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.
Sometimes it pays to remember what you previously post in reply to other members--IMHO. |
Oh yes he is. See his other paper here: https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/DynamicResponseAmplifiers.pdf Title: "Tone burst response of amplifiers to determine some properties of their dynamic behaviour" Then he says this: "To that end, two high-quality amplifiers with clear differences in their perceived sound, have been tested with tone-bursts. In this report, only the results at 30 Hz will be reported and discussed, as at these low frequencies the issues show more clearly." See? Not only does he use classic test tones, but says it "clearly" shows the difference between the two amplifiers. Here is one of his graphs for the first amplifier: Please explain to me why it is OK for him to run such tests when you claim any such test is based on "fourier theory" and therefore invalid. I remind you that this is your expert witness. |
Tone sine waves are used by all designers.. they are part of the design process.. . The ultimate test is by musical real music...
Are you serious? Fourier Theory is the BASIS of circuit design... I never said that it must be put in the trash bin... 😊 but as a basis to hearing theory Fourier analysis alone dont work... THIS IS MY POINT and Magnasco and Oppenheim point... Van Maanen know that and use the time dependant way the ears works to imagine his specific parts design... I use Van Maanen here as a PROOF for you that Fourier based theory essential for linear predictive beahaviour of components must be used also with an hearing theory which is not Fourier based...The first article i cited of Van Maanen is about :"Often disregarded Conditions for the correct Application of Fourier Theory" did this title suggest to throw out Fourier theory in the trasbin ? You know how to read i imagine.. As a hearing theory Fourier theory is unsufficient to describe the real hearing workings.. Thats my point suggesting an ecological theory of hearings qwith not only Magnasco and Oppenheim but many other researcher in acoustic....
|
I don't criticize people. I measure audio equipment and if I see problems in it, I report. If you are going to dispute that, then you need to come forward with either your own measurements to the contrary or controlled listening tests. Take this page of your favorite designer's product: It says "distortion minimized for human hearing." Where is the proof of that? A manufacturer can just say it and it becomes true? It has a bunch of simple numbers in there. What are the conditions under which they were measured? It produces 75 watts at what distortion? What is the level of noise? Here is how I show power: You see how informative that is compared to his one number? What you see there is pure marketing fluff. It is not remotely useful to make a purchase decision. Not on objective or subjective basis. |
