with the way Fourier limits are overpassed to seize a REAL information......Magnasco and Oppenheim call it an HYPERACUITY because it is not explanable by the Fourier concepts of frequencies, amplitude duration, etc which concepts are always linearly interdependant in a TIME INDEPENDANT DOMAIN... The law of nature are time independant...Mathemathic dont obey time dependency... An information which can be lost is time dependant not time independant...
---Six :
you are determined to dominate this thread
Are you kidding me ?
rational arguments in science had nothing to do with brawl in a bar...
The one who win, win with logical argumentation...use your brain to know who is right...
Amir is unable to prove that the ears is unable to directly recognize REAL QUALITATIVE event IN AN OBJECTIVE WAY in the world... Amir claim only my set of measures can determine the Qualities of gear design, listening test MUST CONFIRM IT and cannot contradict these meassures, audiophiles claiming to do it are deluded ...Because for Amir only linear set of measures in the Fourier context of interpretation are real...
Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment prove the opposite of Amir claim . they prove that a set of linear measures about the gear cannot REPLACE ears/brain perception of sound event as the only objective description of sound... The ears brain also capture objective information about the world in a way linear measuring Fourier tools could not...
Why do you think Magnasco and Oppenheim, if you had read them, appeal to an ecological theory of hearing and not on a mere frequencies based Fourier model ? are they deluded ? are they audiophiles doing bad science ? I think that they are serious physicists as Van Maanen is one otherr physicist using this non linear and time dependant working of the brain to design his amplifier and speakers... Van maanen is not an audio engineer he is a TOP PHYSICIST in fluid dynamics who perfectly master electronics and acoustic... READ HIS PAPER...
Conclusion :
My point is simple Amir measures so useful are they, and they are useful to verify gear real specs over the seller claimed specs , are MARKETED by Amir as the ONLY ONE POSSIBLE DESCRIPTION of sound qualities and the only method to assess sound qualities ...He attack ALL audiophiles INDISTINCTLY put them all in the same bin and called them DELUDED all and each one of them , when they claim hearing something QUALITATIVE and he use blind test as a tool to impose his ideology about human hearing real abilities which can be trained and are trained by musicians, acousticians, phonologists etc .. THIS IS FALSE ... I debunk the debunker here... His measure so useful they can be to verify gear specs coming from the sellers CANNOT be extended as the only way to determined sound qualities because Human hearings is not explanable by a Fourier model , and his set of measures make sense only in a Fourier context...
We are not in a bar brawl here... refute my arguments... point to me where i am wrong... Nothing else will do... No ad hominem attacks will do....
Do a test : ask Amir why Magnasco and Oppenheim conclude that we need an ecological theory of audition ?
Ask Amir what is it this theory and why we need it ? Or go on and think that these two physicist are ony two deluded audiophiles believing in the existence of OBJECTIVE QUALITIES existing to be perceived by the productive ears/brain out of the limits permitted by Fourier analysis...And ecause As amir say it, all audio qualities must linearly correlate with my gear set of measures nothing else... Blind test will prove it...This is not truth, this is marketing of his gear mweasuring method which go too far ans discredit any subjective listenings as DELUSIONS and nothing else, if they do not correlate with his set of measures.. The problem is the ears/brain perceive some information in a cway not explanable by the Fourier modelling of frequencies and amplitude and duration... Qualities exist which cannot be captured by an electrical tool based on Forier modelling..
For the mathematic part all you need to understand , the basic, is in this video.. Think about it ...
@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.
