Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
@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.
|
Perhaps i did not wrote very well and not long enough posts... 😊
Do you remember that i thanks Amir for his service about measures ? From post one till today... All the measures set used by Amir to VERIFY the design integrity of gear pieces is not only welcome but must be THANKS A LOT... Once this is said, infering from these set of measures that all that can be said about gear is in this set of measures is FALSE... For two reasons: Amir dont measure aqll there is to be measured to begin with.. And Nevermind the measures, they are all interpreted in a Fourier context , and human hearing dont work captive of this context... We need to listen ...Even Amir say he need to listen and he did .. Where is the point of disaccord ? Simple, we can pedict by measures if a piece of gear is designed as it must be by we cannot infer from this and predict the "musical qualities" of the gear.. Amir say no, all these musical qualities are in the meassured set i used.. I disagree because not only he does not measure everything, but everything cannot be predicted by a set of Fourier linear measures Ecological theory confirmed by Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment say audible qualities exist and are not reducible to our tools... They must be perceived by our ears because they are meaningful for our ears FIRST not to our tools.. But Van Maanen say we must design better circuits answering more to our ears needs than to our fourier linear tools only...
|
I can only speak for myself but the problem at hand for most here on this thread I think is how to best choose what to buy. Measurements are very useful for that. Explaining why human hearing is so complex is totally useless towards that end. It is useful to understand how human hearing works to help better understand why we hear what we do. But these are two totally different use cases. What is of value always depends on context. So there really should be no debate. Two totally different sets of information used for two different but related purposes. Best to understand it all but no point in arguing one versus the other. One topic at a time please! |
😊 It is not false but it is not completely true..
Because knowledge is a bigger concept and a larger one than the concept of science ... it is the reason why scientific revolutions are possible... And anyway science cannot pick values for us or dictate which value we will pick first... Knowledge is free in a way science is not, this is the reason why all great scientists claim that we need philosophy IN and FOR science thinking . Some larger knowledge correct a scientific paradigm...And science is a larger notion than just technology... It is the reason why we cannot reduce our experience of hearing to our actual Fourier technology , we need a more complex context to understand hearing than just the Fourier context...This is what Van Maanen and Magnasco and Oppenheim called with Gibson : the ecological theory of hearing.. A very precise technological measurements sets by Magnasco and Oppenheim make them thing about hearing science... They philosiphically concluded that we need a new paradigm in hearing theory to complement the Fourier paradigm.. It6 is called a scientific revolution in hearing science... You see, it is not a secondary unimportant measure about a common place fact; human hearings is limited ... As said Amir, to keep afloat his pretense about his sets of measures and his claim that all sensible musical qualities dont exist or derived from his meassured set, nothing else.. |
I never said that Amir mesures set is unable to catch errors in the material design of the gear... YES AMIR CAN DO IT... And we all must thank him for it... You read me as it suit you it seems.. 😊 I said that Amir cannot claim that his set of measures are able to PREDICT all the musical REAL impressions any human listenings can pick... Calling them "illusions" because his measures are supposed to taught us everything about our qualitative listenings , it is wrong... Fourier linear tools are not enough to understand and predict what is real or not and MEANINFUL FOR US in our perceptions of any sound event ... I only state what hearing science verify by experiment... And Van Maanen say the same as me... I am a nobody... Van Maanen is a top physicist and a designer... A weel designed piece of gear does not means that it will suit all needs and be perfect...Nobody can give with a limited set of measures and predict all qualities related to all future design... Nobody can claim that human hearings is always illusory when we analyse musical quality of musicians or of a piece of gear... We need measures and human qualitative evaluation... because saying that gear design measures qualities are necessary for musical perceived quality is right but it is not ENOUGH for predicting it in all cases and for all needs ... Design is also a creative enterprise not fixed once for all... Hearing theory evolve...
|
