2. misc-audio
  3. 185168-1635

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. 

chayro
voodoolounge
207 posts
 

The evidence of reality is not oscillator results but the acoustic space occupied and your ears.

amir_asr
777 posts
 

@mahgister 

BUT I KNOW THAT VAN MAANEN IS RIGHT about hearing theory and the way the ears process sound in relation to sound source.. this is why i read it...

I fully understand everything he has written and nothing there should remotely get you to believe what he is saying.  He has offered no proof points other than one silly circuit which has no place whatsoever in a real amplifier.  A contrived example is no proof of anything.  You need to write him and ask him to give you that proof: that his knowledge of said "theory" has enabled him to build a more musical amplifier.  Ask him how that was assessed.  If he says it is to his ears and reviewers or customers, run, and run very fast because that is what every other audio designer will tell you.

 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,776 posts
 

It is our disagrement here... You ask me to prove what is evident : it takes listening test not only meassuring test to evaluate gear... You even said it yourself and you do it..

Our disagrement is simple: we cannot reduce hearing to Fourier theory and we cannot extrapolate our design abstract measure to real hearing test predictivity... We must listen to improve the design... All audiophiles are not the same, some are deluded, some are less deluded, thats my point...  

amir_asr
777 posts
 

The evidence of reality is not oscillator results but the acoustic space occupied and your ears.

Not really.  The space between your ears is your brain which interprets and makes up stuff all the time.  It especially does that if you allow your eyes to feed it information too.

What we care about are the sound waves going into your ear.  In many cases we can prove conclusively that they have not changed yet the lying brain says they are because you let your eyes help it that way.

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,776 posts
 

Van Maanen use the same Fourier tools as any designer, but he used new idea for components design parts... How can he prove that his design is good out of a listening test ? 😊

 

 I dont need a proof to know that our fourier hearing theory dont tell all the story , it is in psycho-acoustic books... There is MANY hearing theories..

But i dont need proof to know that we must verify the design basic quality by measures but ALSO listening... And i trust trained listeners...

 

More to discover