Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Very comical that people believe i want to win a debate...

Nobody can win a rational debate...

Facts speaks by themselves...

I posted many articles anybody can read...

instead of acting as if we were two empty heads quarrelling in a brawling match because you dont understand what is at stake in this debate... STUDY AND THINK by yourself ... Dont insult those who discuss in these debate but explain to us with arguments WHY you favor the perspective of Amir or the other, the perspective of Magnasco and Oppenheim and of Van Maanen and of those who defend an ecological analysis of perception and not only a Fourier frequencies based perspective...

Qualities exist objectively as AFFORDANCES   and are not mere  ghosts born from the brain computer...

This is how j.j. Gibson became one of the most influential psychologist of the last century for the visual perception analysis...  The same perspective is needed in hearing analysis to complement Fourier analysis..

I stay out of arguments where two sides take absolute counter stances and are unwilling to address the ultimate truth that the correct answer usually lies somewhere in between. The only way to find it is to take all factors into consideration.

It’s very sad to me that we live in such a politically polarized environment these days that people are conditioned to focus on grievances rather than solutions.

It does not bode well for the future.

How about everyone just say they are sorry If you want to solve the question of is a better than b get together in a room armed with ALL the relevant data and put a and b to the ultimate listening test and talk it out about what you hear and why.

Metrics alone are very often abused rather than used properly. It takes some know how to get things right. Not an easy task. But if the data is correct two people should be able to get in a room and help validate it.

The things is all people can do on a forum is talk and share information . You can’t hear a dam thing! Certainly not on the ultimate hifi. So there are limits. Take what others have to offer with civility, not anger. Repeating something over and over hoping the other guy finally gets it is not a good strategy. If it’s not working just say your piece and move on. None of this stuff is really all that important anyhoo in the grand scheme of things.

Just saying….

Posting the same things over and over ad-nauseum is not facts. Answering my question about what Amir's tests do that is wrong, why it is wrong, and very important how wrong it is would be a fact. My comment about the testing bandwidth used for audio and the testing frequencies and times for the hearing test has factual underpinning.  

That human hearing must respond to a threat quickly but audio tests equipment can take it's jolly old time doing analysis is also a fact.

I guessed that Radar probably uses non-linear processing. Look at that it does.

Here is a simple question for you @mahgister . Answer it in a paragraph. If all the tests that Amir does measure how accurately a signal passes through a system using a defined metric, and he uses the same metric for all equipment, and that metric provides an accurate, repeatable, and valid data point about the integrity of the signal, and Amir is only using that metric as a relative comparison while at times relating it roughly to experimentally established limits of hearing using the same metric, how is that wrong?   

Here is another question for you. Armed with your knowledge of how human hearing using non linear processing (experiment done at low frequency), exactly what is wrong with the stereo equipment that is being developing and importantly how wrong is it?

It's all just a bunch of words unless you can concisely state what is wrong with the stereo equipment being developed and how Amir's tests do not catch these perceived errors.

I am not in anger at all...

I discussed about a very precise point...

Subjectivist negating the value of measures are wrong, objectivists claiming measures of gear can replace listenings are wrong...

They are wrong BECAUSE they focus on gear, not on the psycho-acoustic context , correlating measures and listenings..

Amir defend the idea that audibkle qualities are ell reducible to his set of measures..

I oppose it on the basis that his limited sets of measures applied to gear specs, which cannot regulate all there is to say about human listenings, because hearing theory cannot be based ONLY on Fourier linear tools... the qualitative informative perception of some sound sources event as three sopranos singing together, can be accurately described by a musician in a way unexplanable by time independant set of linear measures..

Magnasco and Oppenheim then concluded that human hearings is not only a brain computing activities based on Fourier analysis but ALSO an ecological event, a real perceptive event of a discontinuous set of qualities that cannot be reduced to Fourier modeling... This is the crux of the debate...

No need to be angry with facts... Correct me if i am wrong... But i am passionnate speaker in a debate and i answer an argument by another one..

If someone read this experiment to be only just about measuring hearing limits, then this person dont understand what is at stake : the fundamental of hearing theory... because these hearings limits are out of the Fourier domain, and called HYPERACUITY , a perceptual power linked to a real set of qualitative events in the real worl...This is called ecological theory of hearing ... This theory complement the Fourier theory of hearing by what it lack in it : qualities in the natural world, what Gibson called AFFORDANCES...

what did you want ?

Who must move on, me or Amir ?... We discuss IMPORTANT things together ... Hearing theory and audio interpreted facts are related..

Those who are not interested by these matter can move on... Me i wait for arguments...

There is more important matter in the world for sure: war, medical crisis, economical crisis... But discussing tthese subjects here will become more IRRATIONAL, because they are more complex that just the hearing Fourier based theory and ecological hearin theory and their relation for assessing audio qualities.. After all it is an audio site...

The war between subjectivists and objectivist is meaningless division about the evaluation of the gear piece...

I try to solve the problem by STATING it more clearly where measures encounter perceived sound qualities : psycho-acoustic and hearing theory context... ..

@mapman ,

For the truth to lie in the middle they would need to be answering the same question 😀.  Quite obviously they are not.

One of my profs once said , "The problem with philosophers is they are enamoured with thinking but have no interest in knowing.'.  He went on to discuss how many philosophers love to discuss a problem philosophically but don't like to be encumbered by the often very real and very hard facts and limits associated with the problem.