Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

@mahgister 

This physicist only describe how he think about his own design parts in relation to one another to satisfy "musical qualities" as himself hear them and he try to realize a design that will take into account the non linear and time dependant way that the ears related himself to music...

So?  Just about every designer claims to be making musical amplifiers.  Claims are easy.  Where is the proof point in the form of listening tests that he is accomplishing this?  You say humans can tell such.  Where is the human tests then?

@mahgister 

The name of his company is "temporal coherence"... After all that he propose his finished product to a general listening tests among potential customers or reviewers...

Again, as do every other manufacturer of audio gear.  Where is the proof that he has figured out the secret in musicality that measurements don't show?  Offering ear to customers and reviewers is not that.  He needs to demonstrate with listening tests that his claims are correct.  

@mahgister 

As i said above Van Maanen use real musical signals not artificial tone as you repeat erroneously many times... Consult the article..

I have read every word of that article, multiple times.  There is no mention of any such musical signals.  Nor proof point that they are revealing as such.

The only signal he shows is a disjointed sine wave:

The input signal is in blue.  Does that look like music to you or a test signal?  Answer is the latter, yes?  In his very own simulation he shows the value and power of using simple test signals.

@mahgister First you state this:I beg your pardon but all my posts which are a rational discussion with Amir were not about subjectivits and objectivists, which is a MEANINGLESS debate let to itself most of the times;

Then you say this:But on this thread it is not at all what all is about... Here it is about objectivist versus subjectivist...

Sometimes it pays to remember what you previously post in reply to other members--IMHO.