Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

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..

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. 

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...  

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.

mapman

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.

You're right, of course. But the problem is that one of the persons in the debate has an ulterior motive: The promotion of his own website and forum. So he needs drama and conflict to maintain the excitement.

@cleeds

absolutely correct

it is just too bad that our verbose friend doesn’t realize this, and continues to post and post with soooooooooooooooo many painful words, further feeding this dumpster fire

although anyone with any sense can see what this amir clown is about, how he handles himself, and would hardly be attracted to his site -- this said, we can also see that this forum is unfortunately frequented by plenty of folks with neither good sense nor restraint...